altairprime

It seems like, at 16000TbaseT anyways, you’re adding an overhead of about 150% on top of copper/fiber latency plus transmit time latency to process data at that bandwidth. I wonder if the same holds true at 100 vs 1000, 2500, 10000? Certainly this is a known tradeoff for DDR performance tuning — if you don’t mind spiking response times greatly, you can get the advertised maximum speeds, else you accept less bandwidth for somewhat less latency — and they’re both effectively using the same strategies to talk over copper.

You’ll have much better luck opening an AppleCare support case via phone call about unexpected disk space usage one day after an upgrade and then asking them how to free the 20GB of space used; I encourage having set up the computer beforehand so that it has 25GB of space free before the update and take screenshots.

1. It saturated the local network with 1TB of metadata sniffing scans, not the network uplink to the outside world.

2. It does so because, as Keurig notes, it’s collecting data about your household in order to let Keurig sell it to advertisers.

(Non-OP folks, I’m familiar in a general sense but I’d rather not assume the details, so this request is for OP alone to clarify their question with additional details.)

I’m confused why this type of thing is so reliably a surprise to us as a community. It’s the same ethical model that HN’s own industry operates under, so I’ve assumed we’d all be well familiar with it by now? Especially given how many of our salaries that exact same amorality has paid. I’m sure that’s exactly what’s happening at Starbucks, too: a bunch of people want to succeed and found a way to sweeten sugar free drinks with milk concentrate, which is a pretty genius move in a business context. I mean, this story could outright be an opening hook for a Better Off Ted episode for how cliché it is:

Veronica: “Ted, we need a smoothie that can be legally labeled sugar-free while tasting as sweet as tears of a crying young child after I’ve taken her ice cream and eaten it all up.”

Ted: “We can do that! Uh, was that a simile?”

Veronica: “No, it was vanilla.”

The business side of Better Off Ted was an accurate representation of the default state of a business’s ethics: Not Applicable. Fines and penalties for the rare case of being held accountable for impersonal malice towards customers are budgeted for in the same way that one budgets for bribes: have enough liquid assets to cover the immediate threats and delay any court proceedings long enough for the market to forget the risk while you reserve interest earned to pay it without disrupting operating profits. It externalizes ethical responsibilities onto the courts the same way Amazon externalizes packaging waste onto municipal waste streams worldwide, and outsourcing problems is Good Business 101.

I recognize one this probably seems morally bankrupt, but I’m not endorsing their behavior — I, a high-functioning sociopath, think that they’re a parasitic malignancy, and certainly I am well able to recognize sociopathy and amorality, given how often I see it in the mirror. Cancers such as theirs should be irradiated with changes to incorporation laws to be prosocial while their profits are permanently capped, with copyleft-style clauses to ensure that anyone who buys or operates their assets is then bound by those same requirements, They have done grievous harms to human labor and will clearly lie at the drop of a penny in their register, and should be used as a lesson to the other antisocial businesses on why they need to fake giving a shit through actions rather than just platitudes lest they be forced to wither to a husk of their former valuation while still operating technically profitably but in a way that’s utterly useless for financial engineering. But my opinion about how we ought to apply morality isn’t relevant here, helping others comprehend that we’re facing corporate sociopathy is — I’m only mentioning it to contrast the difference between “describe the sociopath” and “judge the sociopath” :)

HN talked about this deprecation last year, where someone pointed out that apps have been able to sign their precompiled binaries with the appropriate sandbox entitlements (no permission required from Apple!).

> UNIX hackers tend to be attracted to sandbox-exec because it looks simple even though it's not, and because doing it Apple's way requires learning a lot of Apple specific tech. Whereas the SBPL is deceptively UNIXy and simple looking.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44287740

I suspect OpenBSD has to decide whether that is of interest to them or not, if they haven’t already. Perhaps they’re unaware? Seems unlikely, but who knows with weird Apple stuff.

Original source is SFMTA’s page detailing Fleet Week impacts on transportation services: https://www.sfmta.com/travel-updates/fleet-week-october-9-11...

The title of the map shown is “Fleet Week Autonomous Vehicle Restrictions” which also seems a better title for this post, though perhaps with SF prefixed at the front to explain why this is (more) newsworthy than other fleet weeks anywhere.

Many Tamagotchis were harmed in the making of this presentation (2012) [video] (3 years ago, 26 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38458651

That discussion links to both her slides and her blog detailing all of her work over time in rather considerable detail, for those interested:

https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2013/Fahrplan/system...

https://natashenka.ca

> Baryons, particles containing three quarks, carry a baryon number of 1. The total baryon number has been conserved since shortly after the Big Bang. However, it is still unknown what it is inside the baryons, either the quarks or the gluons that bind them, that carries the baryon number. The STAR Collaboration presents evidence from three types of collisions that can help to distinguish between the two scenarios (see the Perspective by Li). The data disfavor the hypothesis that quarks are the carriers of the baryon number.

— "Tracking the baryon number with nuclear collisions" https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ads5962

That 'Perspective', slightly earlier in the issue, has this abstract; it is either more, or less, instructive than the above depending on one's familiarity with the topic:

> The proton sits at the heart of every atom. It was once pictured as a cluster of three quarks—constituents of matter whose properties combine to produce the proton’s characteristics. Increasingly precise experiments have repeatedly challenged this classical view by revealing that a proton is not merely the sum of quarks, but a many-body system whose defining properties (such as mass and spin) arise from the collective dynamics of quarks and the gluons that bind them together (1, 2). Yet, the origin of the proton’s baryon number—a conserved quantity that distinguishes matter from antimatter—has remained elusive. On page 727 of this issue, the STAR Collaboration (3) reports experimental measurements that could resolve a decades-old debate over how baryon number is carried and transported. The findings offer insights into the origin of the proton’s identity and how matter is organized throughout the Universe.

— "The proton's next secret" https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aek0574

What evidence supports the link referenced being an advertisement? I'm not seeing any referral, tracking, or any URI parameter data at all that would support the claim, and this seems to be their only instance of referring to it — where, in this 'state of the union' helpdesk-style article, one or more such 'VPN provider' links seems particularly relevant to visitors. (I do not use whatever this company's products are and have no opinion either way on them aside from mistrusting the claim presented here.)

This is the core error of understanding, and that same error leads to a great deal of bad Show HN’s as well:

Platforms want repeat business. Or, in classical retail cafe terms: Platforms want regulars.

Signing up for Reddit solely to self-promote something is indistinguishable from how one defines ‘spam’: unwanted promotional links delivered from reputation-free accounts. HN chooses to tolerate the Show HN flood to some degree because it’s classically of interest and open by design, but also comes with a dramatically more expensive human moderation burden that Reddit has decided they would rather not pay.

That I can summarize this post as “Self-promotion by unreputable or disingenuous participants is usually a bannable offense in online communities”, without having to even name whether it’s Reddit or HN or MeFi or RPG.net, suggests that this is much more a ‘fuck around and find out’ learning moment for the author than something of material interest to HN. Certainly there’s no surprise at the outcome: a competent anti-spam automation that triggered the first ban would have banned the domain regardless of which account is involved, to prevent swarm bot attacks that are well-known for some years now to webforum operators.

If moral, they could have decided that propagating their message will improve the world, even if only at x% efficiency due to use of AI, and that their intentions will take precedence over being accused of slopping.

If immoral, they could have chosen to run a grift on the chance that no one would notice, overdone it, and then played every card in their hand while perhaps sweeping away evidence of their slop once caught.

(These are constructed teaching examples, not situation-specific inferences or claims.)

> So the center button is now click-only: every debounced rise emits a fixed 60ms click pulse, and there are no hold semantics at all, because the chip can’t reliably report press duration.

This reliability point seems incorrect. The chip reports a valid press duration when less than 5 seconds have passed since the last plug-in or button press events; and, the chip reports an invalid press duration for presses of less than ~1.8 seconds when 5 seconds or more have elapsed since prior events. That is perfectly reliable behavior, and I expect the 5 second threshold is hard-coded into the OEM Mikey drivers to account for it. It’s perhaps unpalatable to consider coding support for that, and certainly I don’t fault the choice made here; but that’s not cause to label the design “unreliable”.

Looking at the long-press controls for wired earpods, this seems to have been accounted for by the software design: during playback, either you double- or triple-tap the button followed by a long press; or, during call scenarios, you long press in response to an incoming call event, or you long press while in a call. These are all compatible with the 5s sleep compromise; ‘pick up call’ and ‘hang up call’ can be reasonably allowed to take 1.9 seconds to be registered as a true long press, if they haven’t already forced the chip awake for responsiveness. Perhaps of more interest to Rockbox, however: during-playback long presses are always preceded by multi-taps, which I assume results in some interesting signal patterns that I don’t see explored by this writeup.