Wait, so your argument is that to fight corruption, we should ignore the law at the whim of... who exactly? You don't seem to realize that is just another form of corruption. Your argument boils down to "People I like should only have to follow the laws I agree with (right this second)." That is the picture of a corrupt state. I think it is you that needs to do a bit more thinking. Most of us reading this live in democracies. We can hold a corrupt government accountable by voting for different people and changing laws. The current problem, in the US at least and other places as well, is that a large fraction of the public is more interested in corrupting the government in their favor rather than reducing corruption.
They don't even have to let him go to make him look like an idiot. It's not like nobody else ever fled bail for 7 years and then been caught. If they just give him a sentence in line with other cases and move on, it will enough to show that the whole charade was pointless from the start.
Yeah, some the articles don't really give the necessary details. The one I found that really discussed it is this.
Basically it is possible for the MCAS, in combination with other things, to put the airplane in a situation that is not easily recoverable without turning the system that the MCAS is part of back on. This is because the system that bypasses the MCAS isn't strong enough to turn the tail back to the right position. But when the electrical stabilizer system is turned back on, the MCAS just kicks in again and puts it right back in nose-down. There are ways to work it out but they require "non-checklist actions" as the article says. There is no way pilots can figure this out in less than a minute while the MCAS is driving them into the ground. So basically the whole idea that "they could just switch it off" only works in some circumstances. So now we see that it appears even the instructions to pilots were not properly tested.
I think the bigger sticky question for the 737 MAX is whether, in the end, it genuinely needs to be a separate type. The MCAS, as originally designed, was supposed to be a minor adjustment at the edge of the flight envelope. But it really appears that, in testing, it had to be made much stronger than originally designed. The issue that caused the crashes is that it should have then required multiple sensors. Boeing is fixing that. However, it brings up the larger question: are the flight characteristics too different for it to be the same type?
I think this is terribly mischaracterized even in the paper. They say that the assumption they think is violated is something like "there is an objective reality" and so the reality can be different for the two observers. But, as best I can tell, what they mean by an "objective" answer is that there is a hidden variable. We already knew that there are no hidden variables, so it's not surprising that this experiment also shows the assumption of a hidden variable must be violated. While this is a really nice realization of this thought experiment, I don't see how it adds anything new to our understanding of quantum mechanics, it just confirms what we already knew. I'm pretty sure that one of the things we already knew is that phrasing things in terms of "wave function collapse" is not a good way to think about it (easily leads to misleading conclusions). This is why the many-worlds interpretation already exists.
I'm not sure how it is relevant that "apple knows this". Everybody knows this and always has. It doesn't stop the content producers from making exclusive licenses or starting their own streaming service (Disney). This is a long-predicted endgame.
There is a solution: compulsory fair licensing. The producer can't choose who is and isn't allowed to buy their DVDs so why are they allowed to choose who carries their stream? Basically historical accident. The specter of compulsory licensing is what was holding the fracturing of the streaming services back in the first place. It appears that the big houses have decided it's worth the risk. The personally optimistic prediction is that they will get burned and regret it. They should lose the ability to distort the free market with exclusive licenses. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
The problem is that Boeing effectively lied about the strength of the MCAS system. According to the previous article, Boeing's critical documents claim the MCAS can only change the tail by 0.6 degrees. The lack of required redundancy is based on this number. However, it turns out, the system can actually change the tail by 2.5 degree increments an infinite number of times. That some pilots figured out how to work around this behavior does not change the fact that a fundamentally unsafe system was approved for production due to Boeing's rush to market. The 0.6 degrees was changed during flight testing, and the necessary safety re-evaluation was not re-done until after the Lion Air crash. The previous article says that the 0.6 degrees still appeared in safety documents submitted by Boeing to foreign regulators despite being false.
This issue can be worked around. The question is: are there other issues that were similarly glossed over? I'll agree, Southwest is probably fine. This kind of thing is exactly why they have a single type fleet, because they can use the experience over their whole fleet. There is a good possibility that this issue and some others are included in their internal supplementary flight training, without knowing in advance that any particular one has such dire consequences. But they aren't the only air carrier, and, going further, the 737 Max is not the only airplane that the FAA certifies. This is just the first failure of the process which has brought down a plane (now 2). This was not some unexpected material failure or totally new failure mode, this is basically directly attributable to certification process failure.
I was at first surprised how fast non-US agencies grounded the Max. However, this report says that documents concerning the system in question that were submitted to foreign safety agencies were simply wrong. Boeing is still in the process of trying to make that right in the wake of the Lion Air disaster. Under those circumstances, I would expect that non-US regulators were considering groundings even before the second disaster.
In some sense nobody really made the decision to use this design without redundant sensors. According to the article, the system was approved with a relatively small amount of authority - it could only move the tail by 0.6 degrees. That wasn't a bad enough issue to warrant redundancy. The problem is that the authority was then increased to 2.5 degrees, more than 4 times larger, and the safety impact was simply never re-evaluated due to the rush to get it on the market. Even documents given to other country's air safety bodies still listed the 0.6 degrees. The explosive thing about this, which is why the article predates the second crash, is that this puts the whole process in doubt. How many other numbers in the documents are just fiction? How many other safety evaluation chains have not been updated due to the rush to market? Does this amount to fraudulent behavior on the part of Boeing? My expectation is that the engineer who upped the authority from 0.6 to 2.5 did so with the intent, possibly even documented, that the safety would be re-evaluated before the jet went to market.
It's also unclear why the authority was listed as 0.6 degrees when the system could repeatedly reset itself and do it again, effectively giving it infinite authority. That is more along the lines of your question, but I think it actually wasn't clear why the ability to reset was not included in the safety analysis. This really looks a lot like an updated safety analysis was planned, postponed, and then just never done until after the Lion Air crash.
It seems like this might come down to a situational awareness issue. i.e. for some reason the pilots don't think the automated system is still active and therefore don't follow the runaway trim checklist. Another alternative is that this happens more often than one would expect or is very similar to something else that the pilots are used to just fighting for a bit and then it goes away. Either way, the pilots are not acting as Boeing expects in this situation and it is necessary to understand why.
I think the idea is that the pilot shouldn't actually need the AoA data to fly, so just indicating that data is not available because the sensors disagree is sufficient. So the purpose of the second AoA sensor is just to detect a fault, not to provide redundancy. Possibly the issue is that if the pilot doesn't expect the system to use the AoA sensor data once it is known to be bad, he may not realize that the automatic system needs to be disabled.
I think the training is critical. The crew that flew the next-to-last flight of the Lion Air plane did figure it out. Literally - they had the same problem but figured out they needed to turn off the autotrim. This really seems like it might be an interaction of a changed flight characteristic and under-trained pilots. What surprises me is that, after the Lion Air disaster, that these pilots would still not properly diagnose the issue. Presumably the investigation will shed more light on that. Sure Boeing is preparing an update to make this outcome less likely, but surely every pilot flying a 737 max would be super-aware of this problem after Lion Air. It seems like maybe the issue is that the pilot can think they've turned off the auto-trim when they actually haven't.
It's worse: printed money is mostly gone already. I don't keep my money in cash, it's a number in a bank register. The federal reserve doesn't print more pieces of paper or anything, they change the rate at which some numbers in a register change. This just demonstrates how dumb the typical bitcoin discussion is compared to the actual dynamics of currency and its management in modern financial systems. These are typically the same ignorant people who think a deflationary currency like bitcoin is a good thing. You do not want people storing value in things that have no actual long-term value. It's a proven recipe for economic disaster (aka people starving to death while food rots in the fields). You want people to use currency to then store value by investing in real things that have future utility.
The dream of distributed banking is largely a fantasy. Anybody who wants to act as your banker but doesn't want to be subject to the banking laws is likely trying to scam you. Wait... were we talking about paypal...?
Yeah, Chinese executives seem to just betray the fact that they don't understand the rule of law and how an actual functional justice system works. Instead of saying that they will prevail in court against the charges, they say things that seem to imply that the CFO should be let off for entirely political reasons. That may be the norm in China, but in non-authoritarian countries that isn't how it works.
I think of the 5th amendment as a limitation on the use of force. Someone can be compelled in a humane way to provide their fingerprint and similar. However, compelling someone to say something is an entirely different thing and can easily become a punishment itself. This creates a situation where the state doesn't need to prove that someone committed a crime, just accuse them of something and put them in prison because they won't confess to it or provide the information needed to prove it. That is not how our legal system is supposed to work. (And in reality it is worse than this because torture, not just imprisonment, is often the thing used to coerce testimony.)
Your "way of life" argument is a self-deception. Your claim is that the northerners had no right to dictate that the south cannot have slaves, but simultaneously that southerners should be able to dictate that the US government is responsible for upholding the south's slave laws, effectively extending those laws outside the south. I would completely agree that current alt-right and white nationalist movements also are blind to the fact that their ideology is founded on an essential hypocrisy like this.
What about the millions of black people being held prisoner in the south? What about their "way of life"? Did they get to vote for or against secession?
Yes, and just because gum disease CAN cause Alzheimer's (in mice) doesn't mean it is the main cause in humans. (I don't think this study is even that strong.) There is a good chance that Alzheimer's is like cancer -- there may be several different causes that all manifest in the same kind of failure in the brain.
On flossing... I have always thought that, unless you actually have gum disease, the main benefit is so that the dental hygienist has less to do when they clean the plaque off of your teeth. I would not be surprised that adding flossing to use of fluoride toothpaste and regular professional cleanings is has no marginal benefit except in special cases.
I've got an idea... make advertisers liable for reckless endangerment and wrongful death claims for people doing things they saw on youtube. If they paid a "creator" for making this video so that they could advertise during it, they are liable for the content of the video right? But "that will kill the platform" you say? Exactly. Maybe the reason the platform is bad for society is that it is inherently unjust. A company can use the basest filth to promote their brand (even target viewers of that filth), but plead innocence to filling the world with filth. This argument applies even more to fraudulent material or terrorist recruitment videos.
Isn't one major problem pointed out in the summary? The tenants can't hold the actual landlord accountable because WeWork is really just an intermediary. This is like you sue your landlord to get them to fix the pipes and they spend months or years saying it's not their fault and actually there is some other landlord that isn't doing what they agreed to. Then you finally get a case against that higher-level landlord and first landlord walks out and then walks back in as the supposedly deadbeat landlord. This is abuse of the incorporation laws and is the kind of thing legislatures should actually be discussing.
To say it the way you have, I think the issue is that while Neumann might hold the debt, WeWork holds all the liability but none of the assets. That's convenient. I believe there are some rules against this general sort of thing, but they are not enforced ("smaller government") and there are well-known ways around them.
This. The most likely case that a normal person will need their phone secure is if they lose it or have it stolen by a pickpocket. Security in this case requires a decently strong passcode. The problem biometrics solves is that a passcode strong enough to resist an attack on a lost or stolen phone is inconvenient to enter and is easily shoulder-surfed. If you are the target of a motivated attack, it would be be far easier to just observe you putting in a passcode than to lift your fingerprint in sufficient quality to fool a normal reader. Someone willing to lift your fingerprint and your phone is well above the "pickpocket" level and would certainly have been able to get your passcode if you used it constantly.
I think the next level thing, with a bit more setup required, would be a bluetooth or NFC ring. This would have much the same convenience but could be changed and not copied. That still could be taken at gunpoint, but I would argue that is actually an advantage, since I certainly don't have access to any data that is comparable in worth to my life.
And what is that about stealing somebody else's market share? The Nintendo switch IS NVIDIA's hardware. They would just be stealing their own market share. I had 2 shield tablets for my kids, and it became obvious to me long ago that unless something suddenly changed, NVIDIA was perfectly happy to make the hardware for Nintendo instead of making a next generation. Seems to me it's actually a pretty good deal for them as a mainly hardware company.
You can already make a document publicly editable and only give the url to who you want to edit it. They don't need a google account to edit it. (Whoever wrote the headline and summary is apparently so trapped in the googleverse that they don't know this.) This sounds like it allows you to assign permissions individually by email address and then each person is given a separate PIN.
The difference between google tracking your email and a google account are pretty slim I think. However this kind of functionality has use cases where you want to give one person edit permissions and another view permissions but don't want to have a long-term connection to their google account. (e.g. transactional business clients)
Now the problem with the protocol described in the summary is that google will certainly track email addresses across usages. If they weren't they would have implemented this as being able to generate multiple document "passwords" and being able to assign permissions to each. Then you could distribute those document passwords without giving the client's email address to google.
I see it as an essential abject failure of the tech industry that most people have no way to securely send a simple document to someone else they know or have a real-world relationship with (doctor/patient, vendor/customer, service/client). Thinking about it, the closest I can come to a genuinely accessible solution is Signal. What's even more sad is that the reason that this problem is unsolved is that the major tech players are so addicted to spying on their customers that they can't bring themselves to actually provide a secure communication solution.
Very interesting. Just wanted to point out that the wikipedia article on motion blur discusses exactly this issue with LCDs. There it is attributed to a bad interaction between eye tracking and sample-and-hold. I assume the idea would be that by tracking an image moving across the screen (which our eyes are uncannily good at) we perceive that there is light where there shouldn't be. By contrast the "flashing" (dark between frames), which is basically not having light where there should be light, is not perceived as bad though it is often still perceptible as stutter.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, so your argument is that to fight corruption, we should ignore the law at the whim of... who exactly? You don't seem to realize that is just another form of corruption. Your argument boils down to "People I like should only have to follow the laws I agree with (right this second)." That is the picture of a corrupt state. I think it is you that needs to do a bit more thinking. Most of us reading this live in democracies. We can hold a corrupt government accountable by voting for different people and changing laws. The current problem, in the US at least and other places as well, is that a large fraction of the public is more interested in corrupting the government in their favor rather than reducing corruption.
They don't even have to let him go to make him look like an idiot. It's not like nobody else ever fled bail for 7 years and then been caught. If they just give him a sentence in line with other cases and move on, it will enough to show that the whole charade was pointless from the start.
Yeah, some the articles don't really give the necessary details. The one I found that really discussed it is this.
Basically it is possible for the MCAS, in combination with other things, to put the airplane in a situation that is not easily recoverable without turning the system that the MCAS is part of back on. This is because the system that bypasses the MCAS isn't strong enough to turn the tail back to the right position. But when the electrical stabilizer system is turned back on, the MCAS just kicks in again and puts it right back in nose-down. There are ways to work it out but they require "non-checklist actions" as the article says. There is no way pilots can figure this out in less than a minute while the MCAS is driving them into the ground. So basically the whole idea that "they could just switch it off" only works in some circumstances. So now we see that it appears even the instructions to pilots were not properly tested.
I think the bigger sticky question for the 737 MAX is whether, in the end, it genuinely needs to be a separate type. The MCAS, as originally designed, was supposed to be a minor adjustment at the edge of the flight envelope. But it really appears that, in testing, it had to be made much stronger than originally designed. The issue that caused the crashes is that it should have then required multiple sensors. Boeing is fixing that. However, it brings up the larger question: are the flight characteristics too different for it to be the same type?
I think this is terribly mischaracterized even in the paper. They say that the assumption they think is violated is something like "there is an objective reality" and so the reality can be different for the two observers. But, as best I can tell, what they mean by an "objective" answer is that there is a hidden variable. We already knew that there are no hidden variables, so it's not surprising that this experiment also shows the assumption of a hidden variable must be violated. While this is a really nice realization of this thought experiment, I don't see how it adds anything new to our understanding of quantum mechanics, it just confirms what we already knew. I'm pretty sure that one of the things we already knew is that phrasing things in terms of "wave function collapse" is not a good way to think about it (easily leads to misleading conclusions). This is why the many-worlds interpretation already exists.
I'm not sure how it is relevant that "apple knows this". Everybody knows this and always has. It doesn't stop the content producers from making exclusive licenses or starting their own streaming service (Disney). This is a long-predicted endgame.
There is a solution: compulsory fair licensing. The producer can't choose who is and isn't allowed to buy their DVDs so why are they allowed to choose who carries their stream? Basically historical accident. The specter of compulsory licensing is what was holding the fracturing of the streaming services back in the first place. It appears that the big houses have decided it's worth the risk. The personally optimistic prediction is that they will get burned and regret it. They should lose the ability to distort the free market with exclusive licenses. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
The problem is that Boeing effectively lied about the strength of the MCAS system. According to the previous article, Boeing's critical documents claim the MCAS can only change the tail by 0.6 degrees. The lack of required redundancy is based on this number. However, it turns out, the system can actually change the tail by 2.5 degree increments an infinite number of times. That some pilots figured out how to work around this behavior does not change the fact that a fundamentally unsafe system was approved for production due to Boeing's rush to market. The 0.6 degrees was changed during flight testing, and the necessary safety re-evaluation was not re-done until after the Lion Air crash. The previous article says that the 0.6 degrees still appeared in safety documents submitted by Boeing to foreign regulators despite being false.
This issue can be worked around. The question is: are there other issues that were similarly glossed over? I'll agree, Southwest is probably fine. This kind of thing is exactly why they have a single type fleet, because they can use the experience over their whole fleet. There is a good possibility that this issue and some others are included in their internal supplementary flight training, without knowing in advance that any particular one has such dire consequences. But they aren't the only air carrier, and, going further, the 737 Max is not the only airplane that the FAA certifies. This is just the first failure of the process which has brought down a plane (now 2). This was not some unexpected material failure or totally new failure mode, this is basically directly attributable to certification process failure.
I was at first surprised how fast non-US agencies grounded the Max. However, this report says that documents concerning the system in question that were submitted to foreign safety agencies were simply wrong. Boeing is still in the process of trying to make that right in the wake of the Lion Air disaster. Under those circumstances, I would expect that non-US regulators were considering groundings even before the second disaster.
In some sense nobody really made the decision to use this design without redundant sensors. According to the article, the system was approved with a relatively small amount of authority - it could only move the tail by 0.6 degrees. That wasn't a bad enough issue to warrant redundancy. The problem is that the authority was then increased to 2.5 degrees, more than 4 times larger, and the safety impact was simply never re-evaluated due to the rush to get it on the market. Even documents given to other country's air safety bodies still listed the 0.6 degrees. The explosive thing about this, which is why the article predates the second crash, is that this puts the whole process in doubt. How many other numbers in the documents are just fiction? How many other safety evaluation chains have not been updated due to the rush to market? Does this amount to fraudulent behavior on the part of Boeing? My expectation is that the engineer who upped the authority from 0.6 to 2.5 did so with the intent, possibly even documented, that the safety would be re-evaluated before the jet went to market.
It's also unclear why the authority was listed as 0.6 degrees when the system could repeatedly reset itself and do it again, effectively giving it infinite authority. That is more along the lines of your question, but I think it actually wasn't clear why the ability to reset was not included in the safety analysis. This really looks a lot like an updated safety analysis was planned, postponed, and then just never done until after the Lion Air crash.
It seems like this might come down to a situational awareness issue. i.e. for some reason the pilots don't think the automated system is still active and therefore don't follow the runaway trim checklist. Another alternative is that this happens more often than one would expect or is very similar to something else that the pilots are used to just fighting for a bit and then it goes away. Either way, the pilots are not acting as Boeing expects in this situation and it is necessary to understand why.
I think the idea is that the pilot shouldn't actually need the AoA data to fly, so just indicating that data is not available because the sensors disagree is sufficient. So the purpose of the second AoA sensor is just to detect a fault, not to provide redundancy. Possibly the issue is that if the pilot doesn't expect the system to use the AoA sensor data once it is known to be bad, he may not realize that the automatic system needs to be disabled.
I think the training is critical. The crew that flew the next-to-last flight of the Lion Air plane did figure it out. Literally - they had the same problem but figured out they needed to turn off the autotrim. This really seems like it might be an interaction of a changed flight characteristic and under-trained pilots. What surprises me is that, after the Lion Air disaster, that these pilots would still not properly diagnose the issue. Presumably the investigation will shed more light on that. Sure Boeing is preparing an update to make this outcome less likely, but surely every pilot flying a 737 max would be super-aware of this problem after Lion Air. It seems like maybe the issue is that the pilot can think they've turned off the auto-trim when they actually haven't.
It's worse: printed money is mostly gone already. I don't keep my money in cash, it's a number in a bank register. The federal reserve doesn't print more pieces of paper or anything, they change the rate at which some numbers in a register change. This just demonstrates how dumb the typical bitcoin discussion is compared to the actual dynamics of currency and its management in modern financial systems. These are typically the same ignorant people who think a deflationary currency like bitcoin is a good thing. You do not want people storing value in things that have no actual long-term value. It's a proven recipe for economic disaster (aka people starving to death while food rots in the fields). You want people to use currency to then store value by investing in real things that have future utility.
The dream of distributed banking is largely a fantasy. Anybody who wants to act as your banker but doesn't want to be subject to the banking laws is likely trying to scam you. Wait... were we talking about paypal...?
Yeah, Chinese executives seem to just betray the fact that they don't understand the rule of law and how an actual functional justice system works. Instead of saying that they will prevail in court against the charges, they say things that seem to imply that the CFO should be let off for entirely political reasons. That may be the norm in China, but in non-authoritarian countries that isn't how it works.
I think of the 5th amendment as a limitation on the use of force. Someone can be compelled in a humane way to provide their fingerprint and similar. However, compelling someone to say something is an entirely different thing and can easily become a punishment itself. This creates a situation where the state doesn't need to prove that someone committed a crime, just accuse them of something and put them in prison because they won't confess to it or provide the information needed to prove it. That is not how our legal system is supposed to work. (And in reality it is worse than this because torture, not just imprisonment, is often the thing used to coerce testimony.)
Your "way of life" argument is a self-deception. Your claim is that the northerners had no right to dictate that the south cannot have slaves, but simultaneously that southerners should be able to dictate that the US government is responsible for upholding the south's slave laws, effectively extending those laws outside the south. I would completely agree that current alt-right and white nationalist movements also are blind to the fact that their ideology is founded on an essential hypocrisy like this.
What about the millions of black people being held prisoner in the south? What about their "way of life"? Did they get to vote for or against secession?
Unfortunately in our system the term limit is the main limit on presidential power.
Yes, and just because gum disease CAN cause Alzheimer's (in mice) doesn't mean it is the main cause in humans. (I don't think this study is even that strong.) There is a good chance that Alzheimer's is like cancer -- there may be several different causes that all manifest in the same kind of failure in the brain.
On flossing... I have always thought that, unless you actually have gum disease, the main benefit is so that the dental hygienist has less to do when they clean the plaque off of your teeth. I would not be surprised that adding flossing to use of fluoride toothpaste and regular professional cleanings is has no marginal benefit except in special cases.
I've got an idea... make advertisers liable for reckless endangerment and wrongful death claims for people doing things they saw on youtube. If they paid a "creator" for making this video so that they could advertise during it, they are liable for the content of the video right? But "that will kill the platform" you say? Exactly. Maybe the reason the platform is bad for society is that it is inherently unjust. A company can use the basest filth to promote their brand (even target viewers of that filth), but plead innocence to filling the world with filth. This argument applies even more to fraudulent material or terrorist recruitment videos.
Isn't one major problem pointed out in the summary? The tenants can't hold the actual landlord accountable because WeWork is really just an intermediary. This is like you sue your landlord to get them to fix the pipes and they spend months or years saying it's not their fault and actually there is some other landlord that isn't doing what they agreed to. Then you finally get a case against that higher-level landlord and first landlord walks out and then walks back in as the supposedly deadbeat landlord. This is abuse of the incorporation laws and is the kind of thing legislatures should actually be discussing.
To say it the way you have, I think the issue is that while Neumann might hold the debt, WeWork holds all the liability but none of the assets. That's convenient. I believe there are some rules against this general sort of thing, but they are not enforced ("smaller government") and there are well-known ways around them.
This. The most likely case that a normal person will need their phone secure is if they lose it or have it stolen by a pickpocket. Security in this case requires a decently strong passcode. The problem biometrics solves is that a passcode strong enough to resist an attack on a lost or stolen phone is inconvenient to enter and is easily shoulder-surfed. If you are the target of a motivated attack, it would be be far easier to just observe you putting in a passcode than to lift your fingerprint in sufficient quality to fool a normal reader. Someone willing to lift your fingerprint and your phone is well above the "pickpocket" level and would certainly have been able to get your passcode if you used it constantly.
I think the next level thing, with a bit more setup required, would be a bluetooth or NFC ring. This would have much the same convenience but could be changed and not copied. That still could be taken at gunpoint, but I would argue that is actually an advantage, since I certainly don't have access to any data that is comparable in worth to my life.
And what is that about stealing somebody else's market share? The Nintendo switch IS NVIDIA's hardware. They would just be stealing their own market share. I had 2 shield tablets for my kids, and it became obvious to me long ago that unless something suddenly changed, NVIDIA was perfectly happy to make the hardware for Nintendo instead of making a next generation. Seems to me it's actually a pretty good deal for them as a mainly hardware company.
You can already make a document publicly editable and only give the url to who you want to edit it. They don't need a google account to edit it. (Whoever wrote the headline and summary is apparently so trapped in the googleverse that they don't know this.) This sounds like it allows you to assign permissions individually by email address and then each person is given a separate PIN.
The difference between google tracking your email and a google account are pretty slim I think. However this kind of functionality has use cases where you want to give one person edit permissions and another view permissions but don't want to have a long-term connection to their google account. (e.g. transactional business clients)
Now the problem with the protocol described in the summary is that google will certainly track email addresses across usages. If they weren't they would have implemented this as being able to generate multiple document "passwords" and being able to assign permissions to each. Then you could distribute those document passwords without giving the client's email address to google.
I see it as an essential abject failure of the tech industry that most people have no way to securely send a simple document to someone else they know or have a real-world relationship with (doctor/patient, vendor/customer, service/client). Thinking about it, the closest I can come to a genuinely accessible solution is Signal. What's even more sad is that the reason that this problem is unsolved is that the major tech players are so addicted to spying on their customers that they can't bring themselves to actually provide a secure communication solution.
Very interesting. Just wanted to point out that the wikipedia article on motion blur discusses exactly this issue with LCDs. There it is attributed to a bad interaction between eye tracking and sample-and-hold. I assume the idea would be that by tracking an image moving across the screen (which our eyes are uncannily good at) we perceive that there is light where there shouldn't be. By contrast the "flashing" (dark between frames), which is basically not having light where there should be light, is not perceived as bad though it is often still perceptible as stutter.