My first thought (which probably isn’t the best method, but I’ve done similar before) is an Arduino between the mouse and the system. The Arduino normally just passes the mouse commands to the system, but it listens for the button and blocks movement if it sees the button press.

Because it’s all done in hardware, this method would be system-agnostic. You could plug it into anything.

I used a Teensy 3.6 for a similar project.

The hotter it gets, the thicker the oxide layer form

This is accurate enough for tempering of most cutting tools, but technically, the oxide layer will continue to grow if you hold a lower temperature for a longer than normal time, and might not fully develop if you reach a higher temperature for a shorter than normal period of time.

This property useful if you are trying to develop a specific color rather than achieve a specific metallurgy. You can heat to a lower temperature for a longer time to develop a deeper, more consistent color.

In my experience, it’s easier to develop colors with an oven or propane torch rather than a forge or acetylene.

I won’t say that this blade is properly heat treated; it probably isn’t. In welding, the problem is the wide variation of heat affects in a very small zone. You can have material that is very brittle just millimeters away from material that is very soft and ductile.

You’re describing “normalization”, which is a process that makes steel uniformly tough, but “plastic”. When you flex it, it bends, and stays bent. “Annealing” is a similar process, where the temperature is raised a bit higher, and the cooling slowed even more. “Annealing” leaves the steel very soft.

In tool making, you’re first looking for high hardness (acquired with a “quenching” process). This makes it very brittle; it has no elasticity.

Next, you’re dialing back that hardness with a “tempering” process, which is done at a lower temperature than the normalization process, and the cooling can be much faster. When tempered, it’s still very hard, (significantly harder than “normalized”) but now it is slightly elastic. It will flex, but beyond a critical point, it just snaps; it probably won’t take on a permanent bend.

These colors are oxide layers that form at temperatures in the “tempering” range.

Uh… You might be confusing welding and heat treating concepts…

I’m not a fan of this approach. I think the idea that users should never touch a command line is an inherently proprietary philosophy. Without the command line, at any given moment, the user is fundamentally limited to whatever options the developer elected to offer.

I think a good GUI will assist a user in learning text configuration and command line functions.

WikiLeaks was a centralized platform.

Lavabit was a centralized platform.

Tiktok is a centralized platform.

Centralized platforms are proprietary, brittle, easily targeted. When they are taken down, they stay down.

Lemmy is, effectively, a protocol, not a platform. Anyone can host an instance, and they all talk to each other by default. Any of the big instances get knocked down, and they get replaced by a dozen others. An instance may die, but so long as someone wants to put up another, Lemmy remains.

Bitcoin is not a centralized platform. Tor is not a centralized platform. Government has had little success targeting these protocols.

Never go full do not.

The whole thing?

The DPRK has no shortage of coal. It’s one of their export products. They currently produce 35 million tons a year, and only burn 10 million.

While not commonly used in the rest of the world due to abundant oil and gas supplies, coal liquefaction and gasification are relatively simple and proven technologies. Having coal provides a (somewhat dirty) source of gas and liquid fuels, if utilized for that purpose.

Apparently, electricity is considerably more valuable in DPRK than the opportunity cost of shutting down the entire country overnight. I would think that the factories producing tractors and equipment for converting non-arable land into cropland would be a sufficiently high enough priority to justify burning some excess coal, but apparently not.

That might be their real problem. I mean, everywhere else on the planet, the value of menial labor greatly exceeds the cost of the lighting a human needs to be able to work. If they are, indeed, only providing lighting during daylight hours, they are only utilizing 1/3 to 1/2 of the industrial capacity they have invested in. They bought a tractor plant, but because they won’t turn on the lights, it’s production is far short of its capacity.

For want of a lightbulb, the production was lost. For want of production, farming equipment was lost. For want of farming equipment, the harvest was lost. For want of a harvest, the people were lost.

If the value of electricity to run a lightbulb so greatly exceeds the value of human labor, I would expect that they would have human powered generators to convert low-value human labor into high-value lighting, so that other laborers would have the light they need to produce.

The only source that life there is terrible are defector’s testimonies, which contradict each other on a daily basis and where the worst, most emotional stories are rewarded with fame and money.

There are other sources.

For example:

VPN server and any NAS or other network file share.

Isn’t that how it always goes? We look for simplicity, and find unexpected complexity.

So, what would you have this midwit understand about religion?

Indeed, it is a complex question.

How many answers do you want? I’ve given you the colloquial answer; I’ve given you a reasoned, rational answer, and I’ve given you the simple, mathematical answer 1/♾️, which you recognize and acknowledge to be zero.

I’ve answered you three separate times, respectfully and considerately, while ignoring your insults and denigration. I’ve patiently clarified and explained those answers, with reason and analogy, while you have mocked and belittled.

I’m going to move on from your question now, and ask one of my own: as a person you have mocked and denigrated and insulted and belittled, what would you now have me know about religion in general, and/or yours in particular?

You are the one that erroneously has been using infinity not me.

I clearly explained why I was using infinite. This is the first time you have challenged my use of infinite. I eagerly await a rebuttal against my infinite argument.

If you have no explaination for the existence of humans

When did “existence of humans” enter the discussion? I thought we were discussing the existence of god(s). The probability of humans existing is 100%.

but then dont use math to pretend its relevent to this situation.

You brought math into the discussion, not I. I initially assumed you were speaking colloquially, and I responded with my “Pascal’s wager” answer. Only when you doubled down and demanded probability did I respond with my mathematical, 1/♾️ answer.

If you don’t like the answer, ask a different question.

And on what basis am I evaluating those possibilities? You suggested probability, mathematically, and yet you recognized that mathematically, W, X, Y, and Z are all zero.

You are standing at a welding table, with tool clamping your part to the bench, and you’re asking me to tighten it up for you. I keep telling you that the tool you’re using is a micrometer, not a C-clamp, and you keep calling me an idiot for not knowing how a clamp works.

I patiently explain that even if we ignore the idiocy of using an expensive, precision instrument for work holding, a micrometer is physically incapable of being tightened enough to secure your workpiece properly. And you tell me to shut up and crank it down.

I can think of three possible routes past this impasse. To stay with probability, we can find some way of limiting the infinite possibilities to a finite, (albeit unknown) number of possibilities, so that our probabilities are no longer 1/♾️, or “zero”. Or, we can abandon probability and delve into a field of mathematics that can accept infinities. Or, we can leave mathematics behind, and move to philosophy.

I look forward to your next ad hominem.

I’m sorry you don’t like my answer to your question. What answer would you have preferred I given you?

1/♾️ = zero, its not just close to zero.

I didn’t say it was close to zero. I said it was mathematically indistinguishable from zero. “Mathematically indistinguishable from” and “=” are synonymous. Distinguishing between 0 and 1/♾️ would require the use of a tool other than mathematics. I do not know of a useful tool for addressing such a distinction. I do not think there is much utility in even considering such a distinction. I would say (and have said) that even contemplating such a distinction is meaningless.

You understand the 1/♾️=0 concept by simple recitation, not by comprehension. When you actually comprehend the meaning of that concept, you will understand why your question is indeed meaningless.

Asking for the probability of God’s existence is like asking for vernier calipers to measure an amp of electrical current. Probability is a very useful tool, but the “measurement” it provides is entirely irrelevant to the object we are trying to to measure. It’s the wrong tool for the job.

Alright, I addressed one aspect of your question. Let’s hit another. You inquired about probability.

The probability of rolling a 6 on a standard 6-sided die is 1 in 6. 1 actual solution from 6 possibilities. 1 in 6.

What’s the probability as we go to dice with more and more sides? The more possible solutions, the less likely any particular solution will occur.

Rolling a 6 on 1d8 is theoretically 1 in 8, assuming we actually have a die, we actually roll that die, and we actually get a result. The chance of rolling a 6 on a 1d8 is less than 1 in 8 when “it landed in the campfire” is a possible outcome. That additional possibility doesn’t make it 1 in 9, though, because “it shattered when it hit the table” is another possible outcome. “A meteor came through the roof and destroyed the die before it landed”.

The set of possible outcomes of throwing a 1d8 is only 1 in 8 when we exclude every possibility except a single number between 1 and 8.

When we talk about the probability of the existence of a particular god, we can’t limit the set of possible solutions to a finite number. we aren’t just selecting between all of the gods ever actually conceived of by mankind, but all gods that can be conceived of, all gods that can’t be conceived of, and the complete absence of a god at all.

The probability of god is one in an infinite number of possibilities.

1/♾️

Mathematically, this concept is indistinguishable from zero. That doesn’t actually mean impossible: it just means that the mathematical discipline of “probability” is not equipped to describe the selection of a single (or finite) solution from an infinite set.

Asking the probability of of God is like asking the molecular formula of free speech, or the temperature of a vacuum, or how many kilograms are in a mile. The question is meaningless.

My previous answer ignored the impossibility of your question, and attempted to address your intended meaning instead.

When you can tell me the proper temperature for baking a pound of philosophy, I’ll answer your question directly.