anfilt

Well I will say if your running servers hit billions of times per day. Offloading processing to the client when safe to do so starts make sense financially. Google does not have to pay for your CPU or storage usage ect...

Also I will say if said overhead is not too much it's not that bad of a thing.

Yea I was joking. If they liked the font they should have hosted it.

not the OP, but zero dependencies is possible. Also zero dependencies has and can mean things a little differently depending on the context. Like your OS is a dependency. It is possible to have an application that does need an OS, yes and they exist. If a programming language is a dependency it's possible to write your own ect... Although generally people draw the line somewhere at something that is a common denominator for some environment.

Looking at the page it seems to more target towards library writers, if you draw the line at the programming language it's certainly possible to write useful libraries with no dependencies.

lol, should have made their own typeface then.

Glad you did! Nice read as well.

Related here is someone making paint that can get cooler than ambient temperature. https://youtu.be/dNs_kNilSjk?feature=shared

Weight of paint depends a lot on the pigment. Some pigments are pretty dense a lot pigments are various types earth or metal oxides. Think like iron oxide (a dark red or brownish yellow) there are even heavier pigments. Organic pigments tend be lighter. Titanium dioxide is a very common pigment though since it is the main white pigment used for paint these days. If you have felt weight of titanium white vs lead white (only pretty much used for art these days) for instance you can tell the difference.

Then you have some things that are not a pigment per se but are there to help with flow and other things but are not light either like kaolin clay. Also they can be used as filler to make the paint cheaper if used in excess.

Like you would just make your enclosure out of the zinc is what I am thinking. I know satellite dish parts are often made out die cast zinc and those are out in the elements for years. For instance here is an example part made of a zinc casting: https://www.dynacast.com/en-gb/specialty-die-casting/die-cas...

The only thing about metal enclosures is you just need either a connector passed through for your antenna or a channel that your antenna can be potted into like on some cellphones with an aluminum body. Since an antenna in a metal box is umm not going to get much if any signal.

--Edit-- Also you can find lots of old radios before plastic was wide spread in metal enclosures. Although those old devices are not exactly water tight no gaskets or sealant between parts. Unless you look at older military grade units.

Just use metals then. Aluminum is good. If you want cheaper and easily castable/molded like plastic then die cast zinc is great.

Apple is not using any laws here at the moment at least in the US. Jail-breaking got granted an exception from the DMCA by the library of congress. What apple is using cryptography. Basically, the cryptography gives Apple an extralegal means to enforce whatever it wants.

Also side note: I suggest you read this post/response I posted a while a ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39349288

Well I wish this was the case as well. Most developers writing apps are making them a for a company/employer. Try to telling whoever you work for to ignore iOS for moral/ethical reasons. Companies and even independent devs are just trying to make money. Also if a company or dev says no I am not going to jump through your crazy hoops Apple. Apple is not going to care some other company or dev will. It won't really effect apples bottom line much if at all. Entities publishing apps are a disparate group there is no coordination, Apple a single entity that also has the private cryptographic keys for these horribly locked down devices. So apple basically holds all the cards here when dealing with a non-coordinated of people and companies making apps. The only way Apple would care is you could some how basically get almost everyone to boycott making Apple apps.

It also does not help that most users don't understand that the way the device is locked down really limits their ability to truly own their device. Even those that have some understanding of how apple is basically infringing on the owners right of exclusion by not letting them load their own boot ROM and/or OS keys to sign OSes/apps themselves or sideload. Some how think that this being prevented is a good thing cause "security". Like what? You can't trust yourself, but will trust Apple okay then...

Concrete is pretty cheap. Lumber for framing is cheap. However, sheathing is not super cheap, but not that expensive. Siding though is not cheap even vinyl which I am not a fan of is not exactly cheap either. So not needing sheathing or siding for the exterior of the wall probably make it cheaper. So it probably would be somewhat cheaper than a conventionally framed wall. I don't know how much, but where I live 1 cubic yard of concrete is $145 dollars.

If it was 1 story house of that size less than week to get it framed from a decent crew. The pictured house here was a single story house. Also this 3d print for multi-story building would probably not be much faster since unless both the first and second floor shared the same interior wall layout they would have to stop and make a floor for the interior of the second floor. Plus the weight of concrete means those second floor interior walls would be conventional framed anyways. Unless you want to make the floor extremely expensive to carry that kind of load...

This basically just doing the walls in 18 hours. A framing crew could frame a conventional wall in about the same amount of time. This does nothing about the rest of finishing work.

Yea honestly this is very similar to a building built from CMU and not adding siding or interior furring strips for drywall on a CMU build. Honestly, walls are one the faster things in building anyways. It's all the other finishing work where all the time is spent.

The size of that house in the pictures a good framing crew could frame that house in about 2 days. Framing is one the fastest parts in construction. Finishing is where all the other time is spent. Even a small crew would not take too long to frame a house that size.

The thing is a conventional framed walls go up just as fast, all the other finishing in both styles of building is where all the time is spent. In that video they still are using conventional trusses as well. If you have ever driven by a building site after the foundation is poured and dried. Then drive by in the next day or two often you see pretty much all the walls are framed and standing sometimes even have all their sheathing on the walls. It's the finish work and all the small details where all the time is spent.

Looking at the picture on that article. I have seen people conventional frame a house that size in 2 days. So basically as fast. The thing with these 3d printed houses is it does nothing about the finishing work. That is where most the time is spent in construction. Those floors, doors, trim, electrical, plumbing, the painted ceiling, the roof, flashing windows and doors, the landscaping ect... in that 3d printed house took much longer than 18 hours. Framing is one the fastest stages in building a house. So you just make walls slightly faster it's not going to really speed up building a house overall.

Like sure in these in pictures they forgo siding and drywall. But I will tell you inside the texture of that wall is going to collect dirt and dust overtime, and not everyone is gonna want a bumpy wall like that in every room. So avoiding some interior finish work like dry walling is not a given. Overall this does not speed up construction that much.

Oh the irony lol.

It's a little lower level than what you have, but you may find somethings interesting here: https://github.com/Keith-Cancel/Bunki

Despite how verbose it is, I honestly like working with VHDL more than Verilog.

Bunki, a C Coroutine library https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35133095

I honestly like stackful coroutines if you don’t mind allocating memory for a stack.

https://github.com/Keith-Cancel/Bunki

In theory it should, but most common people probably would never try anyways. Also on lot those devices if you open them up there are probably some JTAG pins somewhere that can let you do a lot and even change things if you wanted. Not a lot a devices are locked down to the extent of iDevice.

The chips Apple makes has fuses they blow inside the chip that prevent it booting/running unsigned code. You can't load your own keys or anything unless you have apples private key or get them somehow to sign some software for you.

A lot micros do have fuses that are similar to prevent firmware from being dumped to protect IP, but when you talk to such devices via like JTAG you can often still tell it load code from external memory and such and not from ROM. This of course depends on the chip, but in my experience most the time it's not as insanely locked down as apple does.

--EDIT-- Like if you look here on this wiki article on JTAG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTAG#Connectors

You can see two pictures of some netgear products that have JTAG pins that you can connect to that then let you take control of the device with. This how you have to some times load alternative firmware on some Routers and such. If people didn't do this projects like OpenWrt would not exist. Although, for a lot routers you don't have to connect to jtag pins directly.

I would say most people don't realize that some of their property rights are being violated. How many people let alone common people would even try run code without an OS on an iDevice which is what you need to be able to do to run an other OS. They don't realize at a base level some their rights for property they bought have been locked down behind cryptography, and thus instead under control of apple.

The thing is the boot rom does not need to shipped like this. Apple does have such devices that even they loan out to security researchers https://security.apple.com/research-device/.

The only difference between that device and one they sell is some eFuses on the chip have not been blown yet (oh and some software to make poking around easier, but that's besides the point here). What I find crazy is apple only loans such devices out because they don't want to sell any hardware where they don't effectively reserve the right of exclusion.

The thing is via Asahi Linux you could use it to boot a modified version of MacOS that would allow sideloading in this scenario. The ability for you to still do that is there even if more difficult.

A full locked down boot rom takes that right away altogether unless you can find a bug in the process to jail break it.

This is why locked down hardware is such a problem in my honest opinion.

My point being apple should not have the right of exclusion after they sell the hardware. The owner should. Apple does not have to make the OS easy to side load on because modern copyright is it's own mess. If the boot rom is completely locked down they are violating your property rights.

Further if the owner has access to the keys of their boot ROM they still have ultimate say. Now to take full advantage of that it may not be easy since it's low level code, but you could still take advantage of code some else wrote in such an instance, and considering how popular apple devices someone probably will.

Heck jail breaks exist and a lot people applying them never have written such code themselves. They just want to get out the box apple put them in to customize things and install other software.

A huge problem is the DMA falls short in addressing a significant violation of property rights concerning the hardware.

At the core of property ownership lies the right of exclusion – the ability to exclude or include something on one's personal property. This right is quite important and can even be used to derive most other property rights; please see the linked paper at the bottom. However, Apple's policies with iDevices violate this fundamental right by controlling what software can run on the device, even before someones does anything with their device they bought. They do this not via legal means but by using cryptography to reserve the right of exclusion for themselves (they claim its for your security though...). Part of the problem is when someone sells something that in most cases that means a complete transfer of all property rights to the buyer, but Apple is preventing that via extralegal means.

Consider this scenario: you purchase a new iPhone with the intention of not even using iOS and installing something like Linux. However, Apple's control over the boot-ROM prevents the hardware from booting any unsigned code without even opening the box. This gives Apple the ability to exclude or allow software to run on a device they no longer own. The thing is, Apple legally does not have the right of exclusion, but only reserves it via cryptography. This effectively restricts the exercise of your own property rights since you no longer can fully choose what to include or exclude from execution on that ARM processor you own. The fact that this control persists post-sale demonstrates a blatant infringement on individual property rights from Apple.

In summary, Apple is intruding upon individuals' personal property rights, notably the right of exclusion. Through the use of cryptography after purchase, Apple retains the right of exclusion which lets them determine which software can and can not operate on a device they no longer own.

For a more in-depth exploration of the right of exclusion, I highly recommend reading the paper titled "Property and the Right to Exclude" [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf].

Yea but if the costs of accident exceed that bond you still have to cover it if your at fault.

Plus most medical expenses quickly will exceed those bond values these days. Maybe decades ago if you had a lot money to just set aside getting no interest on it it may have made sense.

However the costs of medical and even cars today make it quite a risky proposition

The link I posted clearly states it's a loan/lease. Sure apple does not charge for it. It's still has terms though.

As for thinking not locking bootrom takes choices away that is false. Apple could ship the device without the eFuses being blown yet. Then give you choice to blow those to permanently/irreversible lock the device down to only software signed by Apple or some set of keys of your choice. These loaned security devices are just that these eFuses have not been blown yet and some additional software to get started poking around a little easier, but that software is not necessary in the general case.

Anyways I will just repost this and I also recommend reading the linked legal article:

Also you should be able run unsigned code on hardware you own if you want. One tenant of property ownership is the right of exclusion. Normally you would be able to choose what software to run or not run, but in this instance apple also has a say and they can say nope not that.

Here is the rub, normally when you sell something all rights are transferred, by the sale. If you wished to reserve rights it generally would require a contract/lease ect... However, apple here is using cryptography to effectively reserve the right of exclusion regarding what software can and can not run on that ARM core. The problem is you can go right now buy a iPhone and without even opening the box and agreeing to anything Apple has effectively already kept that right from you. Let me explain.

Let's say you did not want to use any of Apples software and install Linux on your phone. Apple still has the keys to the boot-ROM. The hardware will not boot any code not signed by apple. Here's the rub apple sold you the device which should have transferred all rights of that device. However, even after that sale Apple is maintaining the right to exclude software from executing on hardware they no longer own. This should be illegal, but they get away with some how probably because most people don't understand fully what's going on here.

In essence, Apple is encroaching upon individuals' personal property rights, particularly the right of exclusion. By employing cryptography post-sale, Apple effectively reserves the right to control what software can run on a device they no longer officially own.

For a more in-depth exploration of the right of exclusion, I highly recommend reading the paper titled "Property and the Right to Exclude" [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf]

in particular the section "A. The Logical Primacy of the Right to Exclude"

You should be able to unlock the boot rom on hardware you own.

Apple here does not even want to sell a device that would allow you have full ownership.

They will only lease a device with quite a few restrictions if you look at the terms. Moreover only if your “security researcher” it’s freaking insane.

In a sane world this program would not even be needed since if apple did not interfere you could unlock the boot rom yourself