They weren't that high frequency. I could hear computer monitors into my twenties at least. I'd guess somewhere around 20 - 22 kHz. CRTs were largely replaced by LCDs by my late 20s/early 30s, so I don't have a good sense of when I stopped being able to hear frequencies that high.
I find it very useful for wildlife photos. Autofocus never seems to work well for me on e.g. birds in flight.
It's also possible to generate a depth map from a single shot, to use as a starting point for a 3D model.
They're pretty neat cameras. The relatively low output resolution is the main downside. They would also have greatly benefited from consulting with more photographers on the UI of the hardware and software. There's way too much dependency on using the touchscreen instead of dedicated physical controls.
I'd be curious how many of today's automatic package validation tools or peer review processes would have caught the lotusbail package discussed in the article. The malicious aspects were heavily obfuscated, and it worked as advertised.
Algorithms like AES-GCM are standards because - when used according to best practices - there are no known practical attacks against them.
If someone has an attack that would defeat the cryptographic protection in a particular piece of software, the software is likely doing one or more of the following:
* Not using a modern, well-tested algorithm (e.g. using DES, a hokey custom XOR stream cipher, AES-ECB, etc.).
* Not following general cryptographic best practices (e.g. hardcoded or predictable key/IV/nonce, insecure storage of keys).
* Not following best practices for the specific algorithm (e.g. using AES-GCM, but reusing a key/nonce combination; using AES-CBC without applying an integrity-protection mechanism).
* The software is doing something that doesn't make sense, cryptographically (e.g. using symmetric encryption to encrypt sensitive data, but the data and the keys are necessarily accessible to the same set of users/service accounts, so there's no net change in security).
If such an attack fails because a developer has made changes to the cryptographic algorithm, a motivated attacker is likely just going to look at the code in Ghidra, x64dbg, etc. and figure out how to account for the changes. It's not a strong security control. I've been decrypting content stored using that kind of software for something like 20 years.
The correct approach is to verify that the use of a particular type of cryptography makes sense in the first place, then use a well-tested modern algorithm and follow the current best practices. i.e. using code from years-old forum posts will likely result in an insecure product.
I've been assessing systems that use cryptography for about 20 years as part of my work in information security, and I've never seen a customization that increased the security of a cryptographic algorithm over following the best practices.
Usually, non-specialists fiddling with cryptographic algorithms makes them much less secure. Developers who aren't cryptographic mathematicians should generally use a well-respected algorithm, follow current best practices, and treat that component as a magic box that's not to be tampered with.
I've used a shop vac as a first step, but if it's the only step, won't the queen survive and make more wasps? Unless you left it running for so long the queen starved to death, I mean.
My current approach is to wait until after dark, then fill up the nest entrance with spray foam (while wearing a beekeeper suit, just to be safe). I don't think that would work for walls, though - they'd probably find another way out.
In fact, that approach is explicitly warned against for walls. When they can't get out their former entrance, they will start to chew through the wall to make a new one - and there's no guarantee that new entrance will lead to the outside, rather than your living room.
My problem was the nest was hard to reach, and I was afraid that even if spraying did manage to kill the wasps, I would be left with a gross wet decomposing mass in the wall causing rot and water damage. I still need to figure out how to remove the existing nest but I'll wait until it's vacant :-)
My first time having yellow jackets in my wall, I sprayed poison in the entrance. They found a new way to leave the nest that was into my kitchen. That's when I stopped using poison.
I've needed two passes in the past, a few days apart. One to catch all of the adults, and another to catch any new wasps that emerged immediately after the first pass.
Maybe you have friendlier wasps in the UK, but the common ones in the US (yellowjackets, mud daubers, etc.) are generally very aggressive, and trying to coexist with them will end badly sooner or later.
I'm vegetarian because of personal ethics. I safely capture and release spiders I find in the house. I use live traps for mice and rats, and release them in the woods. But most wasps here are on my "nip the problem in the bud" list, along with termites, Scotch Broom, and a few other things.
I leave non-aggressive wasps, like Great Golden Diggers, alone.
In my experience (and wikipedia), mud daubers aren't aggressive. You may have misidentified a species or had an uncommon experience. They prey on spiders so I consider them beneficial. Only real issue with them is that they clog up mechanisms with mud.
In North America, Scotch broom was frequently planted in gardens, and was later used for erosion control along highway cuts and fills. Scotch broom is slightly toxic and unpalatable to livestock, and its seeds are viable for up to ten years, allowing them to regrow many years later, after extermination of the plant.
Feels like there must be some way to use "variability of colour by viewing angle" for tiny clusters of volumes in the object as a way to generate material settings when converting the Gaussian splat model to a traditional 3D model.
E.g. if you have a cluster of tiny adjacent volumes that have high variability based on viewing angle, but the difference between each of those volumes is small, handle it as a smooth, reflective surface, like chrome.
I wonder if one could capture each angle in a single shot with a Lytro Illum instead of focus-stacking? Or is the output of an Illum not of sufficient resolution?
