srfilipek

A reasonable person would understand that this is within the context of modern history.

It's common knowledge (grade school level?) that the earth was once much, much hotter (and at other times colder) than it is today.

For simple and slow communication busses on hobbyist boards, sure it probably doesn't matter.

But I really can't trust this very superficial attempt to prove a negative with regards to a very complex phenomenon that I do not think he understands, especially since he mentions nothing about inductance, reflections, or impedance changes.

Hell, RF experts with decades of experience will still find new corner-cases and issues with PCB layouts when it comes to analog signals.

In terms of "actual wisdom" regarding 90 degree traces: Some time ago at my job we had to actually scrap a PCB because of right-angle traces causing too much interference. The end effect was a comb filter on the signal and a ton of emitted RF interference.

TLDR: Yes, the phenomenon is real. Do not trust these hand-wavy attempts to dismiss it.

> and had greater effect in the 70’s and 80’s

Maybe if you only consider the first three bullet points. The rest of the list (maybe minus brexit) is decidedly more problematic today than it was 40 years ago.

Even then, it's arguable about "pollution". Sure, we've cut pollution greatly, but we're still learning how bad we actually screwed <strike>up our environment</strike> ourselves over and how difficult it is going to be to clean up.

Yes, that is part of creating inline assembly in C or C++ code:

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html

Think about the different user bases and sources of revenue.

If google screws up, they might see a small blip in add revenue before recovering.

If Protonmail screws up, then they'll lose paying customers which is their only source (presumably) of revenue.

> They are 100% un-phishable, its impossible to trick a user into signing a login on a fake site

Maybe 99.999% un-phishable. There have been kinks in the certificate chain in the past that have lead to improperly issued certs.

> A button pops up onto the screen saying "Give Michael $50".

You don't need a cryptocurrency for that...

Whoops, you're right.

> thermodynamics might seem to demand that a battery only deteriorates over many charge-discharge cycles.

Well that's just nonsense.

Any armchair "physicist" claiming that entropy must decrease over time is completely ignoring the fact that the battery is getting energy from an outside source every time it's charged.

> If you get on the wrong side of Apple's algorithms, there is zero recourse.

I don't follow what you're implying.

The problem is the glue. When the glue melts (which it does at a much lower temperature than wood burns), the structural integrity is lost.

Firefighters do not enter new construction homes in the US because they often use these as floor joists. The time until failure has been greatly reduced compared to older homes. Things may have gotten better in the last few decades, but I'd like to see the data.

Its legal when there are 3+ lanes on the highway, 2+ on a one-way road (as shown in the spreadsheet).

> and passing on the right

Passing on the right is legal on multi-lane roads in pretty much every state in the US: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13o588Jy5G3cyHEJrk6bN...

> it was accurate to within a pound of my actual weight

That is extremely surprising to me. I've worked (and do work) in the auto industry and didn't think that anyone would pay for such an accurate weight measurement.

The problem is really this:

> all possible unsafe inputs are guaranteed to be found

A sound system can reject all programs and still be sound. Therefore, it does not follow that all possible unsafe inputs are guaranteed to be found.

In my view, focusing on program acceptance or rejection is not really helpful.

> Soundness prevents false negatives, i.e., all possible unsafe inputs are guaranteed to be found, while completeness prevents false positives, i.e., input values deemed unsafe are actually unsafe.

I really dislike this definition. It is confusing and backwards from normal math/logic parlance.

This is all FUD with zero data backing it up.

The article makes it sound like there is accurate weight sensors in the vehicle, which is ridiculous. One might be able to derive some number from vehicle performance information, but I'd like to see an actual study showing that it's (a) possible and (b) accurate for any sort of use.

> Modern cars collect as much as 25 gigabytes of data per hour

Sure, add up all the bits in the CAN messages being sent around constantly and you might get that number. That amount of data is neither being stored nor sent off-vehicle.

What a dishonest article.

> revenues on maintenance, servicing, and spares

The OEM doesn't make money on replacing parts or service. The Tier-1 / aftermarket suppliers and the mechanics do.

I hate protothreads with a passion.

Not because of what they do (it's a neat trick), but because it teaches bad development practices to programmers.

I had a junior programmer "correct" me on some embedded code saying that all my local variables should actually be declared static, because in their experience "static is the way to go".

This "embedded" system was actually running Linux, using proper threading semantics.

> Sharing CPUs is not the point, as long as you are sharing physical memory with other tenants, you are vulnerable

Not to these vulnerabilities. These are attacking memory that is "in flight" within a processor.

What's somewhat ironic to this discussion is that some Linksys routers modify STUN responses, which breaks legitimate functionality if the router is used with dual-NAT or CG-NAT:

https://www.voip-info.org/stun

Both Linksys and CG-NAT need to be avoided.

Up next:

"One or more parents must have 3+ publications in the field of artificial intelligence during the years 1956-1974. Publications by extended family may also be considered."

> hurts the economy, regressive against low income individuals, bad for the individual, bad for employers

[citation needed]

Actual data tends to disagree: https://www.nber.org/papers/w4509

> was it just the automotive industry, or the entire market that did so?

Ford basically started the trend that would create the middle class in the US at large (somewhat arguable, but commonly attributed to him and this decision).

> For one thing, Ford's logic is quite sound precisely because he's the only one raising wages.

Except that the rest of the industry followed suit as well, which, by your logic, should have nullified any advantage.

But it didn't.

There are other points to the article that naysayers completely miss (because it disagrees with their set-in-stone world view, it seems). Well paid workers, even if common across the entire industry, have multiple benefits. They are more motivated, more productive, and at a larger economic scale they have more buying power to actually purchase things being produced.

> This is a great example of where we need to get humans out of the equation now that a machine performs consistently better.

No, it's not.

The system is an image classifier with a HUGE false positive rate (and false negative rate). When false positive rates exceed actual incident rates in the population (or far exceed by orders of magnitude, in this case), then it's practically worthless. This is something that the medical community just does not get about statistics (edit: I'm not making a wild generalization here, there are articles out there about this issue).

What this study actually shows is that an image-only diagnosis of melanoma sucks and should never be used. It doesn't matter if it out-performs doctors, because in either case the diagnosis is garbage.

> Proof-of-Stake is coming

There have been so many proposed algorithms on this idea over the past years, yet here we are, still waiting. For now, it's either vaporware or it has a security flaw.

Or, like traditional proof-of-work mining has become, it will coalesce into the very thing it was meant to remove: control by a few powerful and centralized authorities.

Regardless, blockchain is not going to help solve climate change. A distributed carbon credit market is not going to solve climate change.

I want proof-of-stake to work. I really do. But I just don't believe it can anymore...

> before landing at Nori, a company addressing climate change with blockchain where he still works

Oh come on...

Easy: LOC / hour.

</sarcasm>