Vets already have enough to deal with you'd be more likely to end up with undesirable outcomes vs what you want. People would not take the animal to the vet. People would try to destroy the chip by whatever method they happen to read in facebook. People would try to maliciously make changes to the database. Etc etc

I'm not so sure. The people who snatch cats off the street think that they're doing the cat a favor. They assume the original owners won't even notice, let alone care if the cat goes missing. And they justify it with "Well, they shouldn't have let them out anyway."

The brutal reality is that pounds are overflowing with lost animals. Statistics are on your side that if you snatch any given cat that you see, you'll likely be doing it a favor. But cats with collars are a different story. If people see that they're owned, they should keep their hands off. Unfortunately that doesn't stop some fanatics.

> end up with undesirable outcomes

I say it would make some people think before stealing an animal.

Others, dumber, would get caught.

But almost no one is going to get a knife to get this chip our of the animal because you'll get bitten and you have no idea where to look.

This is a based on such a surface level understanding of one type of posix socket. Calling close twice on a socket is a normal allowed thing, particularly for non blocking sockets. Datagram sockets can be operated with bind, without bind, with connect and bind and with both called multiple times.

Some of what you said is true, but you definitely can’t call close multiple times on the same file descriptor. close always immediately drops the file descriptor and isn’t like non-blocking socket operations that you have to try repeatedly until they succeed. You could, however, create multiple file descriptors pointing to the same socket with dup or other methods, in which case you’d need to close all of them to disconnect the socket.

Bah, I was thinking of shutdown

I take the Michael Bolton attitude, why should I leave, he's the one that sucks. There are elections coming up.

are there though?

They are until they aren’t.

I want to agree, and it almost certainly seems like the case but visibility can be vary widely by position. So just because the camera was about as far away from the collision as the plane would have been when the truck was entering the runway, it doesn't mean the plane was visible to the firetruck.

For most of these fonts, I feel fairly certain if someone gave me a sample I could identify the brand.

Remove the name from the font and I'm fairly certain that I'd get none of them, well maybe HP.

E.g. the Klarna Headline is pretty distinct, but I've never seen it before. The four other Klarna fonts are super generic. Also why do they need five different fonts?

Mostly I think these custom fonts are a waste of money. If you ship software that needs to include fonts, and you don't want to pay a license, it makes sense. If you do it because of "corporate identity" it seems pointless.

Different people work differently I suppose. It's true that some of the fonts seem designed to be forgettable, such as Source, Product, Optimistic. But others are, like Netflix, Verizon, Korean Air, HP, and Colgate look heavily branded to me.

I use Irrigation-V5 in combination with a flow meter to manage my sprinklers. Irrigation-V5 basically tracks the amount of moisture in the soil based on humidity, the amount of sunshine, temperature, rainfall, and of course when the sprinklers turn on and add water. It feels like magic. They can go for months in the winter without running, all on their own and then pop back on when things warm up and dry out, slowly decreasing the intervals between watering as summer approaches.

Really makes me want to integrate the whole thing into an ESP32 with a display so such a thing doesn't require HA.

This is a product that some people want and it's marketed for exactly what it is.

Fucking hilarious to me when people claim academics are motivated by the "money", eg, when claimed by climate deniers.

That's approximately 1 million people. Even a religious cult that size would have difficulty controlling motivations. As an example:

> Petitioners also formed a variety of organizations to create what they termed "marketable science." Pet. App. 1687a. For example, through the Council for To bacco Research (CTR) and Lawyers' Special Accounts, petitioners jointly financed research programs that were directed by company lawyers and calculated to yield favorable results. Id. at 240a-275a. Petitioners regu larly cited the conclusions of the scientists funded through these programs as if they were the objective results of disinterested research, without revealing that the scientists had, in fact, been funded by the industry. Id. at 195a.

That comes from here: https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/philip-morris-usa-inc-v-un...

It's possible all the science was good but people were upset about who funded it.

I'm sure there's some, but the small point here is that it almost certainly is more motivated by factors other than financial gain. I'm sure it you search you can find such cases though.

The much broader point though is the dismissal of the bulk consensus of academic research because academics are in it for the "money".

Survivor bias is a helluva drug

I was quoting the first paragraph, where it says a single normal bool takes a byte.