The big breaking waves you see in the movies or more often in surfing videos are the result of various, but extremely specific sea floor geography. Those conditions just don't exist on most sea shores around the world. That's why surfers travel to the areas with big waves, not just their nearest coast.

See the force of waves is almost entirely lateral. The things that cause them to curl over and break is either the wind behind the wave pushing it over or the sea floor redirecting the energy up at such an angle that it creates a narrow but tall wave. Again those sea floor conditions just don't exist most places. So tsunamis just end up being really wide and short waves.

Sometime I wish they would build a high quality replica of the pantheon nearby on a hill so I could see what it supposed to look like. There is one in Nashville I'd will be visiting, although I wish it was on a hill similar to the acropolis

This comment stolen from https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/125fhes/eli5_why_ancient_historical_buildings_havent_been/je4p96c/

Asking the right questions

I'm only aware of this in generalities. My understanding is that platform providers can be lawfully compelled to read telegraphs or open envelopes, if it is technically possible for them to do so.

A "true" end-to-end encryption scheme would mean that the post office physically cannot open the envelope. In practice, most of the time they could but choose not to, and this is the type of system which can be overcome by a warrant. This happens because a) e2e encryption is bolted on-top of a non-e2e system b) a "true" e2e system like that requires the sender and recipient to manage keys, which is a hassle so usually the platform does it for you c) platforms get political brownie points for being friendly with law enforcement.

[removed]

as a pharmacist who does not take GoodRX i can say that the prices goodrx advertises that pharmacies charge were NOT mutually negotiated by the pharmacy and GRX.

When do you want to pay the taxes on your money, now or when you take it out? Will reducing your taxable income now be really beneficial to you? You need to answer those questions for yourself. Roth can be a really good option if you can afford today's taxes because the growth is tax free and the disbursements are tax free. That is powerful in retirement planning.

Pre tax can be helpful because you are saving a percentage before the taxes hit, so you might save a little more and it reduces your taxable income, you might owe the feds less money on tax day. When you go to take the disbursement you have to pay federal income taxes on it.

In both scenarios, the maximum you can save without paying a 6% tax is $6,500 a year if you are under 50. That is the benefit of a 401(k) plan, your maximum contribution is $22,500, also your employer match doesn't count against that limit.

EDIT - I interpreted ROTH as a Roth IRA, not a Roth 401(k). In general, though, the same considerations are taken into account; roth is after tax and pre tax is before tax. They are both retirement accounts. The difference is 401(k) is employee sponsored where as IRAs are individual accounts between you and your broker.

Yup, and I never knew that. It helped me make sense of why the original camps weren't preserved. The people at the time had way more pressing matters to deal with

>If we restored it to how it actually was, how is that a projection?

Because we do not, and can not, ever really know how it actually was. When the older reconstructions were done in all white marble, that's how people at the time thought it was...just like if we did it today, we may do it how we think it was. But even though we know more, we don't know everything. Constant decisions large and small will have to be made, and those will reflect modern ideas. It's just inescapable.

Typical communication is unencrypted. This means that the data, the contents of the message, could be read by anyone who has access to them at any point in their journey to the recipient. Maybe your internet connection is compromised and someone can see all the data that comes and goes from your connection. Maybe it's the servers of the service that are compromised or maybe your Internet Service Provider is compromised. Your data passes through all those different networks and servers so it is theoretically possible that someone with access to them could read your messages.

End to end encryption is what it says on the label, it's encrypted. When two users have a chat with each other, an encryption key is generated that only their devices have. This encryption key is used to encrypt and then decrypt the data on either end. Without it the encrypted data makes no sense to anyone who may have access to them and is next to impossible to decrypt without the encryption key. This means that even if for example someone has access to my messenger account, and he has it open on a computer, he still won't be able to see my end to end encrypted chat that I have with someone through my phone, since only my phone and their phone have the encryption keys. That's why it's called end to end. A channel of communication may still be encrypted but not necessarily end to end.

End to end encryption offers significant security and privacy benefits but it's not unbeatable. If someone up to no good wants access to your data there's always ways they can get it. The weakest points are obviously the devices themselves. If malicious software that gathers your data is installed without your knowledge on your device it can simply read the decrypted messages and bypass the need to decrypt entirely. If someone has access to the encrypted data they may still be able to decrypt it if the method of encryption is weak or if they have the ability to brute force it with a suitable system. Lastly there's the question of whether the providers of those services themselves are honest about their encryption. What's App or Messenger may say their messages are end to end encrypted but that doesn't necessarily mean that's the case, in which case it poses a huge vulnerability.

A lot of the camps got immediate post war use. In the East, the Soviets used Buchenwald for several years to house POWs and political prisoners.

Please read this entire message

Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).

Very short answers, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

Any idea how the Patriot Act plays into that in the US? Does the NSA have some sort of backdoor into the encryption?

Simply put, End to End encrypts the data on the sender's device, and it is decrypted on the receiver's side when it arrives, so it stays encrypted for the whole journey. The only way to decrypt the message is by using the key that only the receiver device has.

Not to be confused with Link Encryption, which works similarly but is able to also encrypt the headers where the routing information is located (IP addresses, MAC addresses, etc). End to End Encryption does not do that; it encrypts the data itself, but not the header.

[removed]

Three things really.

First, these buildings just happened to be built in areas where it is both easy and desirable to build things, which means if you want to build something better or more efficient, you have to remove the old buildings. That decrepit temple dedicated to a god you don't worship anymore is fair game when you need to build administrative offices or a new palace.

Second, maintenance becomes a problem. It might cost more to maintain a building than than the people who surround the area can afford. Moreover, natural disasters happen, large earthquakes tended to be hell on these large stone and brick buildings. Once the roof caves in or the walls fall, the cost of rebuilding would be absolutely not worth it, doubly if you're interested in rebuilding it to the original specifications.

Third, the building material were valuable. If an earthquake knocked the walls down there was little interest on just holding on to those pieces of what is now rubble, the owner might sell it off or people might just come and take the stones and bricks for use in other construction. Sometimes it happens because of normal decay of society, war might come and the government might flee, people will start picking apart the buildings to rebuild their houses because no one is there to stop them. Speaking of war, the material used also happens to be useful for things like walls and fortifications. Military leaders found it easier to use locally sourced material from existing and often decaying buildings than to get their own through a quarry or making their own bricks.

Last, as culturally valuable objects, invaders often would raze these sites to punish a population for resisting or to eliminate their culture. In the 19th and 20th century as artillery and later aerial bombing became more powerful though somewhat inaccurate, things just happened to get hit, or defenders used them for storage of war supplies which made them a target (the Parthenon). Related to that some culturally significant objects were military fortifications and buildings that were destroyed in the normal events of war. Large extravagant gates and walls would have been legitimate targets for destruction, and once captured it was sometimes prudent to eliminate these walls and structures so they couldn't be reused as to deny the enemy their future use. In many cases they were rebuilt but they were often rebuilt in ways that didn't resemble the original, because warfare changes and the design of walls and buildings also have to change. So it wouldn't make sense to restore it and it's original way.

Furthermore sometimes buildings are used and modified throughout their history, which begs the question what point of history do you restore that building to? It's absolute original? Or maybe the way it looked at a key point in history? Or maybe restoring it to a point where we absolutely know what it looked like? Any one of those choices destroys one history to preserve another. It's not something we can decide.

I have an interesting story relating to your question.

I recently visited Tuzigoot National Monument in Arizona, which, for those who are unaware, is a preserved bunch of dwellings that had been built by indigenous populations many hundreds of years ago. It's now maintained by the National Park Service.

In reading the info placards at the site, in the early to middle part of the twentieth century, the NPS's strategy was to try to restore sites to what they once were--using modern materials, consulting pictures or descriptions of what something used to look like, etc. However, that strategy is no longer current with modern thinking. Instead, the NPS now tries to preserve sites solely to prevent them from degrading, but interferes with the sites as little as possible otherwise. So they may build some drainage to prevent water from destroying something, but they're not going to restore something to what it used to look like. This new way of thinking is apparently the modern norm.

Both are correct.

[removed]

To be fair, a lot of the "gaudy primary colours" reconstructions are based on traces of surviving paint, all of which would have been from the base coat. There would presumably have been more layers of paint on top of that. For a better idea of what could have been achieved if they put even 5% as much effort into colouring their statues as they did into carving them (and why wouldn't they?), look at any modern minature painter.

Yeah they always like to say “just make a better product “ as if the existing competition doesn’t have the funds to squash any attempt for newcomers to enter the market

It is the value of the home minus how much you owe on the home. When you buy it, your equity in the home is essentially your down payment. You increase equity by two means:

#1) Pay down your mortgage

#2) The value of the home increases

You can actually have negative equity if you purchase a home at the top of the market. When the market falls you may owe more on your home than it is worth (happened a lot around 2008).

Insurance has nothing to do with equity, so you or your father misunderstood what was going on here. I do not believe a mortgage lender can require PMI (private mortgage insurance) after escrow closes and your equity falls below 20%. It is possible if the home value went down and your father tried to refinance they would require PMI if his equity dropped below 20%.

It means it is encrypted on your device, and only decrypted when it reaches the other device.

Sometimes, apps will encrypt the data once it hits the servers, so that, but it is transmitted to those servers un-encrypted first.

I had the same question about concentration camps. Then I had a chance to visit Dachau during the MLK holiday as I went to Germany for a Nato conference, but due to the holiday me and my DET SGT and I had a whole day to ourselves. So we went.

Dachau, after WWII ended, was used as a refugee camp. We bombed the absolute shit out of Germany during WWII, and most of the populace was experiencing disease and famine (hence why so many camp prisoners died. The Germans literally couldn't feed their own citizens.) So after the Marshall plan rebuilt West Germany, their primary focus was on rebuilding their military. This is in the 1960s/70s, so the big fear was the Soviet Union pouring tank divisions into West Germany. So they neglected it.

Today, the camp is a mostly recreation of what it was like. The original buildings are long gone. They've built reproductions, but everyone back in 1946 had bigger concerns then preserving a camp. I get it now.

So for the answer to why did the Parthenon fall into disrepair, I bet they had bigger problems to deal with.