mub

There is a Segway between boomer and Gen X but every generation has an overlap. I'm a Gen X. It is a small generation that lived through the creation of the internet society. We were also responsible for 90s independent music labels and the production of the greatest music since the 60s (you are welcome btw). Boomers are post war nationalists that stopped learning anything new after their 18th birthday.

My point is, the zero point has to be so small it becomes subject to the uncertainty principle, which is not a Newtonian law. So while the maths might resolve to the unexpected excitation event it doesn't make sense in reality because we don't apply Newton's laws at the tiny point sizes needed here?

When you plug crazy small numbers into Newton's laws don't the answers stop making sense, so you have to use Einstein rather than Newton's physics?

So frequently, philosophy forces us to think about wonderful ideas that lead us to amazing realisations, but so often those same ideas breakdown when applied to reality. This is where physics steps in.

As a total amateur my instinctive response to the "unexpected" result is to validate that apply Newtonian physic is appropriate, and if not, we should look for an explanation at a level where the unexpected phenomenon becomes possible, aka non-Newtonian physics. We know that Newtonian physics works fine until we try to explain things at the atomic or subatomic level, or under extreme gravity, or close to the speed of light. Why not the same at extremely small points on a dome?

The dome used is the same shape as the graph she showed. The closer to zero you get on the graph the more vertical the line "looks", but with enough resolution in the data it becomes clear line is never vertical except at the starting position of zero. When you make a dome based on the same curve the zero point is so small that it falls into the realm of non-Newtonian physics where you run into uncertainty. I can't do the maths myself but I'm going to guess the zero point needs to be subatomic in size for the "unexpected" excitation event to have an impact. If true, and the zero point is too large, the ball is going to remain stationary until an explainable force acts on it.

I'm guessing the ball needs to be a perfect sphere. Does the maths incorrectly neglect the ball?

Edit - I feel like I used non-Newtonian wrong when I should have used quantum or something instead. But hopefully it made sense enough to see my point.

Our inability to trust anyone foreign or unfamiliar. This legacy of our evolution used to be the safest way to live. No it just holds us all back.

Yip, or at least be heavily discounted.

I think the desktop is evolving, and may one day become effectively irrelevant, But there is still a long way to go before local compute goes away, which means a local OS is still needed.

In the server world, yes. The desktop is the place that needs to be won over.

Large office buildings have been cringe to me for a few years. And wearing suits to the office, which just look like personalised school uniforms to me.

Posting one for Firefly!

I dual boot windows and EndeavourOS. Every 6 to 12 months I make a concerted effort to make the switch 100% but it hasn't worked out yet. So while Linux is great windows is unavoidable. In this use case I suspect managing Windows tools will be simpler, though I agree that effectiveness next to Linux options won't be equal.

That was kinda my point. Securing a laptop that will have access to data you want to protect from loss is a near bottomless pit of issues. There comes a point you have to do a risk assessment and apply a level of security that meets your legal requirements and contractual obligations. I'm sure this is all doable on Linux as well but the low cost / easily available tools are mostly for Windows.

I suspect that taking the "secured remote session" approach is probably good enough for their needs. It just needs a client app you can trust to respect the security rules they want to enforce (no screen shots, no screen recording, no data transfers for any sort, etc).

OCRing what is on screen is not really stoppable unless you force them to keep their camera on so you can monitor them 24/7. But if you try hard enough there is usually a way around most security measures.

Either way, they need to decide what the risk impact vs likelihood profile is, and what the business can tolerate. They'll need to discuss it with legal and data protection folks to assess that.

One tip is to embed records and values that look meaningful, but are unique, into the copy of the data given to the specific employee. This can be used to potentially prove that a data breach was a result of something that employee did. We like to put QUID's as invisible watermarks in document headers. These trigger our DLP systems which is always funny cos its usually an employee who is leaving and wants to keep something. I love those conversions.

"Easy" from the point of view there a lots of off the shelf tools to help you do it that are easy to understand.