jjagaimo

In the Wikipedia page there's this formula

Just plug in values for the fence voltage and led. You can just set vswitch to 0 and Vled to 2V. It should be fairly insignificant compared to the fence voltage. It should be 10-20mA (0.01-0.02) to not kill the led.

The root of this is Ohms law: V=IR. Diodes cause a voltage drop rather than directly acting like a resistor which is why it's subtracted from the input voltage.

Just put them in series. Make 2x, one in each direction to account for AC and DC

I think he meant to reply to the main thread (which he did with the same comment) but didnt delete this (or maybe it didnt federate?)

There are companies that do this with IDs but they are typically already global corporations or SSL certificate authorities already. One example is Verisign and another is Globalsign. Their products are unsuitable however because it connects your real identity to the account. It could be useful for a one time humanness verification though.

The main goal would be to decouple the humanness check from Lemmy and give it over to an authority meant just to create certificates which cannot be linked back to the person. You could probably rate limit each person after the human check for creating new certificate. This would allow creating alts but limit the number of bots one person could create, as theyd need to pass the automate the verification.

One issue would be trust because you would need to trust the authority saying that the person who created the certificate was human

I literally addressed this. My point is that we'd need to give personal identifying information to be 100% sure, so the best way at the moment would instead be to just verify humanness as best as possible (e.g. better captcha, AI/chatgpt response detection, etc.) and shift the account sign up to the authority's side, accepting <100% unique individuals making accounts and prevent bots in other ways.

Also "trusted organizations handling your data" is exactly how 99% of the modern internet works. Rarely if ever do we give thought to the fact that companies like Verisign exist, nor that people regularly give credit card information to websites. At the same time, companies and corporations arent just some random schmuck spinning up their own authentication service

Thats not even accounting for all the bots, alts and inactive accounts; it wouldnt surprise me in the least if the majority of those were bots or throwaways. Another benefit of lemmy's setup is that individual servers will be fairly small so theres tons of space for smaller communities with higher quality discussion, even if it does end up causing duplicate communities across instances.

A public/private key pair is more effective. Thats how "https" sites work. SSL/TLS uses certificates to authenticate who is who. Every site with https has a SSL certificate which basically contains the public key of the site. The site can then use its private key to sign all data it sends to you, and you can verify that it actually came from them by trying to decrypt it with their public key. Certificates are granted by a certificate authority, which are basically the identity service you are talking about. Certificates are usually themselves signed by the certificate authority so that you can tell that someone didnt just man-in-the-middle-attack you and swap out the certificate, and the site can still directly serve you the certificate instead of you needing to go elsewhere to find the certificate

The problem with this is severalfold. You would need some kind of digital identity organization(s) to be handling sensitive user data. This organization would need to

1. Be trusted. Trust is the key to having these things work. Certificate authorities are often large companies with a vested interest in having people keep business with them, so they are highly unlikely to mess with people's data. If you can't trust the organization, you can't trust any certificate issued or signed by them.

2. Be secure. Leaking data or being compromised is completely unnaceptable for this type of service

3. Know your identity. The ONLY way to be 100% sure that it isnt someone just making a new account and a new key or certificate (e.g. bots) would be to verify someone's details through some kind of identification. This is pretty bad for several reasons. Firstly it puts more data at risk in the event of a security breach. Secondly there is the risk of doxxing or connecting your real identity to your online identity should your data be leaked. Thirdly it could allow impersonation using leaked keys (though im sure theres a way to cryptographically timestamp things and then just mark the key as invalid). Fourth, you could allow one person to make multiple certificates for various accounts to keep them separately identifiable, but this would also potentially enable making many alts.

There may be less agressive ways of verifying individual humanness of a user, or just preventing bots as in that 3rd point may be better. For example, a simple sign up with questions to weed out bots, which generates an identity (certificate / key) which you can then add to your account. That would then move the bot target from various lemmy instances, solely to the certificate authorities. Certificate authorities would probably need to be a smaller number of trusted sources, as making them "spin up your own" means that anyone could do just that, with less pure intentions or modified code that lets them impersonate other users as bots. That sucks because it goes against the fundamental idea that anyone should be able to do it themselves and the open source ideology. Additionally, you would need to invest in tools to prevent DDOS attacks and chatgpt bots.

There most certainly exists user authentication authorities, however it wouldn't surprise me a bit if there were no suitable drop in solutions for this. This in and of itself is a fairly difficult project because of the scale needed to start as well as the effort put into verifying users are human. It's also a service that would have to be completly free to be accepted, yet cannot just shut down at risk of preventing further users from signing up. I considered perhaps charging instances a small fee (e.g. $1/mo) if they have over a certain threshold of users to allow issuing further certificates to their instance, but its the kind of thing I think would need to be decoupled from Lemmy to have a chance of surviving through more widespread use.

200; It's pretty hard to play if you're dead

Anyone who thinks differently is not for you. People can do almost whatever they want for fun, as long as it's legal. Labeling someone childish because they like something is stupid; what am I going to do, drink all day, go to bars, hike, travel, play sports, do n'th paid activity, etc? Some people have the time, money or health that allows or disallows them to do these things, and some people do or don't have the interest. Tons of people enjoy watching tv shows. Are we supposed to grow out of that too? By that logic, we shouldn't enjoy anything we did as kids and just do things only relegated to adults.

Id say most people regardless of when they were born think like this unless they themselves play games. It's more socially acceptable amongst the younger generation right now (e.g. college graduates) and probably because they're still considered young. Kids have more free time than adults and the barrier to entry for them is low. Parents often see their kids playing games and in genral have a negative attitude towards them for consuming time. Id say as people go into their 30s and 40s its considered less acceptable because societal expectations are that people will work and get married and have kids by then, and they'd have less time for solo activities. Going to the bar while having young kids or other activities is less acceptable. As kids get older their parents have more time for fun, but playing games is seen as childish because they either see their kids playing or because its something from their own childhood and other ventures that cost money like travel are now available to them when they werent as kids

Can you? Yes

Should you? Probably not. High resistance and bad contact

Ah. It's not going to be possible to size it because the bulb is then acting as a resistor essentially. Unless you know what the equivalent resistance of the circuit you're testing is, and it draws a fixed current, you aren't going to be able to cap the current; Adding a resistor (or bulb) is just going to drop the input voltage and you will probably end up having other issues

For this application you should be using a bench power supply with current limiting, not a "serial bulb" (I assume you mean a fuse, which is designed to break at a low current, however these are most typically rated for several amps, not typically in the mA range). You can set the voltage and a current limit. If the current goes beyond the limit, then the power supply will drop the voltage to keep the current below the limit or latch off. You can get a fairly cheap one for about $50-60 off of eBay, which won't be the best but is sufficient for hobby use

Id wager that they dont put too much money into R&D and just pay one guy to port over the same code from their last last last generation printer to the new one. Over time its become an unrecognizable mess that is just hacked into working and no one ever takes a look under the hood. Their main market is the ink anyways, so making the printer good at what it does is an afterthought

🤔 Here