There was a lot of this that was over my head (no pun intended) but I really enjoyed reading the whole thing. Sounds like a great job, and def a good read.
It looks like a sort of serial number or categorization. The first block they are T1. The second block they are T2. So each category (access, persistence, etc) is a T w a leading number and the issues/“tactics” inside of that have a 001, 002 etc, as a reference to that specific instance (meeting overload)
The placements and counts tends to vary issue to issue, but in general is much lower volume than many publications. But agreed, the ads do tend to be almost comically high end (for me)
Not saying it’s full-proof but I believe it is a cage inside a ball w rollers so that the outside spins while the inside is at least somewhat stable. Nonetheless, they do mention that a full inversion is a worst case scenario due to the suddenness
I also was matte in 06, and had that machine for 9 years (until it was stolen :/). Only option was glossy for my replacement, I was devastated. A few machines later now, I can’t imagine going back.
As we know or a quick STFW will educate - the "airplane with red dots" refers to the idea that the planes that came back had damage indicated on them with red dots and so the initial idea was that the designers of the planes needed to armor those spots...
When it was really the case that the spots that weren't damaged were the ones that actually needed to be armored, because the planes that took damage there didn't come back.
In this case, the data that survived a selection process ("I just recommended this book that dovetails nicely") is the only data considered, when really all of the data needs to be considered.
I'm seeing this as "you're reading the data wrong" or more accurately "you're barking up the wrong tree"
That dovetails with "Dolphins must be friendly, because we always hear about them pushing drowning sailors to shore, and we never hear anything about dolphins pushing drowning sailors out to sea." Wait a minute...
reply