1,650 karma · joined August 8, 2020
All intuition differences aside, if you are basing your intuition on whether a usb bug is in the kernel based on your experience dealing with dodgy devices, then shouldn’t your intuition agree with mine? Root cause tends to be dodgy hardware
Is it technically possible that usbmon will say that it sent proper data to the device when in fact it didn’t due to a bug in the kernel XHCI stack? Yes it is. Is it likely? very much not.
Usbmon was invented for this exact use case: debugging usb issues under the assumption that there is no fault in the kernel’s usb stack. It should be used before even considering a USB protocol analyzer. Basic intuition tells us it’s a hardware issue, either controller, hub, or device.
“You may not use Twitter’s services to share false or misleading information about COVID-19 which may lead to harm.”
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/medical-misin...
Only blessed dissent is permitted.
You can jump through the hoops of procuring anonymous email address and phone numbers but in the end Twitter will ban any real political dissent. Cf. Last two years.
I have 64GB of memory total and about 16-32 of it is in use for virtual machines, which is reasonable.
How much total memory do you expect the average computer to have?
To what exactly are you referring? Everything I wrote in my comment is true. RT is factually banned on Telegram.
Because whether or not they “love open source” has no bearing on rationally deciding whether or not they should release one of their products as open source.
The only function of that statement as far as I can tell is to ingratiate themselves to the reader, i.e. “we’re on your team!” That type of desperate signaling communicates a lack of confidence in their rationalization, which in turn makes it seem disingenuous.
No, my point is that it’s a meaningless statement in this post and that it diminishes the apparent significance of the rest of the post.
Thanks for understanding my point. They are just saying they “love open source” to ingratiate themselves to the reader but it’s a meaningless statement because who wouldn’t love free work? The entire article that follows comes off like a long-winded rationalization. They would be better off saying “we don’t open source our product because we don’t want to” I would respect that more and it would save me time.
Also is there a way to use the WAPM packages I install from emscripten? How would I import these packages from C?
This one sentence makes the whole post come off as disingenuous to me. Who isn’t a fan of free work?
In theory GNU Radio could be the narrow waist for all wireless transmission protocols. It isn’t practical yet but it’s a possibility. Instead of rewriting a new wireless stack each time we just use GNU radio and specify our specific signal blocks.
The analogy is similar to IR being the compiler’s narrow waist.
Thanks for clearing that up. There are commenters on HN who have a vested interest in Russia taking eastern Ukraine.
The herbceptions proposal for “deterministic” exceptions addressed this issue well IMO.
They are incorrect. Only bounded-time synchronization primitives can be used. E.g. lock-free queues.
> every thread or event loop should always have a catch-all handler at top level.
Two things. 1) There should be no reason for a properly coded real time audio loop to have a top level handler because exceptions should not be thrown because they cannot be guaranteed to be handled within the necessary time constraints.
2) top level exception handlers divorced from context cannot be handled, only ignored. Ignoring exceptions is very dangerous because there is generally no way for the top level handler to be sure that the rest of the program is in a correct state (unless it knows all code is exception-safe, which is rare). Continuing to run can result in data corruption. Exceptions leaving the context that has the information to handle them is a programming error, just like a failed assertion.