I’ve been hmming and hawing in answering this. But I’m out for dinner and bored. So alot games original vision is to be a single player experience but then online features or an online overhaul is shoved by the aboves. IE SimCity was considered unplayable by thr online features, anthem was originally designed to be single player but was completely redone, etc etc.
Yeah I see that. I remember the disappointment of sim city.
It could be I don’t follow games close enough to see what I’m missing. I find more SP games popping up in my feeds / friend recommendations than I could ever hope to play.
I definitely feel like mainstream AAA/AAAA and even iii to a certain extent have been progressively enshittified. But I’ve been at this a while, so I’ve seen how it’s gone this way as more and more money got brought to bare on games.
The moment someone who wasn’t involved in actually making some part of the game was expecting a fat return on investment was the moment the wheel of shit started to turn.
I don’t think it’s a problem, more like a situation. You are not doing anything wrong or stupid, just interested in something new and promising and have the resources to pursue it. Good for you, may you find gold.
Scanners have gotten better recently, meaning they can tell the difference between water and explosives, but these restrictions weren’t pulled out of thin air like many others.
That doesn’t mean it’s not still a show. In the 2010s (forget when exactly) the TSA was tested with fake bombs and let them through 49/50 times. They have never successfully stopped a terrorist attack either afaik.
The day after TSA failed spectacularly in reviews that made it to national news, I missed a flight because they thought my portable hard drive could be explosive. The guy who inspected it? An “expert” over Facetime because he was at the Arnold body building conference. Then they GAVE IT BACK TO ME and told me I had to ship it. What a joke.
A lot of people around me tend to parrot that a lot of the safety measures are not for explosives detection, but for drug trafficking prevention. I’ve always disagreed because nobody ever presented any evidence to it, and the measures in place do come from explosive detection (unless they have metal drugs now idk). But I’ve wondered whether there is some truth to it.
TSA literally says on their own website that they are not looking for drugs and will only report it to the police if it’s blatant.
TSA’s screening procedures are focused on security and are designed to detect potential threats to aviation and passengers. Accordingly, TSA security officers do not search for marijuana or other illegal drugs, but if any illegal substance is discovered during security screening, TSA will refer the matter to a law enforcement officer.
I’ve watched a video about this recently. The problem is, most detectors were based on X-rays in the past decades. Liquid explosives are pretty close to the density (and/or other properties) of water, and you can’t tell for sure whether there’s toothpaste or boom juice in that tube.
However, some airports started using expensive MRI MRI like X-ray* machines that can see stuff in more detail, plus, it lets you to make cross sections from different angles and therefore have a 3D model that you can rotate on your screen (it’s rather cool).
EDIT: I just realised someone else linked this, too. I would leave it here, it’s still educational.
I’d just like to clarify: the new machines aren’t MRI (the magnets in those would prohibit all metal objects being within 100ft).
The new machines are also xray; but the xray emiters and detector are now on a spinning carriage similar to an MRI. This allows you to build a 3d model of the object and calculate it’s volume, which when combined with the density measurements gives much more reliable material detection.
This also means your stuff doesn’t have to be removed from bags to ensure items aren’t blocking each other from the scanner.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.