Hmm, why not? For the astable configuration, you could use a 100F capacitor with R1 = 10 Meg and R2 = 7.5 Meg, for a 55 year period. Base current for the Threshold NPN will come from the Trigger PNP (and hopefully temperature drift matches OK). Other than maybe the 100F capacitor might have some variation in capacitance and leakage current over the course of 55 years ;-)
at 1% initial precision of just eg. LM555 itself, you're looking at +-0.5 year just from the chip's contribution. If you ever find 100F 1% precision capacitor and 0% precision resistors, you may maybe hit +- 1 year if the other conditions are perfectly predictable, which they are not.
For your chosen capacitor, manufacturer doesn't even bother providing the tolerances. :) Good luck with that.
So you can send a binary SMS to a phone that will pass it to SIM and SIM will interpret it via bytecode, to execute whatever, incl. making the phone to send an outgoing SMS, with requested data, silently, wtf? :D And this is a normal documented thing.
I gather that paranoid people did not exist/have power back then, when this was designed.
I understand why a network would like to be able to do this. I suppose that is why it was written into the standard, and I suppose since it's an obscure feature, networks didn't implement firewalls blocking such messages coming from other networks.
Yeah, you can comfortably work with JSON in C directly on top of the string buffer containing it. Your representation for any JSON entity will just be const char pointer. It's possible to implement JSON path on top of this, and all kinds of niceties, and it's not slow.
Not sure why you get downvoted. EU censors quite a bit. I can't read about 10 Telegram channels that I could access just 3 years ago, and the list is growing.
All due to "vioalted laws of [my country]". (said near-east related channels have nothing to do with my country, government just doesn't want me to read them)
Some people deemed "russian assets" are not just censored, but stripped of ability to leave EU and prevented from being able to live in EU at the same time by financial sanctions, etc. Of course this doesn't happen to actual politicians in power, for whatever reason those never get sanctioned by EC, despite doing more "damage" than random blabberheads on twitter.
"EU" doesn't censor anything, there isn't even any authority nor infrastructure that could do that.
Individual countries, like Spain, does have a bunch of censorship though, this is pretty clear and evident already. But I think if you want to share something useful or even informative, you need to add what country this experience of yours is about, because it's not true in any/every EU country.
Other ways EU censors centrally are EU wide travel bans that individual countries can issue to prevent political speech by foreigners, under the guise of preventing "incitement" and preserving "stability". Doctor Ghassan Abu Sitta from UK is one prominent example.
Yet other way EU censors centrally are EC sanctions on individual journalists or "journalists" to prevent them from any economic activity within EU, incl. publishing.
Other way EU censors centrally is via DSA, which results in seemingly random bans of channels on "social media" like Telegram, under the guise of fighting "terrorism". Basically this way it tries to silence people it otherwise supports killing without due process.
Wars aren't supposed to be even. By this logic, the Nazis were the victims of WWII, and the Coalition was extremely evil in the Gulf War. And if Israel wants to be "better", it should just disable its air defenses to let Hezbollah "catch up".
If we're interested in an actual end to the violence, the focus should be on enforcing UNSC 1701. It's not like Israel can just ignore attacks against it.
Actually, wars are not supposed to be driven by "Dahiya doctrine" or "Rafah model" either, if we're talking about what wars are supposed to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
And yeah, if you look at 1:1000 civilian or 1:500 child kill ratio and you respond with "wars are not supposed to be even", well... what to even say. Actually there's a proportionality and distinction rule to follow, which is supposed to prevent this. When Israel kills 1 child or more per every active combatant... then that was apparently violated.
Maybe explain how does killing 20 000+ children and counting help Israel? Or how burning/blowing up entire villages and cities in Lebanon and Gaza help them? They did this to hundreds of villages in 1947-48 and that created the whole problem they have now. Continuing the same strategy is supposed to solve it? Seems like Israel got inspired by the whole Nazi style "preventive security" thing.
Heinrich Himmler: "The best political weapon is the weapon of terror... we do not ask for their love; only for their fear." (looks like Himmler could have coauthored Dahiya doctrine and would be fond of it, if still alive by then)
You're also not supposed to initiate aggressive wars against your neighbors either, like Israel did against Syria, Iran, and many others in the past with its "pre-emptive" strikes.
If Israel wants to be better, maybe they should not intentionally murder 10s of thousands of children as a policy (20-300 allowed killed civilians per strike in a population where half of it is children).
You're listing a lot of standard anti-Israel talking points which aren't relevant to the thread. Setting aside all the tangents and returning to the topic at hand -
> if you look at 1:1000 civilian or 1:500 child kill ratio and you respond with "wars are not supposed to be even", well... what to even say
You're not making an argument here. Again, do you think the Coalition was extremely evil in the Gulf War, considering the 1:100 or so ratio there? How about when NATO bombed Yugoslavia, with an "infinitely bad" casualty ratio of 1:0? Does that make NATO infinitely evil?
> Actually there's a proportionality and distinction rule to follow, which is supposed to prevent this.
The principle of proportionality has nothing to do with how many of their own civilians the military in question has lost.
Germany lost fewer civilians than Poland or the Soviet Union, so not really victims by that logic.
And while it's true that German civilian casualties were a couple orders of magnitude higher than American civilian casualties, the war wasn't fought in the US, so it's not really a fair comparison.
While not directly relevant to the Israel/Lebanon conflict, it's probably also worth drawing a distinction between casualties of war and state-sanctioned killing outside the scope of combat.
Germany killed six million Jews in the Holocaust.
The Allies tried and executed ten high-ranking Nazi officials, including six civilians.
By that measure, the ratio of civilian killings is at least a million to one.
> the war wasn't fought in the US, so it's not really a fair comparison
What's unfair about it? In both cases, one side suffered less civilian harm because there wasn't much fighting in its own territory.
I think the point stands that "Israel must be bad because it only lost 2 civilians" makes as little sense as "the Nazis must be good because they lost a lot more civilians than Western allies".
If a framework for trying to judge morality penalizes states for effectively protecting their own civilian population, then it's a very bad framework.
West bank and Gaza were never under full Palestinian control since 1967 both were under brutal occupation or blockade + contant Israeli meddling into internal affairs.
reply