patrickyeon

In this case we're talking about apps monitoring the copy buffer when they aren't foregrounded. Your example of monitoring a comment box isn't what we're discussing. In the copy buffer example, I think a privacy model of "an app in the background can't read what I'm copy-pasting in other apps" seems very reasonable and fits my idea of what a "standard user" would expect.

Personally, I would prefer a world where nothing can pull from the copy buffer, it needs to be actively pushed by the user. It seems crazy to me that that isn't the case.

Here's an example, highlighting a band name on a festival website. Stock Chrome (and Spotify) on a stock Android on Pixel 3A https://imgur.com/a/1GqrRVs

I've only ever been an Android user, but for a while I was paying a lot of attention to iOS too. It seems to me like they've been back and forthing, as one side figures out some improvements, the other side more-or-less re-implements them on their next release with their own unrelated improvements.

Seems like a good thing, really.

I'm disappointed that so many people think "hey they could just be doing this for innocuous reasons" instead of "oh maybe nobody should be doing this even if it's the absolutely most straightforward way to do it."

Even if you're only looking for a shipping tracking number and then only so that you can provide useful auto-populate, will you lose out by only checking the clipboard when the user hits your text input field? Is it that much to ask that you find the least offensive way to serve your user?

On the other hand, what will you lose when the news gets out that you've created a keylogger? What about when someone else at your company pushes you to monitor for something else for strategic advantages? Or what about when another developer doesn't understand the implications and now your app is responsible for revealing passwords or other sensitive information? Are all of these worth saving one click?

That's what the author is saying though. The classification of "bug vs. feature" is irrelevant to the user, and trying to convince someone to call it something other than a bug to make the developer feel better is missing the point. What matters is something isn't working for the user, and should be made to work.

In case you're curious, the license on the downloadable drawings for the "Starter Edition" is CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0

I mention this because it seems counter to what calling something "open source" means to most people. On the main page of the project, they say "It is strictly reserved for non-commercial applications" which... IANAL but I think the license limits commercial use of the design, but not of the device created with the design? Also NoDerivatives runs pretty counter the open source ethos IMO.

Hospitals and their staff aren't the specific group that the system is designed to transfer wealth into. The health insurance industry is. https://naic.org/documents/topic_insurance_industry_snapshot...

I've only got partial insight into this, so maybe someone else can fill in gaps.

Power consumption in a digital chip traditionally happens many ways: dynamic power is the energy consumed moving charge around to actually flip a signal at a transistor. For the same clock speed, it goes down as feature size goes down, because gate capacitance is smaller so less charge needs to be deposited/removed on the gate to raise/lower its voltage by a given amount (also increases with clock speed for the same feature size, because more charges/discharges per unit time). Static power is current draining through (often, always?, parasitic) resistive paths, and needs to be either be provided all the time, or requires a minimum clock frequency so that the voltage is still detectable when you need to. This actually drives the minimum refresh rate on DRAM.

The big change, what I understood as a surprise when it happened (I was an undergrad EE while this hit the industry), was when insulator structures got thin enough that electrons were actually quantum tunneling "through" them. Now you've got a new parasitic path for charge to drain away, and on top of that it changes the performance of your transistor. At the time, and I want to say this was the 45nm process node, but it could've been 90nm, gates oxides (insulators) were ~5 atoms thick.

Unfortunately, I didn't really stick with this part of EE, so I'm not sure what to say about the thinner channels.

Mmmm yeah I would believe that. I guess it could've been better written with something like "even so, some users are leaving and the ones doing so due to financial hardships..."

Thanks

> In March, Patreon wrote in a blog post, “Not only are patrons not leaving the platform, we’ve even seen many of them upgrade their tiers to support their favorite creators during this challenging time.” Additionally, the average income for creators was 60% higher in March than in previous months, according to the company.

> Around that same time, however, Patreon said it saw patrons exiting the platform more than usual due to financial hardships. Still, Patreon said churn rates were stable.

These two paragraphs are one right after the other. How do you reconcile the two? How is it not at least a question posed to their spokesperson of which is the case?

Diagonally. The length of a side is considerably shorter (1/sqrt(2) times shorter, actually) than the diagonal.

Ahh, Robin Sloan's blog is such a treasure! I still deeply enjoy Dancing the Flip Flop ([0], but also linked in this essay) every time I think about it, never mind actually read it. Robin's perceptiveness and storytelling reminds me of Bret Victor's work as well, and they are both so great at it

[0] https://www.robinsloan.com/notes/flip-flop/

Interesting way to spin that: "CEO of a car company says cars are more likely to kill you than this pandemic."

I think he's wrong, and it's got to be hyperbole to say "not within the top 100 health risks" given the 15th place per the CDC was responsible for 20K deaths last year[0]. Actually, if you figure that the next 85 causes all split the rest of the deaths evenly (not reasonable, but puts an absolute upper bound on the 100th cause's mortality) they would clock in at ~6600 deaths each.

Soooo... I dunno. I'm not exactly surprised Elon seems straight up wrong about this, and that it sounds like he's prioritizing keeping SpaceX and Tesla at full operations over the health of so many people.

0: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_09-508.pdf Table B

I would think of compute resources "going to waste" in three separate groups:

- The baseline electricity the computer is using. This will get used and produce no S@H work either way (in an era where our computers didn't go to sleep)

- The added electricity to do S@H work. This certainly was not idle, but also was a relatively small amount relative to an entire household's use.

- The hardware itself.

I would say that S@H were making use of hardware that was "going to waste" (this is CAPEX the project didn't need to spend), was having volunteers donate the added electricity, and could be said to be making use of the baseline electricity inasmuch as it would be used either way, and if S@H were to set up their own compute cluster, they would also incur similar overhead.

I don't know what system efficiencies were like in the late 90's, but I would totally believe someone if they said "idle" was 40% the power consumption of "max usage". Using that number as an example, "donated electricity" gets (1/0.6=) 1.6x as much compute-per-watt as if it was donated to run an equivalent, dedicated, machine. Maybe you can convince yourself that you were using "idle cycles" and donating on top of that?

It feels like it took me longer to find this than it should have: https://github.com/nortd/driveboard

Does Doordash get damaged here? Or does the story become "all these other restaurants work when I order from Doordash, except that this one screws it up"? Because that's what people will assume.

Doordash has VC money to burn on this kind of garbage; restaurants in general already have a tough business to make work. In my mind I know who should take on the responsibility of getting this right.

It sounds like, in one case:

1) Doordash takes order on their site

2) Courier shows up to pick it up

3) Order never got to the restaurant, customer is confused, customer blames restaurant.

In the phone example:

1) Doordash connects the customer to the restaurant

2) Customer tries to place an order based on outdated info

3) Restaurant is now trying to convince the customer that the menu they are looking at is wrong. And restaurant looks like a fool because they can't even publish a menu.

In both of these cases, Doordash is damaging the restaurant (at least their reputation and wasting their time) and doesn't sound like they're making any good-faith effort to be a good actor here.

Also, in your example, if it gets to food being made and then an argument about price, what happens to the restaurant if someone refuses to pay? They don't really get to put that cooked meal into a fridge and wait for someone else to order it. It's garbage (straight up lost money) now.

> I'm really pleased he chose to perform an offsite backup of the plans ordered destroyed...

So am I. It's bittersweet that this is so appreciated now, when it could very well have been treated as espionage at the time.

That took me by surprise too. One hypothesis could be that so many companies that levels.fyi tracks have grown so quickly that they've chosen to stuff themselves full of relatively junior SWEs. I think there are lots of reasons people in strategy positions would choose to do this, whether I agree with them or not.

But re-read the description of "Software Engineer (II)" closely:

> Typically 2-5+ years of experience. [...] At many companies, this is considered a 'career-level', as in you can spend the rest of your career operating at this level without being pushed out for not being promoted.

So, it doesn't suggest it caps out at 5 years, and this could be where people who do "good, but not outstanding" work end up. Also the next level says "Role shifts more towards design rather than implementation depending on size and expectations at company.", so maybe the big break isn't "seniority and how good you are at your job" but rather "can you, and do you want to, work at the next level of design abstraction?"

"2% of the shortfall", which would mean "2% of the 119$ less than the 125$ I could've been getting".

That's quite possibly a reasonable assessment of the situation.

The zoo uses "le", which is masculine (but also fwiw is an accepted "default" for genderless or describing a collection made up of individuals of different genders). https://www.parczoologiquedeparis.fr/fr/les-animaux/le-blob-...

Because a whole bunch of chips you want to use are on I2C. And/or you want to work with a large number of devices, and a chip select per is a lot of GPIO to burn on this. Also you're going to want to handle errors and bad devices on SPI, so it's not like that's new work anyway.

A blanket ban like this isn't particularly useful advice. I2C is perfectly useable in less-than-perfect environments, and LEO isn't really as harsh as people make it out to be. It's really only going to be a problem if you assume that everything operates perfectly all the time, and if you're making those assumptions you're going to have a bad time working on remote systems anyway.

Make sure your drivers can handle NAKs and errors on the line. Make sure you can reset subsystems (probably by power-cycling) completely and your system can keep running. Be ready to deal with stale sensor data or having to do a few retries at times. With these and some good testing you'll be fine with I2C, and really there's immense value in having those attitudes in your system design anyway.

I was a design EE at Planet Labs for 4 years, have sent something like 200 satellites to space, each with literally dozens of I2C devices on them, and supported them in orbit.

A tip, if I may? Are you actually looking to be hired? Because reading that nobody will have a clue what your experience is, what fields you've worked in, or even any way to contact you beyond leaving a reply here. A quick text search of this page (at the time of my comment, there are 31 comments here) has:

  Go: 16
  Python: 23
  Ruby: 8
  Mysql: 5
  Linux: 7

Why would anyone try to find a way to contact you, when all these other people are puting so much more info about themselves forward?

I can't speak from experience, but I can try to relay how I understand it from others. Part of the pattern of behaviour some people with ADHD describe is intense focus on topics, with no sense of when or what topics this will happen to. So someone may be intending to only post one or two tweets worth of interesting notes on enhancement chips, but find themselves going on and on without realizing that they've just spent an hour talking about the topic. They never intended to create blog-length material on the topic, but there it is.

The converse happens too: they can desperately want to write a long form article on a topic, and just can't find themselves starting it. The blank blog page is imposing and they don't know where they would start and maybe they'll distract themselves for a minute with something and whoops now they're very focussed on that distraction for a few hours.

I'm sure there's a lot more subtlety to this than I'm describing, and there's a real diversity of peoples' experiences with this, but there's one way that I understand it can lead to this situation.

A little bit meta here, but I know it's going to come up: somebody is going to complain that Twitter is the wrong way to write this content. How they loved it but were infuriated to read it in snippets. Pre-emptively, I'm copy-pasting an earlier comment of mine on this:

> Heh, from foone themself: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1066547670477488128.html

> Not to humblebrag or anything, but my favorite part of getting posted on hackernews or reddit is that EVERY SINGLE TIME there's one highly-ranked reply that's "jesus man, this could have been a blog post! why make 20 tweets when you can make one blog post?" CAUSE I CAN'T MAKE A BLOG POST, GOD DAMN IT.

> The short story is they are quite open about having ADHD, and that's what causes the long twitter rambles, but also what makes it very difficult to assemble it into a blog post. Every once in a while foone's wife will edit a popular thread into a blog post, examples: https://foone.wordpress.com/

> If this seems like a particularly good story to you, maybe you'd like to edit it into a draft for a blog post and gift that to foone?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19884445

And yeah, as soon as I saw "SNES Cartridges and Enhancement Chips" and the twitter domain, I felt about 90% sure it wouuld be linking to a foone tweetstorm.

You could possibly spot container ships at one instance in a day (the constellation only goes over any point twice a day, ~10.30 AM (local) and 12 hours later (no sunlight)). To what end? You are roughly tripling your power, data storage, and downlink costs, with a loss on your power production (and orbit control, because the Doves use differential drag for phasing) for a poor product that doesn't really have customers.

If you want to track ships that want to be seen, basically everybody has AIS receivers up there (although I understand that's not trivial to sort out from space). If you want to track ships that aren't broadcasting, use radar.

Telemetry and command and control signals are also encrypted.

(I used to work at planet, this is my recollection of what was the case then)

Usually, for ocean-sized bodies of water, we'd stop imaging entirely to reduce power load and align the solar panels with the sun. Effectively all of the ocean had nothing going on on the surface that we could image anyway.

When Planet gets the imagery, they have a fairly good sense of where it is, but it is still processed to get it to align with ground truth, which is called rectification and relies on matching visible features to known ground features. If the entire image is clouds, this can't work and they don't publish the image because they can't say exactly where it is. Also, there's not really usable information in that imagery I guess.