- I have never bought an Arduino. I have bought a few Picos, a few ESP32s, and a couple Picos. And a clone of an Arduino Nano integrated in a system with a Pico for 5V logic, specifically, to implement a PS/2 controller. I don't see any advantage an Arduino has over an ESP32, aside from 5V logic support.
- While that is true, if Espressif and the Raspberry Pi Foundation can build their SDKs and still offer cheap chips/boards, so could Arduino.
I'm not expecting a $0 markup, but Arduino prices are simply unreasonable for what they offer, especially if you live in a lower income country.
- While that is true, both Espressif and the Pico have their own SDKs, and they're really well written too.
The Arduino SDK is the simplest to use, sure, but the Pico framework (I don't have experience with the Espressif one) is extremely good, and the Pico's PIO is a godsend. I used it to implement 3 wire SPI (data bidirectional on the same wire) at almost 'real-time', which is to say, at half the speed of the hardware SPI controller (half the speed because the interface clock is put up one cycle and down the next; this also gives enough time for data shuffling).
Why does the Arduino SDK necessitate a huge markup on Arduino boards, when $0 of every computer I buy to run Linux on goes to GCC?
- Because if function foo's third flag parameter supports FOO_ENABLE_FEATURE_X starting from 2.31, and a program only occasionally calls foo with this flag, there is no good way to detect this incompatibility on a 2.30 system at link time.
The restriction is only annoying because there is no way to trivially link against an older "minimum requirement" ABI.
- This is not an ABI stability problem, this is a UX problem.
iOS and Android do backwards incompatibility all the time. If you find a mobile app that hasn't been updated in 10 or 15 years, you won't be able to install it on a modern device. But, iOS and Android ship apps to billions of users, nobody complains about ABI stability and nobody uses a Win32 compatibility layer.
glibc already has decent UX in that it doesn't allow you to load an app built for a newer version on a host with an older version. Unfortunately, the message is not user friendly at all "could not load @@GLIBC_X.YZ@@foo()", instead of something more readable, but the restriction is, in itself, good.
The problem is that there is no system to trigger backwards incompatibility at any point, nor is there a simple way to target an older Glibc version without spinning up a docker container.
And glibc is a HELL of a codebase, I would NOT want to be responsible for implementing those features, so I understand why they're not there. But 'our Linux build for our game we are still selling and advertising as working on Linux is no longer compatible with new Linux distributions, so let's rebuild it' is a much easier decision for a developer, publisher, etc. to make than '"some" Linux users are reporting issues with our game, should we dedicate resources to investigating this?'
- Yes but there is simply no reason to have two devices. There are a large number of Windows tablet-laptop combo machines that work perfectly well and prove touch apps work perfectly well on a desktop OS.
Yeah, that took a long time for MS to get to not suck after Windows 8, but touch and tablet interactions on Windows 10 and Windows 11 work perfectly well.
- I simply do not think that the popularity of US tech is due to anything other than the quality of US tech.
I live in Romania, and the people that were rushing to pirate Windows in the 90's after communism fell because they couldn't afford licensing weren't doing so because of any US imposition, but simply because they wanted to use personal computers, and Windows was the best OS for most people at the time for that purpose.
Just like when phones came around they rushed to buy Nokia phones; when smartphones came around they rushed to buy Samsung phones; when they wanted DLSRs they bought Canon and Nikon cameras and now that they want easily transferable digital cash and cheap tech trinkets they opened up Revolut accounts and order stuff off Temu.
Not because of any "influence" or "position" of Finland, South Korea, Japan, the UK or China, but simply because they are the best offer on the market as perceived by consumers.
What tech does Europe lead in? To be fair there are still some fields, like Aerospace (Airbus), Lithography (ASML) or Pharmaceutics (BioNTech). But on the consumer tech market, the phones, laptops and streaming services people want? The EU has no presence. Even the auto industry is going to be eaten up by China, because Europe simply pivoted too late to EVs. I know someone who works at Renault and they're just terrified of the cars that are coming out of China.
- That was not done by the European Commission. It was a document with no legal power. And it was an acknowledgment of an existing market trend. non-iPhones had already began converging on USB charging (including mini-USB and micro-USB) in the years before.
By the time the EU actually first proposed regulation on the matter, which was only in 2020, there were in effect three ports on the phone market: the Apple Lightning was still used in iPhones, and the rest of the market was undergoing an orderly migration from the cheaper micro-USB port, to the more expensive but better USB-C port.
So yes, the free market was entirely responsible for transitioning from dozens of ports to 3 ports, and would have very likely eventually transitioned to 2 ports. The fact that the EU made recommendation to that effect years ago after the trend had begun that was purely voluntary is an entirely irrelevant datum.
- Once again, the EU coming 30 years later to do something everyone else is doing, and everyone will credit them for some odd reason.
In the 90s, there were dozens (hundreds?) of phone charging ports. A couple of years ago, there were only two. The dozens -> 2 simplifications occurred on the purely free market. And the EU mandated a simplification from 2 -> 1 and gets the credit for the entire simplification.
What is the point of this license? Either the GPL is invalid in the EU, in which case why aren't companies moving to the EU to infringe on the GPL? Or it is valid, in which case a a bunch of EU lawyers were given a bunch of MY money to do nothing of value to anyone.
- Can anyone using GrapheneOS report if Firebase notifications come in consistently and reliably via sandboxed Play Services?
I'm in the market for a new phone, and I'm going to buy a Pixel 9a this week for GrapheneOS if I can reliably get notifications on it. (I already have an A05 for banking apps)
- Ok, but there's nothing stopping from writing a "discoverable" GUI or TUI or CLI for this interaction.
To the user it doesn't matter.
To the developer, it makes a difference.
/proc/<pid>/ctl is not any more or less simple or discoverable for the end user than TerminateProcess or kill(2). It's all opaque esoteric stuff.
But for the developer /proc/<pid>/ctl is MORE discoverable than TerminateProcess or kill(2), since it's a file you can list, so you know it exists. Yeah, you still have to read the man page (you always have to read the docs as a developer), but you know there's a ctl file that probably controls some stuff about the process there. And you already know how to interact with it (the same IO interface as everything else).
- Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Unfortunately, my comment was simply not a defense of the company, since I know little about the situation, nor was it an attack on the city's actions. It was a reply to the comment I was responding too, which voiced a call to "lock 'em up" and punish them more, which I see all too often.
I certainly do not support government surveillance for any reason.
My comment was a defense of the legal proceedings as-we-have-them, in which the city issues a cease-and-desist, the company ignores it, the problem persists for a while, litigation start, the city demand a court order etc. And in the end the company is massively screwed, if they were wrong.
The alternative is simply that city decides, and the company is forced to follow.
The problem is procedural and structural, not consequentialist.
- Me: "I do not think the population should live under fear of excessive, arbitrary and unaccountable law enforcement. The company may be entirely in the wrong in which case they should be punished to the full extent of the law, including for present non-compliance, but that should be up to the judge and to the extent determined in the written law."
"Bootlicker"
- First of all, I think that this instinct to fine-'em, screw-'em, etc. is profoundly authoritarian. It is extremely important for a civil society not only that predictable laws are put into place, but also that predictable enforcement of those laws exist. I jaywalk almost every day. I understand that if a cop sees me jaywalk, he will fine me. I also understand that if the cop wants to put me in jail for jaywalking, he cannot do that, and the law would be on my side. On my side, me, the offender.
The reason is that the law not only specifies what people should do what is allowed and isn't allowed, but also what the penalties are for breaking the law. A law stating "People are required to do X" or "People are forbidden from doing Y", without any penalties specified is not worth the paper it is written on and cannot be enforced in any way (at least that's how it works in my jurisdiction, Romania).
And that is all very well, and how it should be, in a law-based state.
Secondly, in this case, this is an act of the executive branch. Specifically it is an executive branch attempting to terminate a contract with the company. It is not a company attempting to spy on private citizens by installing cameras against the law. It is a company attempting not to be ousted out of a contract with the government.
"The law", in spite of what cop movies might have you believe, is not the executive branch, but the legislature. And private citizens and private corporations are simply not required to follow the orders of the executive, unless the executive has a piece of paper signed off by the legislature which states that the executive has a right to issue the order. In much simpler terms, citizens and corporations are only required to follow legal orders and are not required to follow illegal orders, given by the executive. Who decides what is legal? The judiciary.
This is what it means to live in a society with a separation of powers.
> The city intends to terminate the contract on Sept. 26 under its notice to Flock, but the company is challenging that termination, and the dispute could escalate to litigation.
A cease-and-desist by the executive is not a law. The corporation's opinion is that the contract termination is illegal. And therefore that the cease-and-desist is illegal. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps they're wrong. But they have the right to bring the thing to trail.
"Well maybe they have the right to bring the thing to trail, but until the trail is ruled in their case, they should follow the orders of the executive.", I hear the objection.
Not at all. If they are wrong, they will be punished for not following the orders, including every extra day that the cameras stay up. But if they are right, they cannot be made to follow an illegal order, at any point.
"So the executive cannot do anything to get those cameras down until the trail is solved?"
Not at all. They can get, either as part of the trail, or outside of it, a court order, to get those cameras down. Not following a court order is actually something that can get you arrested, etc. and I doubt any business would risk that. But that means the judge must decide that it is in the community's best interest for those cameras to be down, instead of up, during the trail proceedings. And he may not decide that. He may decide the opposite, or that it doesn't matter.
Again, the system being fair and working as intended. Not the executive doing whatever it wants.
- I recently started using Codex (OpenAI's Claude Code) and it has a VSCode extension that works like a charm. I tried out Windsurf a while ago. And the Codex extension simply does everything that Windsurf did. I guess it doesn't show changes at well, (it shows diffs in it's own window instead of in the file), but I can just check a git diff graphically (current state vs. HEAD) if I really wanted that.
I am really tempted to buy ChatGPT Pro, and probably would have if I lived in a richer country (unfortunetley purchase power parity doesn't equalize for tech products). The problem with Windsurf (and presumably Cursor and others) is that you buy the IDE subscription and then still have to worry about usage costs. With Codex/Claude Code etc., yeah, it's expensive, but, as long as you're within the usage limits, which are hopefully reasonable for the most expensive prices, you don't have to worry about it. AND you get the web and phone apps with GPT 5 Pro, etc.
- I HATE this. I regularly look at really high end products I'll never buy for the fun of it in a "What's the best X that money can buy?" sort of way. And it took me half an hour to find what's the "best" Lenovo laptop money-no-object . Not even ChatGPT could figure it out easily (as far as I can tell it's the P16s). Apple? Well they sell 2 laptops: the MacBook Air and Pro. Select the Pro, spec it out to the max, done. Even the 13/16-inch choice is part of the spec process, and not a separate product.
PC manufacturers, please, for the love of all that is holy, make FIVE laptops: the thin, the tablet-laptop, the "pro", the gaming (the "pro" with RGB) and the workstation (as in Xeon/Quadro). Keep the name you give each of them year-after-year-after-year. And just offer me a lot of CONFIGURATION options to each of these, not a lot of different products.
Dell seams quite reasonable by comparison with Lenovo.
- > I believe trusting any person whose incentive is to take money from you is not a prudent decision.
I simply do not see the correlation. There are many people in the world that want to make money and do so by providing a great product at an affordable price (eg. Gabe Newell). Perhaps it is better to say you shouldn't trust people that who give you something for free to make money off you.
- To me the important thing is the "nefarious" action that is "implied". For B it's firing (I understand that's what's been happening in this case) and for A it's vandalism (as that's what was happening at this time).
And getting fired for expressing a 1A-protected opinion outside of work hours, and getting your car destroyed for purchasing a legal product are pretty comparable.
- Depends. Obviously Tanzania can't do it. Neither could the EU, the tech sector's not big enough. But the US could. And you can always keep it to "geopolitical allies", or at least away from "geopolitical enemies".
> I would argue it is not possible to ever consider the internet 'safe' because you happen to flow through country x, and not country y. Instead, we must keep working on the protocols that we use to try to reduce exposure as much as possible.
Firstly, there are only three ways that I know of to keep metadata (not content, which can simply be encrypted) away from the people that route your packets.
1) Onion routing (Tor). This cannot be used for general purpose multimedia usage because of slow speeds (any slow middle node can make it slow, and the higher you speed you require your nodes to bee, the fewer nodes you have, lowering the security of your network)
2) VPNs. This obviously pushes the problem of trust back to the VPN company. Which is fine, it only needs to be more trustworthy than the ISP. But jurisdiction is a very important topic here, which only makes my point more so.
3) Put everything on one of a few global CDNs. That way, all network traffic is just encrypted requests to Google, Cloudflare, Amazon and Azure servers. This obviously has the problem that the CDN company now know what you're doing.
Unfortunately, the EU doesn't seem interested in private protocols.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-0032...
One of my main uses for my Pixel Watch is reading notifications, and even for a 2-3 line text message I have to scroll to read it because it gets cut out by the roundness.