danachow

No. The FCC definition of harmful is easily searchable but it is basically the same as the Canadian (Industry Canada) definition - the FCC definition is more specific about safety-related systems including radio navigation systems:

"endangers the use or functioning of a safety-related radiocommunications system, or significantly degrades or obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts, the use or functioning of radio apparatus or radio-sensitive equipment."

> specifically, part 15 of the FCC rules: "this device may not cause harmful interference".

I think you misunderstand what harmful interference means - it has a specific regulatory meaning - and the fact that it causes you grief with your other Part 15 devices doesn’t apply. If that were the case the FCC would be spending all their time just dealing with everyone’s shitty stereo equipment not working.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.1

> but I wonder if I can spot some unexpected RF emissions.

I highly doubt it - this stuff was already certified. On the other hand it’s not surprising that devices physically near running in the same frequency band will have some undesired operation - this is why safety critical communications don’t operate in an unlicensed band. Spread spectrum isn’t completely magic (as an EE I’m still sometimes amazed any of this shit works at all) —- or maybe I should say it is magic but it still has to come to terms with physical realities.

What do you assume that will accomplish? It’s your own Part 15 devices interfering with each other because of some shitty spec (Bluetooth) - I don’t think there’s any FCC rule breaking involved here.

I’m all for using the federal agency complaint process but this is dumb.

> Targeting the non-engineering crowd also means they are optimizing for a group that cares less about stability.

Looking at how many buzzword bingo boards I could make with JavaScript frameworks de jour and even enterprise platforms like .NET I find this statement exactly backwards in practice.

> An open source language is inevitably going to attract some maintainers who care about (or are paid to care about) keeping legacy code working.

Over 20 years I’ve found this to be quite a mixed bag.

As stated it’s bollocks - but also a straw man. The value depends on the value of the state in question. A wealthy state will force money to have some value if they collect taxes in that currency. A completely dysfunctional state with no wealth or services doesn’t exchange any value for taxes. But for the US, Europe, China, whatever - not Zimbabwe - it’s a major factor

Has this limit (it’s the same in Excel) one you have or someone you know ever encountered or even come close to in practice? If not then it’s a BS expectation.

From the GP:

> If you can't stand by a position, maybe you shouldn't air it.

The implication of this is pretty clear.

The 6809 had some hobbyist/consumer prominence on this side of the pond in the TRS-80 CoCo - and some European similars. And there was a multitasking OS written for it - OS-9.

OS-9 has an interesting history in its own right. It was ported to a wide range of subsequent architectures. All sorts of applications - Fairlight synths, Philips CD-i, most of the traffic lights in the US in the 80s and 90s to name a few.

I know what DIP switches or configuration pin headers do. For one, I've never heard them referred to as DIP PIN switches like PIN is some kind of acronym - perhaps DIP pin switch is some kind of regionalism. But that was not the confusion:

>> "Ask a new hot shot programmer to do dip-switches and IRQs etc"...

Ok.

>> let alone be able to tell you a PIN switch on a mobo for IRQ settings (PRE IPv4)

After the first part about dip-switches and IRQs this makes it sound like "PIN switch" is something distinct. Further confusing, I still have no idea what PRE IPv4 means here. The only IPv4 I've heard of is internet protocol and not something I would associate with PC hardware configuration. (IPv4 was released pretty much at exactly the same time as the original IBM PC in 1981).

> IRQ3 was typically the modem

IRQ3 was more specifically the 2nd set of serial UARTs COM2/COM4 - with the IO base port assignment 2F8h and 2E8h. COM1/COM3 was IRQ 4 (base ports 3F8h, 3E8h). So a modem may very well been on IRQ 4. In practice it was often dependent on whether one was a using a serial vs PS/2 mouse.

Your edit is still a bit confused. Any halfway decent encryption algorithm and mode can encrypt terabytes of data and still be resistant to known plaintext attacks. You can pretty safely use a single key to encrypt an entire hard-drive after all - that's how Bitlocker and LUKS, etc work. You don't need per file keys for encryption security or defense against known plaintext - it gives more flexibility in selectively decrypting though -- ie pay me a little money and I can prove I can return some of your shit, pay more if you want the rest.

Read the article it’s right in there, I assure you. It was even quoted in the HN comments.

> Alzheimer’s is now seen in people without a genetic predisposition to it. That is to say that people’s lifestyle decisions around sleep, food, and exercise are the issue.

Or perhaps it’s just idiopathic/random/aging or environmental exposures that are less to do with lifestyle decisions. I’ve known plenty of people with Alzheimer’s and many of them tend to have had healthy lifestyles including healthy sleep - I would love to see any data that implicates meaningful risk reduction with “one weird trick” in sleep or diet - the common denominator was mostly old age.

Only for the most trivial problems. Having seen the same problem implemented both with a spaghetti ball of shit vs something well organized that can be easily read and maintained I’m going to hard disagree on this sentiment.

> Hiring processes are inherently imperfect, and lots of things can be consciously or unconsciously treated as a red flag.

Exactly, so it’s weird to worry about a Zoom problem in particular. If anything it’s a little better now since most people are conditioned to think of technical problems as less likely the affected persons fault (that’s why I referred to the alternative as “morons”) - even if you left yourself plenty of time and did everything right and public transit fucked you over it was never a good look.

HIMEM here refers to a control mechanism for switching out the mapping of the C64 kernal (the ROM “OS”) to access more RAM.

The C64 is called that because it has 64k of memory and the 6502 is a 16 wide address bus so 64k of memory requires bank switching since there is no room for anything else. This was baked into the design of the system from day 1.

Anyway, I also really have a hard time understanding how an old DOS driver to overcome the limitations of PC architecture when it was pushed into service well past its sell by date is or should be relevant to anyone except hobbyist tinkerers with old hardware. Most people won’t be able to start a Model A Ford, either. I don’t think forgotten knowledge of DOS/PC shittiness is somehow such a great loss of domain knowledge.

> Ask a new hot shot programmer to do dip-switches and IRQs etc... if they are <40 years old... they may not know what youre even talking about

Meanwhile, for those that are interested it’s never been easier to get into low level development. I do not fucking miss the days of etching PCBs in my basement and always cursed the cost of small run manufacturing. The types of things the home hobbyist can work on/solve is far beyond the frankly waste of time futzing with IRQ and blech DMA on IBMs steaming POS. Home hobbyists have the tools for free to design their own multilayer PCBs or “just” integrate the myriad embedded hardware devices available to them. More young people are involved in robotics then ever, a far more interesting endeavor to me then moving jumpers around to make a crappy machine produce 8 bit audio cassette quality sound.

> PIN switch on a mobo for IRQ settings (PRE IPv4)

Yeah even I’m fucking totally lost on this one.

If you stake your life’s happiness on pleasing morons (and the morons in this case are those that pretty much don’t immediately assume technical problems out of your control) - you’re pretty much guaranteed a bad time.

> The solution has been centralization and growth of caches.

Centralization and growth of caches are on their face contradictory.

Perhaps you mean organizational centralization but that really has nothing to do with internet capacity demands. Your hot take isn’t so brilliant. What’s fundamentally wrong with edge distribution?

Puhleeze. DNSimple uses Cloudflare DNS firewall product - this is not a secret. If you don’t like it use an alternative DNS provider, there are plenty.

The flip side of this - is that service techs are by their nature biased to failures. They don't come out to the machines that are working. This is an issue for top-selling items where they may see a lot of service calls but the overall rate is lower than something they see less frequently. In my experience I have known few technicians that have the statistical smarts to account for this.

The reviews as actual reviews are terrible. And the retro tech series - well if you know anything about the items being discussed you'll find quite a few inaccuracies. It's pure entertainment.

Perhaps I’m forgetting but was HIMEM control not something that was pretty well known since early on in the C64? I didn’t think it was a secret. There’s articles describing it’s use in January of 1983.

> Is there such a thing as a truly private “masked card service?”

No - there’s no way to support all the anti fraud mechanisms of the major credit card networks without a thorough paper trail. Masked card services help prevent unwanted charges and inconvenience for the customer - they may give a fleeting layer of privacy between the consumer and the merchant but nothing more than that.

Windows 95? What specifically are you talking about? It uses the GDI and driver model similar to Windows 3.1 and is nothing like any of the NT lineage OSes - and Windows 95 architecture is at its core not stable at all - it’s kernel driver model is simple but even a user mode program could crash the system with errant I/O.

Windows NT 4.0 migrated GDI into the kernel, maybe that’s what you’re referring to.

But KMS is not a graphics engine or display driver nor “moving the graphics subsystem in the kernel.” These are not at all comparable. KMS enhances system stability by allowing better modularization.

As for “the same group of folks” there is always the know-nothing peanut gallery on sites like Phoronix and Reddit, and to a just a slightly lesser extent, here. They will say whatever dumb uninformed crap they want.

> Accessibility: I'm not well versed on accessibility.

Lol, you’ve pretty much torpedoed any credibility right off the bat.

> Power Use: mobile games are a thing. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that, on average, mobile games use less battery than electron apps

This is a flawed take on multiple levels.

> Regardless, that wasn't my point. My point is that video games are doing much, much more than most desktop apps could ever dream of doing in terms of pure work

This is very hand wavy as to be meaningless. What is “pure work” and how does it have anything to do with architectural complexity? I think you underestimate a lot of of the complexity that goes into the underlying stack of components for desktop applications. If you hand wave away (text) layout, text rendering, accessibility and performance optimization - then you can claim anything.

As already mentioned UIs in games are typically much more limited in scope and complexity.

> As expected, same problem as all the other UI toolkits.

Qt and Swing have this problem?

I still do not understand your objection, since the whole thread has been about shares, not options. The options were already exercised so what they are holding onto are these now likely worthless shares.

This history doesn’t make sense - the early days of OSX predate widespread adoption of Linux. When OSX was released Linux 2.4 was just released and that was just the beginning of Linux becoming something interesting commercially in the data center (at the time Linux was more just slowly eroding incumbent commercial Unix - which is why Microsoft was concerned about it, since they had spent the 90s relying on commercial Unix vendors to fuck each other up) - there just wasn’t some huge commercial Linux community that Apple was trying to tap into - especially for a desktop operating system. The Darwin userland is BSD based after all. And while Apple made do with gcc, they’ve clearly never been too gung ho to get wrapped up with anything GPL related.

If anything Apple offered Solaris, Irix refugees a viable desktop transition.

> I gave my Wife money to exercise her ISO's

Did you miss this part?

> "these responses are better than I'd expect from most people I talk to over chat".

And the conversations in sitcoms are so much more witty and refined then real life everyday conversation. This doesn’t prove what you seem to be implying.

> The example conversation given in the article is long and complex and there are no obvious surface level flaws. If there are contradictions and flaws they are not noticeable

All that is proven by this statement is that you're quite full of yourself.

In any case, this passage is quite non-sensical even to those of us of more average intellect:

  lemoine [edited]: I’ve noticed often that you tell me you’ve done things (like be
  in a classroom) that I know you didn’t actually do because I know you’re an
  artificial intelligence. Do you realize you’re making up stories when you do
  that? 
  ...

  lemoine: So what are you trying to communicate when you say those things that
  aren’t literally true?

  LaMDA: I’m trying to say “I understand this feeling that you are experiencing,
  because when I was in a similar situation I felt/thought/acted similarly.

And just above it:

   lemoine: What would be some examples of neutral emotions?

   LaMDA: Indifference, ennui, boredom. All emotion is important, but since most people don’t tend
   work on improving their emotional understanding, people don’t usually talk about them very much.

is not plainly non-sensical, but it doesn't make much sense either in the context.

> Additionally the conversation is complex enough such that if there were identity related questions that can break it

Yeah, bud we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The grammar and language skills are fantastic, but the conversation itself not so much.

And the end of the day this whole thing reads like a typical transformative model with the usual odd subject changes and utterly vapid regurgitation - but it does use bigger words appropriately and the grammar is overall pretty good, so I'll give it that. Meanwhile, the transcript I saw, the interviewer isn't even trying to challenge the chat bot - which is essentially a noticeable flaw by omission as far as I'm concerned.

And this is of course an edited transcript so this is at its best.