tliltocatl

If I'm reading it correctly, the top comment is arguing that having electronic payments run by for-profit entities adds no value. Not that electronic payments are useless, rather that these should be a state-run service. Which is one way to solve this I guess (not that it will help moral policing stuff much, but at least no more robbing poor Paul to reward rich Peter).

Nobody is claiming payment cards adds no value, that'd be absurd. But their cashback programs and other bullshit (see recent itch.io/Steam moral policing story) certainly adds no value.

Fun fact: being able to run garbage-collected languages (i. e. Lisp) was one of original motivations for adopting demand paging.

Not sure why author does it, but I use C over C++ for one reason: I'd rather not have random hidden malloc() scattered in my code. And no, it's not about latency or performance. Once my code takes an yet unexplored part and runs out of 200kB RAM, the will be no way for me to learn about it - running out of memory will bring down both the logger and the radio link, which is the only way to get the logs from a sensor installed twenty meters above ground in a hazardous environment facility. C may be unsafe, but most errors short of "writing to a random memory area" are either well-contained or at least reproducible. Dynamic memory allocation means that anything may crash everything. Manageable if you have a MMU and can contain crashes within isolated heap, but if not - I'd rather not bother. And yea, you can write zero-allocation C++ code, but why bother if most of STL is now unusable? And you get some new and exciting UB modes (seriously, no union aliasing, what the heck?)

Also, template metaprogramming is way more arcane than C macros. And I need compile-time metaprogramming in leu of dynamic allocation. So C macros it is for now (Zig is promising but still not there yet).

The problem is histological compatibility, i. e. not getting it ruined by the recipient's immune system. The TFA was very lucky having apparently 100% compatibility.

> stability wins

Stability sucks. Instability sucks even more when you are in the middle of it, but it is transient. Stability is forever, until it suddenly isn't.

Comptime here means not "compilation time", but rather ability to run some your code during compilation (i. e. compile-time metaprogramming). Pascal didn't had this.

Abuse reports aren't even done by users. That's a classical externality.

WTF? Government buildings is about the only place these should NOT be banned.

Yes, but enough to run a text editor, or even a mechanical CAD. Not an LLM, but that's the point!

Yea, that's the question. Yield situation can improve. Area overhead would not improve short of a completely new and incompatible tech.

> the module is FCC compliant with its number written on it.

Just like I'm telling in the sibling comment - IANAL but that's probably not enough for EU. RED cares not just about RF PHY, but also for example if you can ran a FOTA update, and if you do, is the key secure enough. So module being compliant simplifies things, but your device might still require a cert as a whole. Again IANAL, this is based on my experience with certifying a full-custom device.

Yuck. Time to build an xSPI/HyperRAM workstation (if only these had multi-bank chips).

> Or do you still need the product as a whole to be compliant?

I'm not 100% sure, but I've been thru a round on RED (on a full-custom device) and much of it involved security and authentication within application software. RED basically boils down to "we are fucking tired of your little plastic shit running botnets, the customer are clueless, so fix it if you want to sell it".

So actual code review and running tests in front of the auditors, basically everything short of a pentest, not just RF PHY stuff. So my gut feeling is that while you can skip the stuff related to RF PHY if you use an off-the-shelf module, the rest will is still be on you.

Based on quick googling the certifiers agree with me (but again, that's not same as as a court saying that's true): https://compliancetesting.com/ce-certification-for-espressif...

How so? FEOL is pretty much the same, BEOL is almost the same save TSVs, the packaging tech is different and more advanced, but not exactly 1:1 comparable. Do TSVs really occupy 3x the area of DDR IO's?

Love the idea, hate the presentation. Also, wasn't able to find the simulator link, is the simulator not publicly accessible?

Also, one friendly tip - if you are EU-based and plan to sell the hardware, drop the ESP32/wireless. Yes, that would mean no wireless pads, but it will make regulatory compliance a lot easier. Maybe replace with a breakout socket (not sure if that is allowed).

I mean, good thing it's patented? To evils cancel each other, I guess.

> What is the threshold for you?

Golf courses are stupid too, but the scale is nowhere close. The difference is that new golf courses are not financed by an too-big-to-fail infinite money glitch, so they are limited by how many people are willing to spend their money building golf courses.

> If AI CEOs had better PR, would you be less anti AI?

I'm not against AI. I'm against companies blowing up a bubble. Notice that the question "is it a bubble" is orthogonal to "is it useful".

> why you think AI can’t make a profit.

AI can make a profit - in niches. Automatic translation. Mathematic proofs - but yes math is more than proofs and there never were much money there. Maybe code generation in some cases, but I don't see "programmers becoming obsolete" any time soon - spewing out code was never the problem for me, domain knowledge was and still is. And yes, all that doesn't make it any less of a stochastic parrot. A useful parrot, but still a parrot.

But OpenAI and Antropic can't generate the profits they promise at the scale they need to break even. Because

a. Most of their use cases yet demonstrated are self-defeating. Text generation is useless once everyone hates slop and long texts stops becoming a useful signal. The whole story is basically "I can generate infinite gold, I'm now can buy anything". No, your gold is now worth very little. And everyone whose pay was indexed in gold is now fucked too.

b. They have no real moat aside from loads of money. Their entire plan is "growing too big to fail, then engage regulatory capture." And people engaging in in regulatory capture deserve nothing but slow and painful death. Not that it would work anyway, we've got China fixing that, for better or worse.

1. Because resources (land and water) are limited and build-out crawls the resources from the more important (even vital) affairs.

2. Because there is still no convincing way how AI giants would make profit. Whatever impressive and useful tricks the stochastic parrot is able to do will never pay back enough to make a breakeven.

3. Because AI giant CEOs are a bunch of galactic-scale douchebags who keep saying "this is far too powerful for a mere mortal, but as long as we hold this power it's okay" with a straight face while presenting us with the stochastic parrot. No, seriously, I'm very impressed. Someone actively subverting the tech narrative couldn't do a better job.

I welcome our new Chinese AI overlords.

Too all good kids trying to learn how to code: stay clear of proprietary platforms. These will probably would not be there when you grow up.

And to all the AI doomers out there I've got a message, but it's not exactly in a kid-friendly language.

> Bi-SRAM

Looks cool, but isn't it by definition planar process-only, no FinFET for you?

> 1T-1C SRAM

Aka eDRAM? It was a thing back on 14nm node, but AFAIR not so much anymore. The 1C part is hard to get right in a way that is compatible with a logic process.

> What would really help is the easy provisioning of signal boosters.

But that's also a physics thing. Plain same-frequency boosters hamper frequency reuse on neighbor cells, so less bandwidth for you. And if boosters run on a separate band, you'd need to do frequency planning for them just like it's done for cells now.

Wireless is finicky, we should really avoid using it everywhere wired can be used instead.

We wouldn't "release" that because there is simply no way to tell if it is wrong. The past redefinitions happened because previous definitions were too ambiguous rather than "wrong".

Fun fact: given that the meter is defined in terms of speed of light (and cesium frequency), "changing the speed of light" is a counterfactual impossibility, what is actually changing are some other fundamental constants.

I think the drones don't use a complex encoder because latency.

Should have used TAI for internal timekeeping.

Screw average user.

It is server-rendered cgit pages, there are potentially quadrillions of unique. They are not cacheable.