hwh

The article seems to confuse the MCU and some sort of undisclosed SBC for the MCU. Well, it’s starting to do this in the headline.

I started OpenOven in my free time of which I had a lot when I was still studying law. Ovens were always something I was interested in and I created FunkyPizzaHeater, as it was named when I started it, only to play around with the tech. I published it on the Italian Oven forums and it really hit a nerve, there were immediately 2 people who took the design a bit further. People tried building them and posted photos, there was a lot of discussion and eventually we agreed on a new name and moved the OpenOven project to github. It was still a project for oven enthusiasts who liked lots of buttons, until it was miraculously featured by a slightly weird but lovable YouTuber with 2 million subscribers who suggested OpenOven to anyone to finally get rid of corporate big oven.

I would be very surprised if the ebook license they bought does entail using it for training machines. In fact I'm pretty sure it didn't and I thus do not think they did such a thing in the first place as I credit them with enough legal prowess to know about this.

it is, but the threshold for mandated debate is high. So high in fact that this doesn't really happen at all. Usually, petitions like this are mostly a PR vehicle. A lot of them is also a bit underspecific in what exactly they are requesting of what political entity.

takedown DCMA requests are US law. Very different rules might apply, much more restrictive/punitive in a lot of countries. Also, you mentioning that it is about different countries is also an odd thing: TV services usually have distribution rights for third-party material only for some countries. And last but not least, "TV channels" in a lot of countries will make broadcasting laws apply. You will need to cover for a lot of legal questions. Maybe you do already, but frankly it does not really sound like it from your answer...

An MCU is a chip in a package that just cannot interface with anything your consumer PC or notebook comes with. You'll need an adapter in any case.

That said, lots of current MCUs come with UART, I2C and/or USB bootloaders allowing to erase/program (if not disabled). This bootloader is typically included in factory ROM, not to be programmed by you or a third party.

That is not true. See https://github.com/littlefs-project/littlefs/blob/master/DES...

Sorry, as a commenter on this pointed out, the comment I was replying to was probably talking about eMMC. For which indeed no wear levelling is specified by the JEDEC standard - it is a standard that defines the communication protocol between a device and a host system. Newer JEDEC standards define the interface to access vendor specific "health reports", the actual method of wear levelling isn't regularly disclosed by vendors.

No, it wouldn't. Your examples are mostly hints that it's actually your terminal emulator (which might also serve as your "SSH program" in cases like PuTTY) which might need a slap to behave correctly - and then your TERM environment variable and possibly LANG (UTF-8 support) should be set up correctly. tmux will work then.

Here in Germany, the last mentioned tier will also have looked fondly upon getting the money wired in from Ireland and may have lived with the assumption that they don't have to think about taxes at all. At least some of the "owners" of those basic, Ikea-equipped flats did not really strike me as being quite up to it. There has also grown a job market for "room service" agencies, cleaning and equipping AirBnB rental objects for many "owners". I've seen their actual check lists (think restroom cleaning checklist) pinned to the object's door.

On the grounds of article 7, referencing article 2, of the Treaty on European Union (this is basically the constitution of the EU).

For me it's just easier to get my head around having a new network interface presented rather than this pile of security associations and transform configurations. I can just re-use my firewalling and routing knowledge and do not have to put my mind into IPsec mode to manage this. That aside, I think it's still quite a lot easier to use IPsec tooling when you want something that plays along with certificate based multi-level trust models.

Can you please elaborate? As far as I see it, IPsec is encrypting traffic. IKE is for setup of security associations. What part of IPsec would do routing, and in this case: potentially multi-hop mesh routing?

Actually they are writing them during that time and use their staff (paid by public money), too. Whether it's copywriting, news checking for the next edition or, in fact, writing passages.

Actually this is default law in the EU if you are a "customer" and the other party is not. All "surprising" clauses within a T&C document are void.

I got mixed results with a completely different approach: starting with what actually exists within a Git repository (i.e. roughly: focusing on aspects of the plumbing layer first).

However, this only works with people who can make the mental leap to be able to deduce knowledge of what should be from knowledge about what is. In the end, I concluded it's a bit like teaching cooking. There are those folks who need to be taught about full recipes and those who need to be taught about resources and corresponding steps.

I have not yet seen a working approach to make both of these fractions happy, unfortunately.

You still need reliable clock sync / latency. Otherwise you can just announce, not communicate bi-directionally.

This is a strangely worded question. LuaJIT is compatible with PUC Lua 5.1. It will thus not run (without problems/tweaking) run code that is designed for Lua >= 5.2. However, the differences are not really big in practice. It is rather more likely that the new options (especially the FFI) that come with LuaJIT will lead to the most work when switching over. Not that they would be absolutely needed, but it just makes it all so much smoother and faster - which is probably the reason to switch to LuaJIT in the first place.

It mostly mirrors classic consumer protection law. It's a civil law issue and regulation in such issues is always a try to remedy imbalances of power. As law enforcement goes, there is no public office assigned to deal in behalf of a party in civil law cases. There's the courts, which are slow and arguably understaffed and with a much higher bar to access them in the first place. And regulation. Regulation does not always get it right and I'm not arguing that it did here. My point is that there was a problem and regulation tried to solve it. I don't see that bad effects were intended, which is the point I was trying to make. I think that the legal discussion in Germany mostly prefers an addendum to, not a revokation of the law in question.

This is for prosecution. The removal of such speech is a civil suit. Facebook/Twitter might have taken a post more serious when the police came and asked questions, but then, they might not. And prosecution might not what a victim was after, as this involved being part of a legal case where your stance is weaker than that of the claimed perpetrator (as it is a penal case then).

A notion in the more calmed legal discussion (as opposed to lobby talk from the freedom movements, which I usually support but feel to be very narrow-sighted at the moment w/ regard to this law - see what is now carried into the comments here) is that this effect might be mitigated by a counterweight law - or rather addendum - that mitigates overreaction by the corporations.

This is german legal culture: our law system is first, foremost and mostly codified. And regulation is used more heavily than in the US law system.

Note that the stated goal of the law is most probably the exact point: making access to effective defense of your rights possible to anyone. The reality consisted of slow law enforcement (which has to act against people who made the speech in question, often anonymous or denying having done it), inaccessible data of the other party (for civil suits) and an intransparent mechanism that did not follow the german legal system on behalf of the corporations.

Unless you give more facts, I'd say you are mostly repeating the argument the post you answered to, albeit from another viewpoint. Of course there is the notion that the law is applied to offline and online talk in the same way. The most important distinction in german law is whether the talk is made in public. And Facebook (and to a degree Twitter) surely brought the possibility to a lot of people to make their talk public who hadn't as easy access to an audience before. And surely, Facebook and Twitter did not give proper access to remedies for victims before. What they had was a broad, intransparent workflow that did not match the german law. Civil suits against them regarding such issues are, due to the nature of such suits against huge foreign corporations, mostly inaccessible if you are not equipped with enough funds to go to court for a few rounds.

This is not to say that the law is fine. Its intentions, however, arguably are. To oppose this viewpoint, you would have to defend a world where hate speech and libel go (erratically, but mostly) without defense for the victims. From a very libertarian viewpoint, that may be an acceptable sacrifice, though.

The right exists without a court order (and I'd wager it is more often granted than not by established outfits, with notable exceptions like tabloids - like Germany's largest newspaper Bild - and the yellow press). However, some will have to resort to go to the courts if the publishing entity does not comply. Which will take some effort, it being a civil rights matter - e.g. paying court fees up front (and claiming the money back in the same suit, leaving the applicant with the risk of an opposing party with no money).

When seeing "simple" as an absolute measure, the author surely has a point. As for a relative measure - I think the argument is unjust, as you can easily come across much more complex makefiles. So my take on this is this: explain the width of the scale you're using when you measure in terms relative to it.

It (the ESP32) is right in the middle of the bottom view photo. The actual SX1278 is smaller, on the right. On the bottom, you have the SPI flash for the ESP32.

It is all a question of use case. This reply comes up all the time when I talk about how I use microcontrollers and what I use them for. For myself, microcontrollers offer me maximum control with minimum overhead. No OS, or maybe just some RTOS that does not really "boot" except for copying initial values for variables from Flash into RAM, being done in a fraction of a second. Switch it on, off it goes. Interfacing with SRAM and Flash without a driver.

You can do MCU based PCB designs. It gets harder when it comes to the mentioned Cortex-A. It will be harder to sample, say, 40 pieces of them. You're very much supposed (and better off) to buy boards like OrangePi or similar.

ESP designs, especially ESP32, are somewhat in between. Started off as a little documented blackbox with a RTOS interface it is now a much better (but absolutely not on par with Cortex-M designs) documented platform. However, part of it is still a proprietary code blob. They are beefy beasts, however, and when you need just that - well, it's a no-brainer. I just wish they were documented like STM32s plus ARM manuals and had a little more toolchain support. The price tag keeps me from complaining any louder.

When you don't really have hard constraints and are fine with a 5 second bootup, chose whatever fits your bill. When exact timing is an issue (and you don't want to go bare metal on the Cortex-A), when fast bootup is an issue, well - better look at MCUs.

The fines you are probably thinking of are mostly antitrust law based. I don't see grounds for making this issue an antitrust case - at least as far as I can see, nobody else says so either.

You are also talking about defense politics, i.e. the military sector. That and the secret service sector is not covered at all by EU legislation and EU executive.

Also, I don't see why after looking at interests banning Intel from doing so would be advisable. Most relevant EU countries have close cooperation with the US in the military and secret service sectors.

That said, defence ministers usually don't outlaw things. It would be the parliaments. And EU law might actually hinder them from doing so, given that it first and foremost focuses on enforcing open competition and free flow of goods.

So, more turtles waiting down there....

In the end, it is the attempt to create a positive proof in a system that is not a defined formal system (real world vs pure mathematics). Impossible - as you say, you need to place your trust somewhere. Even if it's your own abilities. But that trust can always turn out to be not justified.

The C8051 architecture is still very much a thing in the MCU world. (As is Atmel AVR.)

k2pdfopt: http://www.willus.com/k2pdfopt/ We use that engine in the OSS KoReader application.

You can e.g. hide that fact within a DSL!