booly

All GPUs perform equally well the same at ray tracing when there are no rays to trace

I've seen it for keypads that have to send a signal to an actuator located elsewhere, but I think the typical in-door deadbolt (where the keypad is mere millimeters from the motor itself) wouldn't have the form factor leaving the connection as exposed to a magnet inducing a current that would actually actuate the motor.

Most of LPL's videos on smart locks just defeat the mechanical backup cylinder, anyway. I'd love to see him take on the specific Yale x Nest model I have, though.

Yup. The backup for battery failure on this model is that the bottom of the plate can accept power from the pins of a 9V battery, held there just long enough to punch in the code.

Things might be different by now, but when I was researching this I decided on the Yale x Nest.

It's more secure than a keyed lock in the following ways:

• Can't be picked (no physical keyhole).
• Codes can be revoked or time-gated (for example, you can set the dog walker's code to work only at the time of day they're expected to come by).
• Guest codes can be set to provide real-time notifications when used.
• The lock keeps a detailed log of every time it's used.
• The lock can be set to automatically lock the door after a certain amount of time.

It's less secure than a physical traditional lock in the following ways:

• Compromise of a keycode isn't as obvious as losing a key, so you might not change a compromised keycode the same way you might change a lost key.
• People can theoretically see a code being punched in, or intercept compromised communications to use it.
• Compromised app or login could be used to assign new codes or remotely unlock

It's basically the same level of security in the following ways:

• The deadbolt can still be defeated with the same physical weaknesses that a typical deadbolt has: blunt force, cutting with a saw, etc.
• The windows and doors are probably just generally weak around your house, to where a determined burglar can get in no matter what lock you use.
• Works like normal without power or network connection (just can't be remotely unlocked or reprogrammed to add/revoke codes if not online)

Overall, I'd say it's more secure against real-world risk, where the weakest link tends to be the people you share your keys with.

In comparison, the Geneva Convention literally forbids doing this to enemy POWs.

The instance I'm logged into doesn't forward my user agent, IP address, or CSS/script support (or other fingerprinting techniques) to the other instance. Everything I do in a community hosted on another instance is forwarded through my instance server as a middleman, and I never directly connect to the other instance server.

The admins of an instance (or reddit) might be able to analyze server logs of different users on their own instance to be able to determine those things, but can't apply that analysis to accounts from other instances, whose interaction with the server doesn't actually include a login or any direct connections to the server they administer. All they have to go on is the ActivityPub logs, which won't include that fingerprinting information.

Reddit does have vote manipulation, but reddit admins can easily see much stronger indicators of the same person behind multiple user accounts: Server logs of user agent, IP address, interface/API key, script support and activity that tends to give away browser type and history, etc.

Most of that information is only available to instance admins, so admins of one instance can't see when external votes are coming in from the same users who already voted using accounts on your instance.

What's the mechanism by which an admin would be able to tell if one user voted more than once on the same post? Instance admins can't see the votes of the accounts on other instances.

Fundamentally, though, how can it be stopped? The two instance administrators can only see part of what's happening, and can't directly determine that the votes are coming from two alts of the same user. Maybe over enough times, the patterns can be guessed at with heuristics, but this kind of vote manipulation is going to be a problem for federated communities. Especially if we don't get better moderation tools developed.

Oh come on you don’t actually believe we should structure the entire system around such a minority use case

Minority use case? I'm talking about how downvotes are useful for communities to enforce their own norms, or ensure that erroneous information is excluded. Someone who insists on a proof that the angles of a triangle add up to more than 180º is probably going to get downvoted, especially if he's being an asshole about it. Same with someone who insists that the common cold is caused by exposure to cold air, or that the earth is flat.

Or there are broad consensus beliefs about what is or isn't off topic for a discussion, what types of insults break the forum rules on civility, etc. When a community largely agrees that someone is being an asshole for using racial slurs, downvotes quickly sort that out. In other words, toxicity can get filtered out through the downvote/hide mechanism, as well.

Even for beliefs that are simply matters of opinion/taste/preference, the community can decide what's actually up for debate and what's not, within that space. A forum dedicated to fans of Real Madrid doesn't have to tolerate trolls coming in and saying "Real Madrid sucks" or "lol soccer is a stupid sport you Europeans are so stupid" or "sports are dumb." Same with a vegan forum downvoting someone's brisket recipe (or a BBQ forum downvoting a "meat is murder" manifesto). These "echo chambers" are just how people organize with people who share their interests, and it's weird not to be able to see that there's value in those communities.

So yeah, I think that you have a problem with people's desire to organize into groups of similar interests, not with the actual mechanism by which those groups enforce those norms. It wouldn't be any better with a mod-enforced echo chamber, either.

Agreeing with the dominant mentality is rewarded.

And I'm saying that some communities have a "dominant mentality" that's pretty obviously correct. The only thing worse than a person who says "just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right" is the person who swings the pendulum too far in the other direction of saying "it's unpopular so it must be right."

All this does is bury comments regardless of quality

But if downvotes (and upvotes) are well correlated with quality, then what's the problem? Your complaints are about community culture around downvotes, not about the mechanism itself.

I'd love to see a system where votes can be correlated between users so that the ranking algorithm weights like-minded voters and deemphasizes those voters you disagree with, but that would probably create a pretty significant overhead for the service.