initplus

Building attestation into hardware sounds like a good idea in theory, but doesn't actually work. All it tells you is "this is what the camera saw", it doesn't actually tell you that what the camera saw was real. You can just point your camera at a high resolution screen playing a doctored video, and so sign whatever doctored content you like. Or take a video of a real faked scene with actors.

I don’t have the numbers, but at least for Iridium the data service is basically an afterthought. They allocated so much of their bandwidth to voice (using older insufficient voice codecs no less) and are now essentially locked in to a suboptimal bandwidth allocation. They must didn’t realise the importance of data when originally designing their hardware. And hardware in space is expensive to change.

Downlink is internal to the sat provider, and will just send messages on to you over the ordinary internet.

This product is targeted at actual users of "IoT", think remote monitoring in remote locations. Not "smart microwave" style IoT.

Not sure there is any automatic solution for compression here. If you know your own use case you are in the best position to choose where to sacrifice accuracy with a lossy compression scheme. But this relies on understanding of the accuracy of the input data, possible ranges of values, importance of accuracy in different fields etc. Not sure how an automated algorithm could take these real world constraints into account.

A clever compression algo can't help you if you try compress 4 doubles, but in reality you only needed byte precision on some fixed 0-100% range.

ADS-B is essentially mandatory nowadays, but it's just a radio that transmits location to others in the same local area. Get enough volunteers with receivers spread throughout the world and you do get real time location tracking of every aircraft. See https://www.adsbexchange.com/

For use cases of this product you will be packing much tighter than this.

You get terminal identification from the carrier, no need to waste precious packet space on identifiers. And it's probably also a waste to encode field names into your packet - just record fields at the same offset every time. If 16 bits of precision is enough for you (it likely is) you can squeeze 16 metrics (or 16 time series recordings of the same metric) into every packet.

Your hardware can record many datapoints, and bundle them up together into one packet for transmission in one big bundle. If you are reading a float off a sensor, you can get nearly 1 data point per minute, transmitted hourly, with a very naive implementation.

Much more with compression specialized to your use case and clever packet design.

High. At least if it's anything like Iridium, probably seconds to minutes depending on coverage. Really not designed to be used like general purpose networking.

Remote communication in places without cellular connectivity. Air quality, water quality, remote weather stations, aviation, industrial applications... Latency anywhere from a few seconds to minutes. Not used like normal networking, it's something you build around for very specialized applications.

I don't have numbers in front of me but it looks waaay cheaper. Seems they are trying to undercut Iridium SBD on price.

Honestly Haskell's tooling is really surprisingly good these days. It works fine cross platform, there is a single "blessed" path without too many options to spend time agonizing over.

Today the Haskell example is just `cabal install --only-dependencies && cabal build`.

On this friendship example, I think already FP is showing you something useful about the way you are designing your model.

A friendship is really an edge in a graph. if you manage friendships by recording a collection of friend PersonId's on each person, you are modelling a graph by recording the same edge in two different places, and then hoping the programmer is diligent enough to never make a mistake and update the edge in one place but not the other. If you model the friendship graph as a collection of id pairs, not encapsulated inside a specific person structure, this invalid state is no longer possible.

I'm not sure what you are on about regarding making transitive updates - that idea is obviously not going to work on any moderately sized network. Imagine if Facebook tried to record all your transitive friendships on your account!

Sure immutability is non-intuitive, but it's really helpful! Like borrow checking in Rust, immutability helps eliminate an entire class of bugs. And immutable code is often much easier to reason about, you need to keep significantly less of the context in your head.

For journalists it's not basically part of your job, it often literally is! Many media organisations require their reporters to maintain an active online professional presence on Twitter.

They also will know your IMEI the moment you connect to the cell network.

C arrays are just sugar for pointer arithmetic. [] just calculates the sum and deferences the result.

arr[n] == *(arr + n) == n[arr]

All these forms are valid C and gcc will happily compile them all without complaining.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the license is viral (conditions imposed on user A still apply when A passes the software to B) or it's not.

If you license your code to anyone under the Apache License, that person is then free to redistribute the code under the terms granted by the Apache License, which is obviously missing this $1,000,000 revenue restriction.

Those projects aren't unprofitable because production costs are too high. The projects are unprofitable & failing because Facebook is struggling to execute on their grand plans, and are having their traditional core business eaten by a more nimble upstart competitor (TikTok).

I'm sure FB would love to be able to spend 2x on salaries if it came with a guarantee of turning the metaverse into a successful business venture, or of grabbing all the attention hours currently flowing to TikTok.

The analysis of him doing better in broadcast/non-broadcast games was flawed, the analysis mis-categorized several of the tournaments in a way that made the conclusion stronger.

It's at a point now where the instability of the local currency is ingrained in a whole generation of Argentinians. Unwinding that psychology is not easy, regardless of monetary policy.

Every more "developed" country went through real hardship attempting to control their exchange rates, always there were strong short term reasons to keep the controls in place. But it's just not viable in the long run. Controls create an artificial situation where the politically well connected benefit. They gain personal access to favorable rates, or their businesses enjoy unfair protection through the manipulated rates.

But during that time period people (wisely) saw that currency controls were still on the table in the future, and acted as such. The fact that they the controls are expected to return has a chilling effect.

When you remove currency controls you need to convince the public that in fact they controls are gone for good and never coming back. Such a thing was done in my home country in the mid 80s, and we have had a much more stable currency and economy since.

If you bought them before October 2020, they qualify for the recall program and should be replaced for free. If you complain loudly enough maybe they will replace them for free anyway even if not covered (did so for mine).

I'm not asserting that it's guaranteed to be true. But the evidence that exists is not sufficient to draw a certain conclusion either way. If the market were a superspreader event or indeed the true origin, the facts before us today would look identical.

Make no mistake, the issue is in no way resolved on new manufactured 1st gen pros. New manufactured stock are more likely to be covered by the original purchase warranty and so there is less pressure on Apple to extend support.

I recently had my pre-Oct 2020 pros replaced with new manufactured stock under this support program. Within less than a month the replacements developed the same sound issues, supported by Apple's diagnosis and another free replacement.

I don't think I use them in an unusual way - I don't even wear them during exercise. There is just something inherently flawed in the design that causes the sound quality to subtly degrade by a significant amount.

I used to think like this, but on closer inspection I realized that you create more waste/polution on every trip to the grocery store, or by driving a car for a week, or eating meat. Yes it's a shame that they are designed not to be repairable but there are so many more low hanging fruit in our everyday lives that we don't think about when it comes to environmental issues.

Judging a headphone by specific codec support just doesn't make sense. Support for acoustically transparent codecs is good enough. Nobody has every demonstrated an ability to reliably distinguish high bitrate mp3 or AAC from lossless.

There are still benefits to lossless from a preservation perspective, but for actually listening to music it really doesn't matter.

Apple has covered these sound issues for me, every time they have apparently diagnosed that the issue matches my complaint. But I've had to make 5 warranty claims for this in just over 2 years of ownership! I have only made 8 warranty claims ever in my life, over 60% of my lifetime warranty claims have been for one airpods pro purchase!

Something is seriously up with the design of the original pros. I hope these issues have been resolved for 2nd gen.

It's not firmware - the issue develops very gradually rather than all at once. This is part of what makes it such an insidious fault, like the boiling frog analogy.

This is only evidence of Daszak/EcoHealth being unethical. I doubt he has access to a secret "smoking gun" conclusively proving lab leak vs zoonotic.

If there is a chance you are responsible, why not cover it up and muddy the waters, just in case?

Daszak acted unethically regardless of the actual truth of the lab leak hypothesis.

His actions were a self serving attempt to muddy the waters on investigation of the virus origin, and may have prevented conclusive proof one way or the other from ever emerging. I doubt Daszak himself knows for sure. But if there is a risk that you are responsible, why not try cover it up anyway. Just in case?

Same reasoning goes for the Chinese government.

The market is still involved lab leak hypothesis or not. The market may still be the place where the earliest animal-human crossover occurred, even if the lab leak hypothesis is correct.

Say a group of animals intended to be euthanized were actually clandestinely sold at the market, it's completely reasonable that the virus could have mutated at the lab in the animal population before being transmitted to humans. In fact, this is literally exactly what occurs during gain of function research, when scientists are explicitly trying to get a virus to mutate in live animals.

There is simply not any hard evidence to concretely prove either hypothesis. Any evidence that points to the market can just as easily be involved in a lab leak scenario.

When you have no comprehensive data on transmission, and no audit trail of how the animals arrived at the market, it's not possible to determine origin from super spreader. The evidence for both would look identical!