At low levels, playing is ABC simple and mostly about following basic strategy for starting hands and pot adds for chasing. Don’t get fancy and keep your temperament steady and you’ll win.
To a slight degree, you can do better with reading players and identifying them in broad ways (wild, conservative, confused, etc.) but don’t let that allow you to get fancy. Stick to the basic fundamental strategy for hands, position, and pot odds to crush lower level games.
I think the nuance is that OP is charging for hardware , software, and service (firmware customization and support).
With regards to the software, it is open source but OP is only providing the code to customers who receive the end product. In part, OP is acting as a distributor of the software and is charging a fee for that distribution.
If anyone else gets their hands on that software, they can choose to become a distributor and make it publicly available. It’s their freedom to do so.
A overly simple way to look at is is that OP is choosing (as a small part of their business) to charge for the distribution of the source code but not the source itself.
In reality, it’s unlikely that OP will have a customer who only wants the source code and is willing to pay a fee for the distribution of it. Their customers are coming to them for the service and support.
I’m curious, what’s an example of a “neo bank” that you say doesn’t offer bill pay? I’m sure they exist, just wondering who they are.
Bill pay sends a bank check which is covered by the immediate withdrawal of funds from the customer’s account. In most cases, the customer would be fine with that or even prefer it, to ensure they don’t accidentally bounce a check.
However, I’m wondering if another customer base can be someone who has bank bill pay but wants to float the funds until the check is cashed. Maybe they don’t have the actual funds yet but want to write a check against funds they expect to have soon (risky but people do it).
Do you restrict writing checks that are for an amount greater than the current account balance?
Lastly, I’m wondering how you handle deliberate check fraud. Victims will try to sue all associated parties. How does your liability work in those cases?
>However, I’m wondering if another customer base can be someone who has bank bill pay but wants to float the funds until the check is cashed. Maybe they don’t have the actual funds yet but want to write a check against funds they expect to have soon (risky but people do it).
>Do you restrict writing checks that are for an amount greater than the current account balance?
There's no reason to. You can already write a check for more than your account balance. The service also generates the checks using your account number, so they're not taking on any credit risk in case your account is overdrawn.
> Maybe they don’t have the actual funds yet but want to write a check against funds they expect to have soon (risky but people do it).
It's not risky at all when using "overdraft protection" via a linked savings account.
And why would I want to not receive any interest while a physical object representing the payment (I'm still not over how bizarre that is in 2025!) is making its way to the payee in the mail?
Varo is one. But even the ones that do support it like "Chime" have online comments like this:
"Chime is great for everything else, but their check features are absolute trash and will cause you frustration. Just don't do it and find another option."
> Do you restrict writing checks that are for an amount greater than the current account balance? Lastly, I’m wondering how you handle deliberate check fraud. Victims will try to sue all associated parties. How does your liability work in those cases?
That is one of our fraud signals. We have systems in place to review payment amounts, address, frequency, etc that can cause additional KYC checks to be preformed via Plaid before we'll send the check.
> there's no way to be sure that every second of GPS-tagged video shot by a DJI drone isn't going into a giant server farm owned by the Chinese intelligence service.
I checked your source and it didn’t back up this claim.
I’m not a networking specialist but isn’t it possible to detect if something is transmitting a massive amount of data (such as video) to an undetermined destination?
seems like this type of blatant data export would be easy to detect and subsequently ban the device doing it.
I’m just a simple software developer, so the network stuff can go over my head sometimes (heh), but the claim that such a large amount of data is being transmitted in a way that couldn’t be confirmed enough to ban the product seems dubious.
You do not need to transmit the video first. But coordinate or interested person. Even a sport watch can be a security threat as demo by some exercise army personnel. They just know who and when and where these places are.
For the transfer part it is much harder as said and easier to detect in peace time.
But then what happen in war or proxy-war time. You have to know how many senior Russians are killed by using a phone …
> Even a sport watch can be a security threat as demo by some exercise army personnel.
In the early days of the Afghan (or was it Iraq?) war, people used Strava to figure out the locations of American bases. They'd see a bunch of smart watches suddenly wake up in the morning and start exercising at the same time, a dead giveaway.
Even steelmanning the argument, it probably doesn't. For one, commanders need some level of experience and training, you can't replace them for free. But more importantly, having a lower technically skill, which might open one up to inadvertently sharing their running route, probably does not correlate too much with the skills required to be a successful commander. Now, in general (hah), stupid people will probably both be more open to these kind of mistakes and be worse commanders, but being a good commander doesn't mean are not making minor opsec mistakes like this, so in the end you will still loose strategically valuable people.
We disagree on the severity of the mistake, hiding information from adversaries is a core competency and a big part of training. Someone who failed to learn from that training has a low innate intelligence and even if trained is unable to use the training effectively and is a liability.
The CIA for example drills into their people this same information denial training but they appear to neglect randomness so you end up with a bunch of people with the same peculiar behavioral patterns so they’re ironically rather easy to detect if you have access to click stream data. For example, they’re told not to follow each other on social media, but they still interact so you end up with two people who freely follow lots of people who interact with each other frequently but don’t follow each other. It’s weird, I’m not saying everyone who does this is information hiding but you can extract networks of people who behave in this same weird way with each other.
In order to protect the enigma cracking secret the UK randomly allowed themselves to be bombed with a bias towards less strategic targets. That’s the kind of thing you have to do to hide information, letting yourself be bombed should denote just how serious it is.
Yeah, I'm serious, I'm not making a 'if you kill your enemies they win' argument but part of learning by doing is having the people who make poor decisions suffer the consequence of those decisions so that there are fewer people around making poor decisions. Especially in the military where you're spending other peoples money and other people suffer the consequences of your misadventures. Of course there is quite a lot of randomness in outcomes, but a blunder of this magnitude is inexcusable considering their line of work. Because of the corruption in the Russian army I would assume there is only a weak link between competence and rank and having an actual enemy around to punish mistakes would be helpful in winnowing out the morons. I'm pretty sure Russia knows they're corrupt and have deliberately adopted a learn by doing strategy to improve their warfighting capability for this very reason.
A big part of the process in undermining an opposition is promoting the worst aspects in them. Instead of killing off a moron, perhaps secretly encourage them to run for office and donate to their political campaigns, secretly buy media coverage for them, etc.
Don't know if you were attempting to make a joke, but Stalin purged the army of older, most qualified officers in the late 1930s, because they came from the pre-revolution times and were viewed as a loyalty risk. One of his biggest blunders that severely disadvantaged the country when the WW2 started.
Many white-era officers did serve in the Red Army; including Zhukov and his ex-boss Rokossovskij. Being a cadre in pre-revolution times wasn't the issue itself; willingness to sabotage their own country was.
Incidentally, the blunder in the 1941 in the Red Army was an issue of loyalty indeed. Navy didn't experience the same problem.
I mean, I assume it's mostly a joke, but if you assume that their system of selecting high officers isn't merit-based (which you would tend to assume given that it is Putin's Russia) then assassination which preferentially kills off the more incompetent officers would indeed be beneficial to the military as a whole.
Neither. The US’ wars in both places predate general availability “smart” devices by quite some time.
There were devices like black berries and tmobile sidekick, and gps trackers from garmin (etc) but I think the incidents you were referring to happened much later (2018 vs 2001/2002).
I believe the incident you’re referring to happened in 2018 [1].
Also happened across a few
American bases across Syria, Yemen, Niger, Afghanistan, Djibouti and more. Some British and Russian bases were highlighted too.
The point GP is making is that DJI does not indiscriminately upload every video. The moment it has the chance to associate a VIP to a drone, only then the tracking could start. It’s not like you can detect that during random tests on a new unit.
> there's no way to be sure that every second of GPS-tagged video shot by a DJI drone isn't going into a giant server farm owned by the Chinese intelligence service.
-GP
> The point GP is making is that DJI does not indiscriminately upload every video.
-You
That seems to be exactly what GP is claiming could be happening.
They were concerned about “every second of video” which would fit the definition of “indescribably”.
That's not a straw man. It's a valid threat assessment.
Lots of things get shut down for potential misuse.
One of the many jobs of the security apparatus is to predict which surfaces can be exploited, determine how bad those exploits could be, then firewall off the riskiest threats.
Because you can doesn't mean you have to, especially when you don't actually have any knowledge on the topic at hand. (And, as people have pointed out, this is both a weird and incorrect assumption, adding nothing to the discussion other than confusion.)
There's certainly no requirement to use that (it's literally a separate app from the DJIFly app you use the control the drone), and I do know as I fly a DJI mini drone.
What's worse is that I don't think it actually works how you've assumed. The drone has no internet connection itself, the software is instead pulling the files down over wifi, which is something the standard software supports if the drone is close enough. This is the "no need to export from your DJI device" - LightCut can presumably access the drone files directly. None of this requires uploading the videos to anywhere, and doing that wouldn't even make sense - these are large video files, people would notice their data plans being ravaged by multi-gig uploads every time they flew their drone.
As far as being condescending, I think that's less of a negative trait than offering unbacked "I don't know, but" comments which add no value to the discussion.
I did consider the value of my own comment at the time, but I think there is a big problem in tech discussion with people with no actual experience or relevant knowledge feeling that their off-the-cuff suppositions are as welcome and useful as meaningful input from people with direct experience, and highlighting this behaviour as negative and unwelcome is worth risking the inevitable backlash in response.
Yes, based on my experience with the device I can extrapolate how that software could work. What experience did you base your assertions on? Nothing at all? Right.
The DJI Mini Pro 3 works without Wifi and using the expensive controller, without a phone app, so the opportunities to upload captured data to China are very limited.
What a strange assumption to make. No it doesn't work like this at all. The video is saved to the SD card in the aircraft, which you then remove and insert it into your computer to download the files.
After processing a hundred and fifty pounds or more of human being. If that plane had done so at 30k feet, it'd have been an entirely survivable emergency.
I’m guilty of overthinking everything. It’s come in handy as a programmer but it tends to hold me back socially.
I’d often think about social interactions ahead of time. My brain would create countless situations that I’d play out. Once I exhausted one situation, I jump into analyzing the next possible situation. On and on I’d go.
I’ve only recently been able to quiet down my beehive brain a bit thanks to a few realizations I came to about the damage it was doing to me:
- Even after analyzing 100 different possibilities, reality would often be much different than the scenarios I thought about.
- When the situation didn’t play out exactly as I’d imagined, I’d still react instantly without thinking through the new variances. In my foolishness, the unexpected scenario seemed close enough to the ones I had already thought about, so I’d respond off the cuff.
In reality, things were different enough that a pause to think would’ve been better.
- Thinking through 100 different scenarios also meant going through the emotional baggage that came with them. In my mind, sometimes people reacted positively and sometimes negatively.
Imagining all the negative ways someone could react would lead me to attributing negative feelings to them, even though they haven’t responded negatively.
On the flip side, if I attributed a specific positive outcome to someone that didn’t live up to my exact interpretation, I’d end up feeling disappointed with an outcome I should’ve been happy with.
- Lastly, I’d push to resolve a situation immediately because I didn’t want to go through another beehive of scenarios while waiting to continue the conversation another time.
Sometimes that push to resolve the conflict resulted in a positive breakthrough. However, other times the person would agree to a certain resolution due to sheer exhaustion which leave us with an unsustainable outcome.
Of course, there were other things that helped calm my brain down. Things that helped me take a step towards these realizations and act on them.
Hopefully, my comment can be one of those steps for someone else.
This resonates with me a lot. I can be quite genial in social settings, but it's extremely taxing to my psyche because I unwillingly rehearse and predict all possible outcomes and how would I react. I catch myself having had a mental back-and-forth between myself and the person I have to meet, and if it's to be a particularly unpleasant occasion, I will have a heated argument all in my head that leaves me upset for hours.
Thanks, it means a lot to know my comment help others! I thought it was going to be buried and didn’t expect an upvote, much less getting replies that it was helpful.
It’s tough to share many of the other steps I’ve taken on a public forum. Honestly, I doubt they’d be as helpful as my previous comment because they’re so personal. Because they are so specific to me.
However, I can share that group therapy is the main resource I used to take those steps. I highly recommend it.
What’s nice about group is that I get to hear various perspectives on a situation. Everyone there has gone through somewhat similar struggles but their interpretations of those struggles are different.
As each person speaks, I find a nugget of wisdom that I can use. A bit of insight that I wouldn’t realize on my own. A phrase that finally helps a concept click in my head.
Of course 1-on-1 therapy is helpful too but group is a treasure trove of insight for personal growth.
> Papyrus 115 (which is the oldest preserved manuscript of the Revelation as of 2017), as well as other ancient sources like Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, give the number of the beast as χιϛ or χιϲ, transliterable in Arabic numerals as 616 (χιϛ), not 666.
> 1. Nitpickers who interpreted something in your question as incorrect. They will focus on this minor point that they think you said.
This is the most aggravating one for me. A minor ambiguity will completely derail the conversation.
Often, it’s simple enough to say: ”it’s not clear whether you meant X or Y. If you meant X, the answer is Such and such. If you meant Y, the answer is blah blah blah.”
At low levels, playing is ABC simple and mostly about following basic strategy for starting hands and pot adds for chasing. Don’t get fancy and keep your temperament steady and you’ll win.
To a slight degree, you can do better with reading players and identifying them in broad ways (wild, conservative, confused, etc.) but don’t let that allow you to get fancy. Stick to the basic fundamental strategy for hands, position, and pot odds to crush lower level games.