kj4ips

I have a vehicle w/o AM radio, and our local traffic authority uses an AM station for traffic and other civil alerts. It's really annoying that it is absent.

The FM is also an afterthought, the antenna system under-performs horribly, and appears to actually be //inside// the cabin.

I suspect this mostly refers to "Code Protect" or similar functions, that are designed to stop the user for extracting the firmware from a device in the field. Typically, when this is enabled, large parts of the debug interface stop working, and turning it off requires a "secure" erase, that clears the loaded firmware.

While many CP implementations are flawed, or can be bypassed by a skilled attacker (power glitching, &c), I wouldn't say they are purely theater, as they raise the required investment from a <$10 ISP to $$$+ for something like a chipwhisperer.

I was taught to listen to the sound the water made in the sink to tell when the hot was ready. I had always assumed this was something most folks already knew about.

I run it in my homelab, because gitlab is really reasource intensive by comparison, and I need it to work when the network is out. The annoying part is that means outside contributions that support enterprise-y features are probably not going to be accepted. Gitea does not appear to use a CLA, so they at least shouldn't be able to re-license existing OSS, but the base license is MIT, so no virality.

> NHTSA instead focuses its resources on forcing a draconian “recall” on Tesla to increase the font size of the brake icon.

An update that probably took an engineer less than a day, and CI mere hours to build? The recall terminology is a little silly with an agile-ish developed product, but they really should have done it right the first time. It's not like the standard is hard to read. It probably only bubbled up to the top when someone who has designed these kinds of things in the past noticed it was out of spec, and complained.

In most states, cars themselves don't have many requirements/checks post-sale. Some states check that emissions equipment is still functioning, but because this is often done by third parties, cheating is rampant. Still some states require safety inspections, but that is far in the minority.

ADAS systems are mostly legal because they are officially "assistance" systems, and the driver is still responsible for whatever the vehicle does. There is exactly one commercially non-assistance "self driving" system that I am aware of in the world, and it's made by Mercedes Benz, and is only operable in very specific situations. MB takes responsibility for what happens when the vehicle is operating in this mode.

I don't think it is limited to skiddie use, it's a nice hardware platform that is pretty easy to write for. I've gotten my kabuki desuicide pretty much functional on it. It's already FCC'd, has a BMS and lots of other things that are a pain to get right.

There is something about lowering the bar to disruption, and the possibility of this causing a bit of a reckoning for devices that don't do a good job of "Accepting any interference received"

The flipper zero is ISED(CA FCC equivelant) conformant/certified. In stock configuration, it transmits only in bands where no license is required, such as the ISM bands.

However, the operator is ultimately responsible for the emissions of their devices.

Hyundai learned this pretty recently. Physical keys are insufficient to prevent casual theft of vehicles. Even a properly designed ignition cylinder retention system is no match to someone with a fence and a drill.

Canada also makes transponder keys mandatory, because it's just too easy otherwise.

I have a pair of heat pumps in a dual zone setup, each of them has a backup electric furnace as part of its indoor air handler. Newer ones can keep running without that even into quite cold areas.

The thermostat just sees the resistive heaters as another phase, so I have three phases, and if it doesn't see a temp rise within a certain time of calling for phase 1/2, then it goes to phase 3. Mine also has support for an external temperature probe, that can skip 1/2 if it is already too cold.

I also have other ways to make heat if I have a prolonged electrical outage, but outside of maintenance, I've not used that.

This article is really thin and disappointing.

It's perfectly reasonable for the FTC to be involved here, and what constitutes unjust enrichment and anti-competitive practice when covered works are used as components in a training set is within their purview.

The USPTO will be involved in issuance questions, and the legal system will be involved in determining single cases.

On this issue, the following is my opinion (not a lawyer, not legal adv.).

A training set is a collection of representative input, which may or may not be covered works. The training set is a simple aggregation, it does not alter the works contained in any significant way, so it is not transformative. Therefore, the training set is as an omnibus of other works.

The weights of an system are a product of the input training set (if DL is used), and the parameters of the training environment. 1 is an omnibus of potentially covered works, the other is likely non-covered (but maybe patent-eligible in some cases). It is unclear if this is transformative, but it is certainly not covered by any of the existing exemptions (such as covers of songs).

Therefore, it is possible that the product of the above is a non-transformative derivative work based on one or more covered works, and therefore would have required a license or grant from the author(s) of those covered works. Note that authors often retain their ownership of UGC, and grant a service provider the ability to make that available to others in limited capacity for specific purposes. Some service providers (Like stack overflow) require that contributors license contributions under a specific license, and yet others transfer ownership as part of the terms of service.

If the training set was built from only entirely public domain works, then there wouldn't be a question, but the extension of copyright term over the years has robbed the public domain of anything even remotely useful for these kinds of cases.

On a side note, StackExchange contributions are CC BY-SA, which means that if the training input included anything from stackoverflow, the weights could be be affected by the Share-Alike requirement, which could lead to some interesting results if someone ever tried to request them. (However the attribution would probably be pretty easy, because you could pretty much say "all stackoverflow contributors" and be correct)

Heat generally continues to work for quite a while, because there's quite a lot of thermal mass involved. As for the AC, some vehicles have reserve pressure canister that can keep it going for a little bit before they have to cycle back on.

You pretty much need three-phase service availability to install one, and a lot of C-stores don't have access to that.

I live in East Tennessee, where a permanent DST situation would be the worst case for us, but are seat of government is in Central Time.

There seems to be some variance in systems. I //really// don't like the ones at my local WM. It disables the scanner until the bagging scale stabalizes, and you can't enter quantities. It basically speed-limits you to about 1 item every 2 seconds.

The ones at the Target, don't lock out the scanner unless you scan something that is marked as having a security tag, and the degausser hasn't fired.

Our local CVS has some, and they're fine, but anyone that can't use them (low vision, paying with cash (sometimess), or buying things that require ID) have to chase down the one or two roving employees in the store, which would be super annoying if you had to do it often.

Personally, I tend to use SC when I have <5 items. Even on the "nice" systems, there's no way I can outpace someone who does this all day, has helpful tech (conveyor belts, a bagger (even if it's me), ability to enter quantity, can enter PLUs, doesn't have to deal with the system locking out the scanner whenever it feels like it).

Often, there's no antenna for FM in the devices, even though they might be able to theoretically receive, and may even have an RF frontend for it. Older phones often used the ground of attached headphones as a makeshift antenna, and would refuse to operate, or just fail to receive anything.

This is fascinating, I live in a region where there are patches of competitive ISP area, and as a consequence, I have never seen an ISP advertise a price outside of a targeted mailing or phone call.

I had assumed that most of the rest of the country was like this, and you only got prices after you gave an address.

Even a medium size ISP that was running a "price for life" deal, didn't even advertise with the price was, and you got better deals if you were in a competitive area. (Based on comparing mailed advertisements).

Prices appear on physical mail advertisements I get for internet service, I get quite a lot of them, but billboards, television ads, and everything else simply lacks a price and touts product quality and speed.

With the CLA in place, it doesn't matter. All contributors already gave hashicorp a broad license for everything that they don't already own, so hashicorp has license to largely do whatever regardless of what license they use to offer it to others.

My understanding this is more of a Google thing. The play store will no longer offer new installations of software below a certain API level, even though they will work on current versions of Android.

I believe this is an attempt to enforce some of the permissions changes made around Marshmallow, I believe, where apps now request many permissions at time of use, and not at install. The compatibility layers are a bit 'ugly'.

An interesting side effect is that if you sideload an app that is in this state, Google Play will actually offer to keep it updated, even though it wouldn't allow installation initially.

This is more of a use of cryptography for authn, not designing the cryptosystem itself.

It's a challenge-response with nonces. There is also the browser's role to ensure that a given RP's requests are marked with the origin (domain) they came from, so auth.example.com and auth.example.evil don't overlap. (U2F is mostly concerned about malicious sites, and less about malicious browsers and other nastyware)

I'm pretty sure that is how non-resident keys work on some platforms (like the first gen yubico U2F tokens).

The main feature of resident (aka discoverable) keys is that the RP doesn't need to know anything about which key is about to be used, so it can just say "send me an auth for example.com", and the browser and key handle the rest.

However, with non-discoverable keys, the RP has to provide a reference to the key, which could actually have encrypted private key matter in it.

I just looked a the technical manual for the 5 series, and it only supports 25. I only have two right now, but I have way more than 25 TOTPs.

I don't know what the Bio FIDO ones have, but if it is similar, YubiCo may not have a product well placed for a large number of RKs.

~Edit: The Bio's have the same limit of 25

My understanding is that this is how Qubes itself is tested.

That was the idea of this: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/126...

Sadly died in committee.

> But you can't just "turn off" cell tower associativity on your phone.

That's what airplane mode does, because it's not good for the cell network if you can be heard by two base stations that share bands (and are normally too far away to interfere with each other) and easily happens when you have altitude.

You can usually turn on WiFi/BT w/o exiting airplane mode, because lower-powered radio devices are typically permitted in situations that cell itself isn't.

sim-less phones typically don't maintain association, because it costs battery to do so, and they only start talking to towers during an emergency call. However, there is no requirement one way or the other.

The easiest way to tell is if the clock of a sim-less phone drifts over a month or two from something it was sync'd to, note that using GPS at all will often sync the clock, and some devices will "wake" the GPS module to allow it to keep an up-to-date almanac and tracking (the math kind, not the surveillance kind) parameters, so it is best to disable location entirely, instead of just avoiding using it.

If the phone has been used for a long time with a reliable time source available (tower/gps/ntp/etc), it may have a pretty good drift calibration, so it may take quite some time for drift to be visible.

Canon tried to do this with their ODD system, and they got kinda close, but it is possible to extract the key from a given camera, and forge signatures.

Their verification system also seems to include a smartcard or SD card-like thing (which might be doing something special, or might just be DRM)

The main concern for me is that this may very well allow Tesla to gatekeep the entire NA EV/EVSE market, since they still control the patents around NACS, and their pledge has carve-outs allows them to exclude pretty much every major player for one reason or another.

(I am also assuming that adapters well be relatively available in the 2+ years til implementation, so the CCS2-equiped fleet isn't left out in the cold)

If they were willing to release it under an OSHW license with a non-revocable patent grant, I'd be fine with it. I agree that Tesla superchargers do tend to provide a better UX than their competition, some of that is vertical synergy, but a good portion of it is the competition just not being up to snuff.

It defines good faith as never having done three things, or having an associated or related company do those things.

Those things are (roughly):

1. Having sued anyone over IP used in EVs, helped anyone due so, or had a financial stake in someone who does.

2. Challenged any patent held by Tesla, now or in the future; or had a stake in such a challenge.

3. Marketed or sold a "knock-off" of any tesla product, or providing material assistance to. Knock-off is defined a product that imitates or copies the design of a tesla product.

If I held stock in a big-three automaker when they sued a non-Tesla EV manufacturer over a patent, does that mean I am excluded? Sure looks like it.

Selling a J1772->Tesla-T adapter could also count, and because it's a "never has done" kind of thing, there is no concept of redemption.

It is also written such that if you, your affiliates, or related companies:

* sue anyone over anything EV patent related, or have a stake in someone who does,

* if you ever challenged, or had stake in a challenge to any patent Tesla currently holds, or buys in the future,

* or if you marketed or sold anything that imitates the design or appearance of a Tesla product, or provided any material assistance to someone else who did.

then you are forever excluded from the pledge.

Tesla summaries this as:

What this pledge means is that as long as someone uses our patents for electric vehicles and doesn’t do bad things, such as knocking off our products or using our patents and then suing us for intellectual property infringement, they should have no fear of Tesla asserting its patents against them.

but the actual legal definition goes way above "such as knocking off our products or using our patents and then suing us for intellectual property infringement".

It also has no time bounding, so that patent spat from the 1900s that Ford had probably counts.