davekeck

> I wish @Apple would devote an employee or two to cracking down on such a technological, psychological abomination as this.

What can Apple do though? Any change that cracks down on this will render these devices unusable for thousands of people, generate tons of e-waste, and create a huge backlash towards Apple.

It reminds me of when FTDI permanently bricked FTDI clones [0].

Further, I'm not sure I agree with the OP's vitriol against these manufacturers. They're using an open standard to bypass Apple's MFi tax. It's a hack for sure, but if it leads to cheaper devices -- which is the ultimate goal for this segment of product -- I don't see the problem. I could see the problem if they're advertised as wired headphones without mentioning Bluetooth though.

[0] https://www.zdnet.com/article/ftdi-admits-to-bricking-innoce...

I’ve heard that explanation a few times but I find it very hard to believe that's the primary reason. I can't imagine Costco would devote two workers full-time to that -- it’s simply against their lean philosophy.

That's the second reason I find the practice so irksome: on top of requiring customers to wait in line to prove their innocence, they pretend that the practice is for their customers' benefit. And people believe them!? Maddening.

My main beef with Costco is exiting the store, where they insist on checking your receipt as a loss-prevention measure. The presumption of guilt irks me way more than it probably should.

I don't know if it "deserves to be known" but I made debase to make git editing easier: https://toaster.llc/debase

A proposal: for a trial period of 2 years, allow businesses to open without any red tape.

Fire / plumbing / electrical / etc inspections are scheduled for the earliest slot, but doesn't prevent the business from opening. If the inspection fails, business and/or applicable contractor pays a gigantic fine.

If the business receives some number of complaints over a certain threshold per capita per square mile per time period, it goes to a judge that decides whether the business lives or dies.

Crappy idea?

What verbiage would you deem acceptable, if "claims" and "hallucinates" are both out?

When I was researching what SD card to use for a camera product a few years ago, Samsung's high-endurance cards were by far the best bang for the buck endurance-wise. The choice ultimately came down to Samsung "PRO Endurance" / 820 TBW / $20, versus SanDisk "MAX ENDURANCE" / 719 TBW / $31. In short, the SanDisk cards were a lot more expensive for a worse product.

It looks like the price of the SanDisk cards have come down a bit since then, but are still more expensive for worse specs than the Samsung cards.

> Cost was 330 USD for PCB manufacturing and assembly of two PCBs and additional 225 EUR (240 USD) for components from Digikey that I soldered myself. This is including 24% VAT and shipping costs.

> (Neither Tan nor Collin responded to requests for comment.)

I love that they tried to reach Jia. I keep thinking how interesting this story would become if Jia did actually show up again.

> then some lower probability tokens may be chosen

Can you explain how it chooses one of the lower-probability tokens? Is it just random?

I'd set one up myself but I'm worried I might look like a grifter. Anyone here with more OSS credibility interested in setting one up? I'm ready to donate...

Sounds like our projects have a lot in common. I had my boards made in China but the yield was also not great (~80%). I had to repair a lot of them after they arrived, but from what I learned I think I could get close to a 100% yield if I do another run.

The sun sure is pervasive! My early enclosures were 3D printed too and had the same problem.

I've had the same thoughts about AI many times while making this camera... making anything today that doesn't involve AI feels a little crazy.

I definitely need to improve the marketing! I'm working on adding some professional shots of the device.

In the meantime I can send you a unit in exchange for feedback if you're interested -- email in my profile.

The video (very end) and the website both say 192k. Where did you see 2150?

Really appreciate the feedback. Can I ask what platform you'd be interested in using the software on?

I'm 100% with you on e-waste -- I hate that we throw out so much of our tech so quickly. (I used my 2016 iPhone SE as my main phone until last year haha.) My plan is to document as much of this thing as I can, including open-sourcing most (all?) of it. I've started small with open sourcing the embedded scheduler:

https://toaster.llc/blog/scheduler/

FWIW I focused on the Mac to begin with because it's what I use and love, and this thing took long enough to make even with that constraint.

I had the same question for the naming of Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL), which IMO should be named "Linux Subsystem for Windows"

The best explanation I can think of is that the people naming it wanted the first word to emphasize the thing that's most important to them. In Microsoft's case, that's of course Windows. Perhaps the same is true for the S4TF folks.

> not enough to influence someone who thinks in 4 commas

According to Wikipedia, her net worth is 16,000,000. (I must be missing some commas somewhere.)

You don't think offering someone 4% of their net worth to speak for an hour could buy some influence?

> - represent bool `true` with ~0 in the ABI

So `true` would be 0xFFFFFFFF (assuming 32 bit)? Can you explain the advantage of that? Presumably 0 through 0xFFFFFFFE would be considered false?

On macOS you can monitor the progress of many commands with Ctrl-T. With cp for example:

    $ cp Test Test2
    ^T
    load: 3.42  cmd: cp 86526 running 0.01u 4.36s
    Test -> Test2   6%

Regarding error context: I'd advocate simple error-chaining using a linked list. If a function fails, it returns an error wrapping the underlying error as the cause, and so on up the stack. The top of the stack can inspect or print the error chain ("A failed because B failed because ..."), or pinpoint the error that was the root cause.

I would love for Go to include something like this:

    type Error struct {
        Description string
        Cause       error
    }
    
    func NewError(cause error, descriptionFmt string, args ...interface{}) error {
        return Error{
            Description: fmt.Sprintf(descriptionFmt, args...),
            Cause:       cause,
        }
    }
    
    func (me Error) Error() string {
        if me.Cause == nil {
            return me.Description
        }
        return fmt.Sprintf("%v: %v", me.Description, me.Cause.Error())
    }
    
    func RootCause(err error) error {
        if err, ok := err.(Error); ok && err.Cause != nil {
            return RootCause(err.Cause)
        }
        return err
    }

But a number between 0 and 1 could be arbitrarily close to 0 and 1, which I thought could be proved to be equal to 0 or 1, which are integers. So isn't this not necessarily a contradiction?

I don't see a race -- the article says: "Take no action when SIGINT is received while you wait for a child. You make a note of the fact that you did receive it, though."

Then, after waiting on the child, "Look at whether you (the shell) has received SIGINT while the child was in the foreground", and the shell kills itself with SIGINT if so.

Reference cycles aren't a problem for GCs because any objects that aren't reachable from a root set of nodes are considered garbage and get collected. (I only read part of the article, but hopefully that answers your question...)

> people expect the display to become the only visible component of the computer ... from a usability as well as a design perspective

I'm not sure putting the ports on the rear of the e.g. iMac improves usability. It certainly looks nicer, but I wouldn't consider the required neck acrobatics to plug in a thumb drive a usability improvement. (But I guess it makes sense in the long-term with everything going wireless.)

Geez this wesolows guy seems bitter as hell. I guess it's helpful to have a reference of what not to become as we grow older.

How does that example show that their "heart ... is in the right place"? All of the men made it clear that they would only participate if no one got hurt, and one of them was doing so to fund his brother's cancer treatment.

If you're broke and faced with the death of a beloved family member, and then someone comes along and offers you $250k and a guarantee that no one gets hurt, it's hard for me to believe that most people wouldn't participate.

For reference, the linked (and hilarious) Onion Talks video is satire:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tom6_ceTu9s

But the blog post itself isn't. Or at least I'm not sure how quotes like "TED Talks are designed more to create an experience of feeling enlightened than to actually enlighten" could be considered satire.

Apparently a mistake exists in Part 2 of the sculpture so it's plausible that there's more. From the Wikipedia article:

> There are also a few incorrect letters in the ciphertext which Sanborn has said were intentional, and a few letters near the beginning of the bottom half have been displaced from their normal positions, apparently intentionally... One of the lines of the tableau is one character too long, which Sanborn has indicated was accidental.

It's tough to imagine how to start such a problem when you can't even rely on the ciphertext being correct.

I'm a bit surprised by the negative feedback this is receiving -- it seems like this is a nice perk that gives women more flexibility in balancing work and family.