drum55

The ReMarkable devices are E Ink Gallery 3 multi pigment display, I have one on my desk.

That’s not really correct, modern color eink displays actually change color, there’s different pigments inside each cell and others are created visually using dithering. Only the older type are monochrome displays with a color filter behaves like you’re describing.

https://www.eink.com/tech/detail/How_it_works

They’re Sharp memory displays, functionally LCDs but with memory for retention under each pixel. They are not and have never been eink.

They more or less have colored particles hanging around in goop and those get pushed around within a small sealed cell by electrostatic charges, there’s presumably some fundamental limit on the total quantity of the colored particles within the cell that’s quite low. I think modern displays have 4 different colored particles in each cell implying only a small portion of the contents is viewable most of the time. On paper you can have basically 100% saturation of whatever color you want in one area.

I haven't really heard it being used like that, always heard e-paper being used as the specific e-ink displays and never anything else. The only time I've seen the (in my mind) confused messaging is on Pebble's own website, I still have my original Pebble Time somewhere, and that's a good part just down to how much I love those displays. I don't think I'd have used one for years if they were epaper.

It's a very minor distinction, but they aren't a epaper display (low refresh rate, zero power to maintain an image), rather the technology is a sharp memory LCD (ludicrously low power, but high refresh rate). They're extremely neat and don't suffer from the washed out color and ghosting that epaper does, at the cost of needing ever so slightly above no power to keep an image displayed. I much, much prefer them even though Sharp doesn't really advertise them anymore.

https://sharpdevices.com/memory-lcd/

Probably because ssh ciphers change, telnet doesn’t, and you’re not really supposed to be internet exposing those interfaces anyway.

If it’s constant current the “refresh rate” is infinite, or zero depending how you look at it.

My example is “living off the land”, safari already has access to everything, open it and use it to communicate. Needs no permissions, bypasses little snitch entirely.

Do you go by the smell of the executable or just general vibes? Nobody has never reviewed even a tiny fraction of the software they run, closed source or open source.

It’s a false sense of security, more or less. If an application wants to talk to a C2 they don’t have to make a connection at all, just proxy a connection through something already allowed, or tunnel through DNS. Those juicy cryptocurrency keys? Pop Safari with them in the URL and they’re sent to the malicious actor instantly. If you’re owned Little Snitch does nothing at all for you except give you the impression that you’re not.

Just be aware that you’ll be stuck with wifi, or spending far more on ethernet adapters for them. If you want cheap with ethernet there’s other devices supported by Arabian in the same price range which have ethernet. It’s fun for sure to have a huge number of very cheap machines, I have an old arm cluster made of Odroid boards for that purpose.

Sure, the cost of that goes way up though, especially if it has to emulate real world inputs like a mouse, type in a way that’s plausible, and browse a website in a way that’s not always the direct happy path.

You can get intel NUCs way cheaper if you look around, or the Lenovo mini PCs. Small clusters will never beat a decent CPU but you can probably make a cluster of old mini PCs for less than the price of one.

eBay is hyper aggressive about fingerprinting, they will catch things like it trivially. Browsers leak all sorts of information like what sockets are open on localhost, making yourself look like an actual person is very challenging to someone motivated to detect you.

It’s more or less an entire apple watch acting as a secure element, or used to be in the older models.

At the chip level there’s no difference as far as I’m aware, you just have 9 bits per byte rather than 8 bits per byte physically on the module. More chips but not different chips.

The "cost" of executing the JavaScript proof of work is fairly irrelevant, the whole concept just doesn't make sense with a pessimistic inspection. Anubis requires the users to do an irrelevant amount of sha256 hashes in slow javascript, where a scraper can do it much faster in native code; simply game over. It's the same reason we don't use hashcash for email, the amount of proof of work a user will tolerate is much lower than the amount a professional can apply. If this tool provides any benefit, it's due to it being obscure and non standard.

When reviewing it I noticed that the author carried the common misunderstanding that "difficulty" in proof of work is simply the number of leading zero bytes in a hash, which limits the granularity to powers of two. I realize that some of this is the cost of working in JavaScript, but the hottest code path seems to be written extremely inefficiently.

    for (; ;) {
        const hashBuffer = await calculateSHA256(data + nonce);
        const hashArray = new Uint8Array(hashBuffer);

        let isValid = true;
        for (let i = 0; i < requiredZeroBytes; i++) {
          if (hashArray[i] !== 0) {
            isValid = false;
            break;
          }
        }

It wouldn’t be exaggerating to say that a native implementation of this with even a hair of optimization could reduce the “proof of work” to being less time intensive than the ssl handshake.

That's surprising, it's at least casually known that they're bio accumulative to some extent. I've joked to the techs before about gadolinium eventually accumulating enough to not be necessary if you do it with enough frequency. Realistically though any situation that you're doing the contrast you're probably at a lot more risk of whatever they've found than from the contrast agent.

That’s nothing to do with static electricity, it’s capacitive coupling through the safety capacitors in the power supply. The chassis sits at 90vac or so as a result, it’s not a safety issue it’s FCC compliance for emitted noise.

It's just Chromium, thinly reskinned.

Lead tastes sweet, it’s quite pleasant, that’s why it was used in wine.

I have a RPP and it’s an almost device, it’s so close to good in many ways and falls flat in others.

My biggest gripe with it originally was that the next and previous page gestures worked perhaps one in three attempts, which has been fixed in the most recent software that reduced the perceived latency of everything dramatically. Beyond that it’s a weird experience, it’s sort of usable with open source tools but requires a lot of hacks to not have it sync with their cloud offering if you want privacy. Even if you use their cloud services it often feels a bit clunky and half considered where buttons and controls end up being.

I love the hardware, it’s an amazing looking screen, it feels ultra premium, the folio cases people have made for it fit perfectly in my bag.

In some systems sort of. The esp32 encryption has a bizarre implementation where adjacent blocks in counter mode reuse the same nonce, so knowing the structure of the plaintext can directly reveal the content of some blocks.