I still have the Pixel Watch 2 and it's much the same, battery barely lasts a day, if even that. I didn't know this going in. I had purchased the Pixel 8 I think it was and saw the watch was heavily discounted if I bundled it in so I did. Will never buy another one. I'm a heavily sleeper and need multiple alarms sometimes to wake up and would often use my watch alarm to supplement my phone. So it became a nightly routine of making sure I didn't forget to charge my watch before bed, lest it dies in the middle of the night.
I was very surprised by work put into making replacing the battery easy on the Pixel Watch 4. They designed in screw actuated clamps for the back face. Hopefully this carries over to the 5th edition.
> I still have the Pixel Watch 2 and it's much the same, battery barely lasts a day […] Will never buy another one
The later models are way better. When I switched from a Pixel Watch 1 to a Pixel Watch 4, my battery life increased by at least double. And this is me comparing both watches when they were new, before any battery degradation. The charging is also twice as fast with the newer models, so it's much quicker to charge if you forget it.
I don't like having to charge my Apple Watch. I don't want to charge it when I'm asleep because I want sleep tracking. I don't want to charge it when I'm away because then I can't keep an eye on the time without getting my phone. I don't want to charge it when I'm at home because I could forget to put it back on before I go out or to sleep. If only there were a way to supply it power without having to take it off... or it could charge in less than like two hours...
Yeah, Apple Watch definitely needs faster charging. It wouldn't be as big of a deal if it both lasted longer, at least 3 days to get through a weekend, and could charge to a meaningful level in 15 minutes or less so I could just throw it on the charger in the morning and by the time I'm out of the shower and dressed have it be at ~80%.
Not the parent but I have the Ultra 2 and it lasts around two to three days on a charge, which is nice, but there's no charging routine that looks attractive to me. I end up sucking it up and trying to place it on the charger when I wake up, under the assumption that I'll pick it back up once it's fully charged (and not only the next time I go out or to sleep)
I decided I was just gonna get the Fitbit air as an accessory to a smart watch for sleep tracking. 7 days of battery life and a 5 minute charge for a full day battery is enough for that. And it's not nearly as clunky as a smart watch.
Or you can just toss some food out and call it a day
This ideology that all stray animals need to be siphoned up and neutered on the spot is bizarre to me. Sure there is a balance to be struck as you can't have a hundred thousand cats in a small area, but this idea that stray cats and dogs are simply not allowed to exist and reproduce naturally is insane.
Have you ever lived in a place where there aren’t effective control efforts?
These programs aren’t about people feeling good about themselves. The middle ground you suggest IS neutering and spaying all the animals you can find. The more extreme end of control is culls. It isn’t something you can ignore without pretty serious second order effects.
It ends up being pretty grim for the animals and sometimes humans too when stray population isn’t controlled. I’m talking about the conditions these animals end up enduring, not the culling which is its own grim process.
As someone who had to help get a stray cat population under control the ugly way (limited budget in a developing country), I would much rather that strays get fixed before it gets there.
I live in New Zealand, where they are big efforts to cull non-native wildlife, including all mammalian predators. There are traplines through the woods here, and I remember seeing a Department of Conservation visitor centre with a diorama of stray cats being killed by a kill trap.
Locally we've got an overpopulation of goats, and apparently they're going to start shooting them from helicopters.
They also drop a poison bait called 1080 that kills mammals from helicopters in remote regions here.
Domestic cats and dogs are not native to the Americas. They are pets or work animals. The cats should be adopted if possible and made indoor cats or neutered to keep their invasive population down. Dogs too, you need to treat feral dogs as wild and excellent rabies spreaders.
I've seen both sides of it. It's an unpleasant discussion but the government did drastic overhiring and now there are thousands of people that do DoD/DA-civilian work that are sitting back collecting paychecks while doing almost nothing. A majority of them being retired military that got grandfathered into the positions so to speak but aren't at all qualified to do those jobs.
But how do you fix it? These thousands of people have these jobs that their families depend on for survival. It's not their fault that the government severely messed up their hiring pipelines. If you cut the fat and leave those people out to dry, they certainly are not going to find work anywhere else. It's a lose lose situation.
> thousands of people that do DoD/DA-civilian work that are sitting back collecting paychecks while doing almost nothing. A majority of them being retired military that got grandfathered into the positions so to speak but aren't at all qualified to do those jobs.
Anyone who has been in the military can vouch for this. That is the primary angle I'm speaking from. The offices and installations are filled with the kind of people I described.
This is similar to how traditional Afghan pants are tied. For those who have seen then, the first time putting them on can be a shock. Because when fully extended out, the waist is like 75-100 inches around, you'd think there was a mistake but that's how they come. You tie the drawstring like this so you can pull that waist all the way in comfortably and it lets the pants be very airy, comfortable, and cool.
I know absolutely nothing about Mexico in terms of geography or driving so I wonder how feasible an EV that you presumably constantly have to charge is going to fare. In the US, a range of 77 miles is a complete non starter. You'd have to charge it every single day. If not multiple times a day in some peoples cases.
It's interesting that info about the car is only half the article. The other half is a commentary on how US politicians are desperately trying to keep foreign EVs out of the country, lest it hurt corporate profits.
> In the US, a range of 77 miles is a complete non starter. You'd have to charge it every single day. If not multiple times a day in some peoples cases.
It's true that some people drive more than 77 miles per day. But a pretty big chunk of people never do, except road trips/vacations. It could easily be worth it to buy a cheap EV for everyday use and then rent a vehicle for long trips.
Yep, you can pick up used Leafs for super cheap (under $10k, sometimes substantially) and if they fit your use case, they're an amazing deal. Mostly helpful as a second car for a family, or as a city car for someone who never plans to road trip in it.
At the time we were a 2-car household and used the gas car for longer trips. That being said, there were a few times we had to scramble:
Once, when it was very cold my wife and I both needed to drive a long distance. I took the Leaf because I had access to a charger.
On our last year of the lease we ended up having to move 90 miles away. When we bought the Leaf, we never planned on driving that far. Due to circumstances, I had to make multiple 90-mile trips in the Leaf.
---
Case in point: I now only recommend that class of Leaf to people who need a 3rd car for a teenager and no intention of moving.
We considered getting a used Leaf but my wife had too much range anxiety, even for vehicles with 70 miles of range. I plotted out on a map how many trips she would have to take in a day (to work, to doctor, to pick up kid, to dentist, to store, etc.) in order to come even close to 70 miles. Of course, she never goes that far around town (only when visiting relatives, when I typically drive and we take a PHEV). But the RA was too great, so we got another PHEV. It has been useful at times to be able to both go 50+ miles in a day without any concern, but it's literally a handful of times over the years.
> (only when visiting relatives, when I typically drive and we take a PHEV). But the RA was too great, so we got another PHEV. It has been useful at times to be able to both go 50+ miles in a day without any concern
After the Leaf, we ended up with the Chrysler Pacifica PHEV and a Model 3. The PHEV had so many problems that I'll never recommend them, and dumped it early at a loss and went all-electric. (Both cars). We will never go back to gas.
IMO, the main thing EVs need in the US is a good publicity campaign, more chargers, and better legislation of chargers. The technology is now "good enough" if you have access to a charger where you park overnight, and "almost there" if you can't charge overnight. (IE, if you rely on street parking stick with gas.)
Sorry to hear about the lousy Pacifica. We have a friend who had a good experience with it, but one reason we never thought seriously about it is Chrysler's reputation for reliability.
I think you're right about the tech being "good enough" in many places, but it depends on weather (colder climates are not as good). I also know people who live in temperate climates that refuse to have their only car be an EV because of emergencies and power outages. As someone with two cars, I don't have that concern, but I can understand why someone (especially an older person) would not want to go all in on electric, if the grid is not super reliable (and would likely be offline in a natural disaster, when they would need to charge and possibly flee).
I live in the Northeast. The Leaf had problems with extreme cold, and my 2018 Model 3 lost a lot of range because it (surprise) had resistive heating.
My 2022 Model Y and 2026 Hyundai Ioniq 9 have heat pumps and generally work well in extreme cold. It's also nice that I can preheat them in the garage. Most importantly, they don't lose range overnight in extreme cold like the 2018 Model 3 did. I charge the cars before large storms, which is much easier than fighting traffic at the gas station!
It is weird point to be in. Almost a daily use of that range or significant part of it. As with less than daily use and short distances fuel is lot less critical. I am use case of going to shops a few times a week. Savings on fuel is not big thing as there isn't much used.
And then when I actually need to travel longer distances the range is much more important.
So EV would need to be very cheap to start making sense overall.
> Or you own more than vehicle. Plenty of families own multiple vehicles, and they don't all need to have tons of range.
I wish there still were small and very cheap EVs to fill this niche.
We had the Fiat 500e (somewhat infamous) $82 lease as an extra car because for $0 down and $82/month, why not. Range was small but it was perfect for around town, and had other cars for other things. Anytime I was driving within town I'd just take the Fiat.
At $8500, I could justify having a 77 mile range electric car with a top speed of 30ish mph. That would take care of every in-town trip, but I couldn't do a full commute to work with it because the most sensible way of doing that involves a highway. If it could manage 50mph for 15 minutes, it could go on the highway and I could recharge at or near the office.
The cheapest EV currently available in the US is the Chevy Bolt, at $29000, about three times the price. A Bolt has four times the range, but still not quite enough to go one way on my most frequent "long drive".
> The cheapest EV currently available in the US is the Chevy Bolt, at $29000
The interesting thing is that this appears to be largely because the manufacturers, rightly or wrongly, do not think that the US market _wants_ cheaper EVs. The id.Polo (about 20k with incentives in most countries) won't launch in the US, for instance, even though the id.4 did.
> I know absolutely nothing about Mexico in terms of geography or driving so I wonder how feasible an EV that you presumably constantly have to charge is going to fare.
Hey at least you admitted that upfront. Average driving speed in Mexico City is 15 km/h so one would have to spend 8h driving to deplete the battery in a day. Typical commutes are perhaps 1h one-way but again, distance wise probably only about 40 km both ways. So this 125km range easily covers it for most people.
I think energy cost is more of an issue for most. electricity is expensive in Mexico City especially compared to base salaries. And electrical infrastructure was never built to handle high power consumption. Most apartments have a single 30A breaker for the entire house. Most heating is done by gas and air conditioning is not widely used. For most people charging speed will likely be limited to about 10A at 120V.
That's pretty much standard operating procedure for any EV. That's one of the perks of owning an EV. Plug it in when you get home from work, and have a full "tank" every morning. Plus you get the cabin preheating using the wall electricity.
If you have a charger at home, or at work, why does it matter if you have to charge it daily or weekly? Yes, for some lifestyles, range matters. For others, a 125 km range is perfectly acceptable
For a significant segment of the US population, that thing wouldn't get them to work and back, so they'd have to charge it both at home and at work. And in many cases, forget running any errands, picking up kids from daycare, etc.
And minimum speed on US interstates is typically 40mph, so that reduces its usability even more.
People move around: that's what cars are for. Trucks may not be "designed for urban areas" (whatever that means), but they certainly go into them on a daily basis.
> For a significant segment of the US population, that thing wouldn't get them to work and back, so they'd have to charge it both at home and at work.
What does 'significant' mean here? I find it hard to imagine that a _large_ number of people have a round-trip of like 100km to work; that would be horrendous.
I think you wildly overestimate how many Americans are white-collar workers commuting 100 miles to a 6-figure job. A <$10k EV was never even remotely aiming at that market to begin with.
With a range of 77 miles, I wouldn't make it to work and back. Everyone I know (yes, it's anecdotal, but a widely-shared one) has to commute on roads where the average speed is well above 30mph.
> You'd have to charge it every single day. If not multiple times a day in some peoples cases.
Charging is not a problem when a car is stationary. It is parked next to a building, building usually has electricity (unless you are Amish).
I don't know why most people don't understand electricity is available everywhere, but petrol is only available at gas stations. You have to somewhere to pump gas, a major inconvenience.
At least once a week. I commute 120 miles round trip one day a week, 180 miles 1-2 times a month, and 300+ miles 6-10 times a year.
I also have 3 kids, a dog, and don't live near a city. If I lived in a city dogless and childless something like Zipcar would make much more sense.
BTW: The "transaction cost" (time) of frequent car rentals is a non-starter. One of the things I hate about renting a car is that every time it's a different car, some I like, some I don't. I just want to pick out a car I like, have it ready when I need it, have it set up the way I like it, and have my "box of crap" in the trunk where I know where it is.
I don't want to navigate through a young ambitious salesperson trying to sell insurance, or the AI car scanner charging me hallucinated wear and tear.
Once a negative connotation takes over a word, there's almost no coming back from it. When practically every public implementation of AI is negative, people are going to permanently associate negative thoughts towards it. We saw the saw thing when the prospect of AI came to video game development. People had high hopes that it could really improve things but no, all that was scene was lazy, half baked, terrible implementations of AI in video game development and now the general view of AI in that sphere is automatically hated.
This is the easiest niche to pick on but I am mid career for cybersecurity. I spend a decent amount of time trying to advise people away from this career field for college. So so so so so many people are going to college for cyber not realizing when they graduate, they are in totality unemployable. Really I'm not sure how new people to tech could even enter the industry, it seems like at the lower levels the entire industry is essentially closed.
However it happened, the absolute maniacal obsession with job experience has ruined the market. Yes the more involved jobs in information security do require widespread knowledge that can't necessarily be taught on site. A lot of the entry jobs in tech though are not complicated and can easily be taught on site but even then, companies have defaulted to requiring years of prior experience even for those positions.
> I spend a decent amount of time trying to advise people away from this career field for college. So so so so so many people are going to college for cyber not realizing when they graduate, they are in totality unemployable.
My spouse knows a recent grad who took this path through an undergraduate program at the University of Maine (https://www.uma.edu/academics/programs/cybersecurity/cyberse...). As you said, he was unhirable in this field and now works in a completely unrelated job in a hospital.
Universities, local governments, local legislatures, the federal government, and whatever industry lobbying orgs that pushed for this are at fault. The apocalyptic narrative warning of a dire skills shortage are still being pushed out by industry:
> Universities, local governments, local legislatures, the federal government, and whatever industry lobbying orgs that pushed for this are at fault.
It’s an industrial complex that uses students as fuel and when the winds shift, they get left holding the bag. Schools want revenue from student loans, employers want the best talent at the lowest cost without expending any resources to train and develop talent. Colleges are also desperate for students due to structural demographics and an ever shrinking pool of potential student customers, so they’ll sell whatever dream students want to buy. Cybersecurity? Sure. AI? Sure. Whatever gets you into the pipeline. Give us your money and we’ll give you a piece of paper of little to no value.
Edit: If you need a sure thing, go into healthcare. The world is going to keep getting older, and the demand for care will not end in our lifetime.
Not being directly in cybersecurity, is the situation there different from, say, CS grads as a whole? That is, not sure if the point is that hiring for entry-level tech is a disaster across the board and cybersecurity is one particular manifestation of that dynamic, or if cybersecurity is for some reason specifically worse than overall new grad employment in tech.
Big tech companies use their influence to push the "shortage" narrative in the media, because it gives Congress political cover to increase the H-1(b) cap.
I had a tech career spanning from the late '80s until the 2020s, and I read articles in major media outlets about a shortage every single year. In all that time we had a actual, bona fide shortage for about two years in the late '90s.
I personally as a general rule don’t hire people who work in cybersecurity if they were not traditional developers first. The chances of you understanding “cybersecurity” without also understanding how general software works is extremely low.
This is broadly true for all concentrations in cyber. There is no entry level. Your first job should be learning how what you want to focus on works… be it networking, sysadmin, devops, vendor risk management, etc.
Unfortunately, cybersecurity was a hot topic in the education market and people got sold on the idea that they could get a six figure job with nothing but some theory and an entry level certification.
There is theory to learn and it is important, but it is all for naught if you don’t understand how what you are protecting works. You need both for an entry level position - there is a reason those positions pay as well as they do.
This is true for most sub-fields. The average person in them is either a failed dev or more of a pencil pushing box checker. The quality employees are devs with extra specialized expsrtise
Security, qa, devops, data emgonerkng, the list goes on and on.
Infosec also adds the angle that you want someone with actual grey or black hat hands on experience
Absolutely. Cybersecurity is not a field you can (well of course you can, but not with legitimate effectiveness) approach as an isolated field of study. To be effective you must have a reasonable experience and skill in programming, and in operating system internals, and in the network stack from the highest to the lowest level. You'd do well to also have experience in hardware and QA and you really need aptitude and hands-on experience actually breaking into things, not just in making things work. The last one is often hardest, plenty of brilliant people know how to build things but lack the mindset to break them.
So in this sense it is true there is a significant shortage of qualified cybersecurity people to fill the roles.
The mistake is that institutions try to fill that shortage with some undergrad program (or worse, certification) which of course can't build expertise in all the above fields in a few years. So that graduate is nearly as unqualified after graduation as before.
Kind of funny, my cousin studied software development, then she pivoted to cyber security last minute because she was uncomfortable about finding work, she's been through a few different companies so far, so I guess it worked out for her.
100%. I started out in cybersecurity and was complete shit. I gave up and went into software engineering and devops instead. Now returning to cybersecurity again and things finally make sense
> A lot of the entry jobs in tech though are not complicated and can easily be taught on site but even then, companies have defaulted to requiring years of prior experience even for those positions.
I graduated with an AS in programming in the mid-late 1990s. I continually sent resumes for 18mos and got back 2 replies.
I had 2 major strikes against me. I was a new coder. I worked in a region that was reluctant to consider new hires (even for no-skill jobs) w/o an introduction.
My scholarship came with job placement but the entire program was axed by the Contract With America prior to me graduating. Apparently the animosity toward helping folks off the bottom rung outweighed any platitudes about jobs.
I eventually eked out a living doing local IT work but I never did reach a living wage.
Zoe Chase did a great background on Newt. It's from some years ago and she notes how he generated animosity on a national scale and leveraged it raise Republican voting numbers.
It's quite good. Zoe is really interested in this stuff. The reporting isn't confrontational, it's just how things unrolled.
> However it happened, the absolute maniacal obsession with job experience has ruined the market.
The problem isn't necessarily with job _experience_. It's the acronym. Most employers seem to believe that YOE stands for years of _employment_, which has effectively cut off anyone who wasn't previously employed at a relevant position. You can gain experience in almost anything by working hard at home (and 90% of that would absolutely carry over to a FT position), but you can't do the same for employment (unless you accept fabricating your job history). Cybersecurity is actually a field where hacking away at home, messing around with codebases, doing ctfs can actually give you TONS of experience, but barring you coming up with major zerodays, no one cares.
> Yes the more involved jobs in information security do require widespread knowledge that can't necessarily be taught on site
It certainly can, companies just don't want to pay for that training. That's really where the "maniacal obsession" with job experience comes from. Companies just want to save money on training.
The absolute wild opposite (for cybersecurity) to this is that higher level individuals are in such insane demand that if you are underpaid even during the current wage suppression, going to over market should be almost completely trivial.
Of course, people actually good at security are rare and in high demand. This is totally aligned with OP’s statement. IMO you shouldn’t even be thinking of going into cybersecurity straight out of college. There’s just too much you have to learn about how software works for it to be a reasonable first job out of university. There will always be exceptional people, of course, but as a general rule I’m not hiring new grad cyber folks. Seems dumb
Cybersecurity seems to be either working to fill out forms to satisfy some requirement of some company/government office, or being akin to an exhacker actually trying to improve security.
Colleges seem to be producing tons of the first, hardly any of the second.
Companies have never cared about security, because there are almost no consequences to data breaches. A hospital network could get ransomwared for 48 hours, and no one cares. Critical data gets leaked? So what, pay a fine. You either pay a fine to the hackers, or you pay a fine to the government, or you pay a fine to customers, but no matter what its substantially less than a fully staffed security team, not just because security professionals are expensive, but because security professionals slow everything else down, they'll spend all day telling everyone what they can't do, which == lost revenue growth.
The only thing keeping security companies in the business is compliance/certification. If you've been around these compliance programs for long enough you know: they're box-checkers. But, sometimes you need to check that box, begrudgingly, annoyingly, so most companies will prefer to just outsource that security work to some managed security services provider, then think about it once a year when audit time comes around.
What is a cybersecurity professional going to do about a bunch of vulnerabilities in an app that someone else decided to deploy on a network they are responsible for?
99% of cybersecurity in the commercial sector is a box checking compliance exercise.
Yep, I think my megacorp's cybersecurity department is just a bunch of checklist punchers that now just copy and paste any of our technical writeups into ChatGPT, and I am not even joking. Fucking infuriating.
They are doing the bare minimum for cybersecurity insurance requirements, thats it.
I know _for a fact_ that most companies don't care. There might be a select few out there that genuinely do, but most don't. I've literally reported numerous GLARING vulnerabilities to companies in various different industries, only for the vulnerabilities to remain unpatched for MONTHS. Few of the most comical examples, one major game studio was compiling their Linux binaries with FULL DEBUG SYMBOLS AND INFO plus they were shipping a 600M .sym file with practically full paths and all source info. Literally all the paths and function signatures to every single one of their functions was in there. I had to submit FOUR bug reports before they patched it (didn't even receive a bug bounty). The second one was with a major multinational telecom that was distributing routers that _had an open telnet port to the wide internet_ ... with a default password. And there were countless more. The telecom one I had to BEG them to ship me a new router, or to at least do an over the air update, because "they didn't understand what the problem was".
Shipping debug symbols isn't a security vulnerability. It might be sloppy, but we all know that security through obscurity doesn't work. Especially not with modern analysis tools and access to the executable code.
I imagine the realistic answer is "we don't know", because it's never been truly tested. They are constantly improving and iterating designs, speeds, anti-intercept tech, anti-tracking. As you said as well, this is only what from is available in OSINT reporting. There are surely classified weapons from all major countries lying in wait for the most serious scenarios.
A big part of hypersonic/ICBM warfare is anti-detection tech. When you have the two most military capable countries with 'hypersonic' ICBMs that can in theory reach across the planet is < 30 minutes, a massive part of that is stopping the other country from realizing you even fired a missile in the first place. That detection is usually done through satellites afaik. One of the next steps in global warfare is going to be satellite degradation and interference.
It's a whole different world when you detect a launch in the silo and know you have half an hour to react versus not realizing a missile is in the air until it's 5 minutes off the west coast.
Detecting hypersonics is relatively easy because they are the opposite of stealthy. Even most glide vehicles have an initial ballistic trajectory that exposes it to many sensors at distance. The US field-tested a number of short range hypersonics since the 1990s that don't have a ballistic trajectory but those were all canceled.
Hypersonics have two related technical challenges.
They are not maneuverable, at least not in the way people imagine, due to fundamental limits of material physics. They are more "straight line" fast. This requires very fast reaction times on the part of defensive systems but the intercept is otherwise pretty trivial using the same off-the-shelf intercept terminal guidance from 20-30 years ago.
The big advantage hypersonics have is they significantly reduce the amount of space an air defense system can cover due to their speed. Hypersonic air defense missiles can counter this to some extent, which the US has, but these have drawbacks related to the second point.
Terminal guidance for hypersonics is an extremely difficult engineering problem because none of the physical materials you can use in terminal guidance systems can survive endoatmospheric hypersonic travel. A hypersonic missile without effective terminal guidance is an ICBM with a shorter intercept window. This isn't that useful for many targets.
The US has been continuously developing and testing different hypersonic terminal guidance designs since (at least) the 1980s. The first viable design only went into production 15-20 years ago. Presumably they've improved on and generalized it since then. There isn't much evidence that any other country has effective terminal guidance for hypersonics.
It is worth noting that effective precision terminal guidance was a prerequisite for US deployment of hypersonic weapons. Everyone else touting "hypersonic missiles" skipped that part.
In TFA, only the missiles with terminal guidance are discussed, of which three models are currently known, one in each of USA, Russia and China, none of which has been deployed yet.
There is no indication that any of these systems have precision terminal guidance in the normal sense of the term, nor evidence that Russia or China have solved the engineering problems related to it.
The US has deployed hypersonic missiles with precision terminal guidance, though not strike weapons, for almost 20 years in more limited domains. However, given the longstanding US doctrine to not deploy a hypersonic attack weapon without precision terminal guidance, and the demonstrated engineering capability in the domain, it is reasonable to assume that Dark Eagle has this capability. Any information about how the terminal guidance works will be closely guarded; it has no obvious engineering solution and it took the US several decades to figure it out.
A bunch of things in that article are incorrect or misleading. For example, the kill chain latency model isn't correct in several respects. It looks like an AI mashup of popular internet slop.
>It's a whole different world when you detect a launch in the silo and know you have half an hour to react versus not realizing a missile is in the air until it's 5 minutes off the west coast.
Missile submarines have basically made this reality for decades.
This often seems to be the case for the most expert researchers, all a bit quirky. Anyone remember SandboxEscaper? I think they are deceased now but they were dropping Windows 0 days left and right. That person was quite a character. It's hard to describe it without potentially incurring the wrath of someone here but those who know, know.
SandboxEscaper, who has not really been very active online, started blogging again right before NightmareEclipse showed up. They've been offering to sell Microsoft related bugs. https://weirdquadratic.blogspot.com
OTOH, there's evidence against my theory in the form of prior tweets by the "ChaoticEclipse0" account, which include references to their age and writing in Moroccoan Darija https://x.com/ChaoticEclipse0/status/1332337678470291459
The twitter account was silent between aug 17 2023 and apr 3 2026, so it's not necessarily the same person using it anymore.
Is it a surprise that if you think differently you act differently? You have to think differently to become an expert. If you thought the same (as the "average") you'd, by definition, be "average".
Growing up I never cursed. As an older teen and young adult I started to around my friends but never in the home around my family. Then I entered the military and very quickly cursing became deeply ingrained in my speech. To the point it was difficult to speak a entire sentence without a curse word. Towards the end I embraced religion heavily and made it a point to cut out cursing entirely. Nowadays I do not curse at all nor do I even think about doing so, even the muscle memory is completely gone from my speech.
As someone now who does not curse whatsoever under any circumstance, hearing those around me curse, it literally hurts my ears. I can pick those words out of a crowd like they're being spoken into a speakerphone. Especially being around military people still who curse every few words and just about every single sentence has an F word throw in, it's very uncomfortable.
You've removed them from your speech but I worry you've still given them some special power over you in your mind with that sensitivity. It would be freeing to treat them like any other word and not react to them so strongly for you, I think.
Profanity doesn't have power over a person. They have a lack of eloquence and a laziness in language. It demonstrates indiscipline and thoughtlessness. And it conjures the wrong kinds of images in the head. Separating yourself from it is a sign of sophistication. And you want to be more sophisticated over time. And you want to be around sophisticated people as well.
They're just words. If you want to give those words so much power over you, that's your own problem to deal with. What right do you have to demand the rest of society cater to your particular hangups?
When I hear curse words, they elicit exactly the same emotional response as any other word. There's nothing magical or inherently special about them, it's all in your own psychology.
> Then I entered the military and very quickly cursing became deeply ingrained in my speech
Same. Never cursed before military. But military stress combined with surrounding fellows cursing made it difficult to filter it out from my own language.
