metaphor

> I have a decent pressure gauge that I got for $25, so I feel I can be reasonably accurate.

Such a false sense of confidence for a product[1] whose actual performance specs aren't properly published. And it isn't just Longacre playing this game.

If you're in the recreational motorsports scene, you've probably noticed what I'm referring to. If you're an engineer in the same, it probably has driven you nuts. I'm not even talking about full NIST traceability (although if a serious customer wants that and is willing to pay, it shouldn't be an issue...good luck with that) but just a really basic warm and fuzzy.

Intercomp[2] pulls the "Certified Accuracy" bullshit marketing wank, but doesn't even specify the overarching standard that their products are certified against.

Joes Racing[3] labels their analog "Pro" model as "ANSI grade B40.1", but if you've actually read ASME B40.1 proper (currently published in ASME B40.100-2005, which contains 5 related standards including B40.7 for digital gauges), you'd know that's bullshit marketing wank...for all anyone knows, they're selling pseudo-Grade D chinesium trash at a premium price point.

Pick any consumer-grade product and you'll discover the same pattern.

The only markets I've seen any semblance of meaningful published specifications with respect to pressure gauges are industrial and scientific/metrology. Of course, the typical players in those markets aren't nearly as naive.

[1] http://www.longacreracing.com/products.aspx?itemid=1716&prod...

[2] https://www.intercompracing.com/documents/Literature/7005110...

[3] https://www.joesracing.com/product/joes-pro-tire-gauges/

> Your employer... It also lobbies for damaging policies.

To be sure, jlivingood isn't just some enterprise grunt with an opinion, but VP of Technology Policy & Standards.

Oh yes, hand-waving "The Metrics". What do they say about how often and the speed in which reader view was enabled?

I don't follow your logic.

The description "from the horrific consequences of atomic bombs dropped on Japan" is written and reads as nonessential, meaning it goes without saying but is nevertheless helpful in qualifying how "scientists now knew" within context of the article's chronological prose.

I understood the parent's remark as rejecting this factual inaccuracy.

By submitting a DMCA counter notice, you're legally signaling the claimant...it's definitely not just for GitHub's internal records.

To rub salt into the wound, even dues-paying regular members aren't immune to such ridiculous ad bombardment.

> ...there is nothing to lose in challenging the complaint.

Are you sure? See GitHub's DMCA counter notice policy[1], specifically, item 3:

> Provide your contact information. Include your email address, name, telephone number, and physical address.

In other words, without paying to retain legal counsel, this guy would have to expose his personal identifiable information (surrendering anonymity) to an unethical, ruthless pack of legal professionals to restore the repo and live with the looming threat of all sorts of perfectly legal harassment.

[1] https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submi...

WT actual F??

From GitHub's policy on submitting a DMCA takedown notice[1] on what the complaint must contain:

> (7) Include the following statement: "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into consideration."

> (8) Also include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

The claimed "original content" (preloaded programs for a fx-FD10 Pro) cited in the takedown notice[2] isn't even remotely relevant to the physical host that the hack targets (a fx-991MS). After watching the 11 min video and without even looking at the repo contents, it's so obvious that REACT couldn't possibly have submitted this DMCA takedown notice "in good faith" given the standalone hack has absolutely nothing to do with the target host's firmware/software--or anything published on Casio's website--to begin with!

So "under penalty of perjury", React is exploiting how GitHub passively handles these DMCA takedown notices...I mean seriously, an irrelevant download link that clearly wasn't reviewed by anything that constitutes human intelligence can nerf an entire repo?? Unfortunately, this has been the meta for as long as I can remember and this pragmatically non-existent qualifying bar is just 1 reason why I don't play on GitHub.

But the part I find to be the most egregious that it appears no one is really talking about? To defend himself, this guy has to satisfy GitHub's counter notice policy[3], in particular:

> (3) Provide your contact information. Include your email address, name, telephone number, and physical address.

The policy doesn't even require explaining to GitHub why the takedown is bullshit; it's just to signal the other side that you're willing to defend the thing under scrutiny against further legal action. The guy already pulled the counter notice trigger, but without dedicated legal representation and/or the public media on your side, it's difficult for any 1 dood in the capacity of private citizen to expose personal identifiable information and embrace the threat of a legal harassment campaign by an organization of legal professionals. React knows they don't have anything, but if the victim doesn't have balls + legal counsel + disposable income, the gambit is that they really won't need anything either.

[1] https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submi...

[2] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-2...

[3] https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submi...

It's B2B in a commodity market where competition abounds. Manufacturers like Mazda, Hyundai, etc. don't have crew cab trucks in their lineup, so is doesn't make sense that a corporation would choose to sign a contract in good faith with a manufacturer that "forces" unwanted liability on its books in exchange for volume if executives of the former didn't perceive overall net outcome as favorable.

Precisely why this dark pattern is so common.

I don't know man...I mean $1,201 is lot of presidents just waiting to be put to work! That's like downpayment on a practically new set of wheels and enough herb to last until facebook says the unemployment website is fixed. Might not have another global panedemic like this ever again, and as the old saying goes: you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Opportunity's callin' my name!

Jokes aside, people who live life along this asymptotic approach are real, where the only conditional that registers is, "the current number in my bank account is still bigger than the number on this bill...which is completely optional 'cause repo ain't gonna find me this time, ha!"

> Yes interest rates are low right now, but does it make sense to buy a depreciating asset and increase your monthly interest costs at this point in time?

At what point do you suspect the "vast majority of Americans"--who apparently can't afford to purchase a 10yo used car outright--start genuinely contemplating the financial impact of asset depreciation and overbearing interest in a strategic manner before signing a purchase agreement...you know, the one with all those legal words for lawyers and such? Call me impractical but...$1,201 just chillin' in the bank, yo!

> All this to say, at the pricing I've seen there is very little reason for someone renting a car to choose to rent a compact.

I can think of roughly 2 MM possible reasons[1] in conjunction with 1 regulatory constraint[2] that might suggest an investment in a fleet of compacts may not have been an entirely reckless business decision at the time...not that I would have swallowed that pill myself...just saying.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...

[2] https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/Docs/perdiem/JTR.pdf Ref. § 020209

A courtesy HN response and 3 self-service pointers is the limit of my generosity...for everything else, find a charity.

For starters, 240VAC input represented by what appears to be a vanilla barrel jack; PCB relay module that doesn't look like it'd come close to meeting clearance, creepage, etc requirements expected of such applications; wiring represented as discrete point-to-point while completely ignoring the importance of gauge, insulation rating, etc. I just hope an ignorant passerby doesn't try to hack this up with speaker wire and arbitrary AliExpress relay module thinking the relays are rated for 240VAC so it must be OK (when everything else wasn't designed for such high voltage application).

Completely aware of the enterprise implication, but it's somewhat of a disappoint that with all that peripheral support, they could have at least dropped a courtesy single link DVI-I interface instead. It just smells like a decision driven to explicitly avoid paying out licensing royalties.

Thanks for pointing out that missed detail on my part.

First impression was single onboard VGA output and DE-9 serial port...typical enterprise.

Second impression was damn does that first socket look like a peripheral hog.

EDIT: Removed remark that erroneously referenced this comment[1] as a 2U chassis being applicable to the motherboard in question.

[1] https://www.anandtech.com/comments/15783/the-supermicro-h11d...

Being audited isn't an explicit accusation that you've violated anything either; at best, it's an implicit suspicion to which the tax authority is fully entitled to probe and we as taxpayers are given reasonable opportunity to corroborate claims.

I don't expect those numbers to be adjusted for the millions of Verizon subscribers who are getting 1 year of Disney+ for free.

> 3: (2000's) - Effective books - (e.g. effective c++, effective java)

The author refers to that as the "2.5 era".

> Using this weird syntax I didn't know was legal: <body vlink="#ff0000" text="#000080" link="#800080" bgcolor="#ffffff">

They're deprecated attributes[1], but back in the 90s before CSS became meta, it was the norm.

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.5.1

> TraffickCam requires access to your location to double check that the photos you submit are actually taken at the hotel you select.

Ask for your thoughtful consideration...then your time of day...then your photos...then your tolerance for batshit ridiculous latency...then your on-the-spot location.

Seriously?

> There is obviously a market for annotations, what stopped LexisNexis from just doing the annotations on it's own initiative and selling the result itself?

Because the annotations angle is a red herring? In the Oyez transcript of oral argument[1], Citron (for the respondent) made what I believe to be a relevant remark disputing the petitioners' assertion that legal annotations would be more expensive:

> One is the actual useful versions of these codes are already plenty expensive. There's a lot of discussion of the cost for a printed volume, but online access, which is what really most practitioners need to use, most people want to use, it's much more expensive than the $400. But, even accepting that the price is lower, I think that favors us, because what's going on there is an exchange of -- you're going to accept a price cap in exchange for the right to publish this officially, not for publishing the annotations, because Westlaw makes the annotations and is allowed to charge six times as much. Lexis isn't going to agree to do the annotation work in exchange for a price cap. What it wants for the price cap is the right to publish it officially.

As I understand the game being played prior to this decision (to be sure, IANAL): although annotations undoubtedly have market value, the market (for liability and other reasons) will nevertheless tend towards official sources, and if you're the official publisher granted monopoly, who cares if the thing being sold has a price cap ($?) when the subscription to the service that provides access to said official thing won't ($$!)...and even if said subscription cost was pragmatically constrained by market forces, the dragnet scales from typical legal/government/academic players in the arena to capturing a proverbial crap ton of otherwise unmarketable endusers on the receiving end of the law ($$$!) while taking share away from direct competitors ($$$$!!). Then make a free, unofficial version available in an attempt to pacify public dissent, but seed a mandatory disclaimer that it may contain errors, so anyone with skin in the game who can pony up will be compelled to do so.

[1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1150

Surprised no cite to the oral argument on Oyez in current discussion: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1150

Now extend Tokyo an ounce of consideration in this context.

> How many flights does NYC receive per day?

Looking at 2019 passenger statistics for the big 3:

  JFK[1] = 62.6 MM
  LGA[2] = 31.1 MM
  EWR[3] = 46.3 MM
  Total  = 140.0 MM

> How many does Seattle receive?

Equivalent 2019 metric for SEA[4] puts it at 51.8 MM.

So as a ballpark measure, greater NYC process 3x more than SEA.

The CDC[5] reports ~13k cases in WA, whereas NY alone is at ~267k cases; add another ~102k for nearby NJ.

Extending the benefit of the doubt, that's ~20x positive incident for 3x flight activity. Even if we pretend that WA is under-reporting by a factor of 2, and half of NY cases are false positive, the argument still falls flat on its face...keep in mind, NJ isn't even being accounted for in this thought experiment.

[1] https://www.panynj.gov/content/dam/airports/statistics/stati...

[2] https://www.panynj.gov/content/dam/airports/statistics/stati...

[3] https://www.panynj.gov/content/dam/airports/statistics/stati...

[4] https://www.portseattle.org/page/airport-statistics

[5] https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html

> ...I'd rather not contribute to the pile if I can help it.

Predictively on point[1]:

> We fucking hate micromanaging Ivy League grads who are too scared to take initiative and possibly make mistakes.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22987935

Euphemism for when you don't see output pins transition state on a measuring instrument, e.g. oscope.

This. When npr.org has more timely, relevant information than congress.gov--e.g. S.3548[1] wholesale pivots to H.R.748[2] with significant changes incorporated, and the latter isn't updated until days later--it leaves much for the general public to desire.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/354...

[2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748