memetomancer

Your comment is almost completely incomprehensible to me, as someone that doesn't work in the Meta context...

I take it being an L5 is a good thing? but just six months ago you were an L8, and competition to become an L6 was a coin toss? No idea what 'price discovery' could mean in this situation, other than a fairly weird way to say 'salary range'? And any of this having to do with 'the bond market' is just baffling!

The reason I bring it up is that I'm genuinely curious what life is like in other corners of the tech world. Any way you could translate the above into non-Meta terms?

Sounds great in theory but I'd suspect that you'd cave pretty soon after your bank adopts this (or whatever essential site/service you aren't considering is captured here).

I disagree: the device monitors battery fluctuations to 'authenticate' the driver. the fluctuations need to be a specific pattern - delivered either by a device plugged into the 12v accessory port, or by some specific pattern of driver behavior, such as quickly flashing lights, activating wipers, etc. This is indeed a novel approach.

And it is a fair sight more involved than a simple kill switch, by the look of things. The research aspect comes from exploring the practicality of such an approach. This exploration requires prototypes, test beds and investigators.

Who's really to say what the results of the research will be, at this point? In my opinion, I think smart phones and NFC are probably the way to go... but I'm not going to hop on the internet and make scornful remarks until I know more. I'm not sure why you have done so?

This is a frustrating yet common sort of take. Yes, this is simple, as the article clearly points out. Yes it is obvious in retrospect. But did you do anything with your brilliant work besides bodge your terrible car a few more miles down the road?

There is value to developing the entire system... to ensuring the keypad mechanism is reasonably robust and tamper proof. There is value to understanding the vehicle as a system and reasoning out this defense strategy. There will be value in preliminary productization of something this for mass production, especially as regards the use of that terrible 12v power port and providing the 'fingerprint' in a safe range of voltage fluctuations to avoid catastrophic and probably non-obvious failure modes. There will likely be D.O.T. paperwork, and UL listing.

$1.2 million is probably a bit meager to truly develop something like this.

Yes, you can hobble some crap together on your Montero. Congratulation. Hardly a solid foundation to speak ill of this team doing something genuinely productive.

the inode is the important thing when all is said and done. It is flexible in that it can contain all the metadata needed to present a file to a process. Sometimes that metadata is a list of blocks in the filesystem. sometimes it points to another inode.

I think of it like an old-timey 'card catalog'. You have a bunch of tiny drawers filled with cards. Some of the cards are big and blank spacers with a prominent tab sticking above the normal top edges (Directory). Sometimes you have a card that points to another card elsewhere in the catalog (link). Sometimes you find the details of a specific book on a specific shelf (block data).

Point is, they are all cards. The comment essentially asked for a command to say 'how many cards between these two spacers'. It's a "trick" question as old as usenet to spring the distinction between link inodes and list of blocks inodes and say "Ah-HAH!! gotcha", but in reality it's a silly game of jumping levels, misdirecting semantics and prey upon the distribution of understanding in a forum for personal glory.

The inode is the item, it is the card that is being counted, no matter what is printed on it. imho.

|For example, what combination of shell commands can I use to output the number of files in a directory? Hint: it probably isn't what you think it is, if it's even possible.

`find . -type f | wc -l`

I'm immediately reminded of "Master Foo and the Ten Thousand Lines":

http://catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/ten-thousand.html

Master Foo once said to a visiting programmer: “There is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”

| worse than anyone who's on it now.

Bold claim about a site that is, in the last year or so, pivoted to explicit and quite public encouragement of Nazi/racist viewpoints.

So... I visited Reddit before coming here and finding the HN thread...

Most of the site is rebelling, but I took the time to visit, intending to give them impressions, just to see how they are holding up. And of course they aren't really holding up as we can see.

But their handling is unbelievably tone deaf - I was greeted by the message that I broke Reddit. They gave me the grade of 'F'. I refreshed the page and they showed me a cartoon corpse.

I get that it's a tongue-in-cheek leftover from happier times, but considering the circumstances it sure came off as hostility aimed at the few people willing to give them a chance on this dark day.

I mean, I was really just rubbernecking... so maybe i deserved it for my schadenfreude, but still. It is casual hostility directed at the source of their user generated content. It's not in good taste. But I suspect it would never occur to the entitled mindset of their leadership.

should be able to measure that with the same lasers, I would think.

I had a look at this paper, and in the citations I see two papers from Jonathan Pruitt!

For those unfamiliar, Jonathan Pruitt is a _former_ Professor charged with falsifying massive amounts of data relating to spider behavior. I was under the impression that most of his papers had been retracted.

I was not expecting anyone to reference his work. I will have to check it out, to see if this is still commonplace in the field - based on the hubbub and furor and #Pruittgate hashtags during the pandemic years, I was under the impression that spider biology was set back 10 years and nobody would touch the guy with a 10-foot pole.

| Namely, the domain experts (navy pilots)

I don't think this is accurate - "navy pilots" are domain experts in operation of navy aircraft.

What you are maybe getting confused here is that the three examples in the article are actually part of several domains, each of which is very different from aviation expertise.

The domains we're talking about include topics such as optical physics, radar physics (transmitters & receivers), optical sensor technology (and attendant physics), and digital processing including chipset hardware and software stack (and implementation of specific physics). Each of these are their own 'domain', which is important here because faulty implementation in any one of them can lead to such anomalies.

In general, navy pilots do not have that expertise, though I would very much like to hear the opinions of a navy pilot that is indeed 'expert' with all of these 'domains'.

FYI, and nothing personal, but your comment is more or less coming across to me as "whelp, the inflexible delegation has spoken".

I go to great lengths to maintain a flexible mindset, to try to get the best out of a new approach. Hearing/reading someone trying to throw a shallow take-down of something they haven't tried doesn't read as "ooh that person is so cool I'm super convinced"... it comes across more like "oh, poor fella went and got his brain rigidized... and at such a young age".

But maybe you'll come around. Maybe people will come around and realize the ankle-deep hot takes are worse than useless and we can all get back to the good stuff.

On the other hand, I do have my own suspicions. At first glance it does simply sound like another layer of idiosyncrasy to jam into the memory hole, something that will certainly never be universally adopted and just add more hidey-holes to search for config files.

But, as I hope I made clear, I'm willing to give it a shot because I don't trust myself to have absolute insight into a thing after a couple minutes reading. There may well be aspects to this that I can't conjure, but will really like after all is said and done.

Thank you, I'll be sure to swing by. I specifically worked on MM6-8 in detail, would be glad to chat about the good ol' days.

Nice to see it! I had a pretty big hand in making these suckers, worked at New World Computing during that era...

I'm thinking I'd better not elaborate on the particulars or give out any personally identifying information, but maybe I'll pop into their discord and make myself vaguely available (if I could even be of any help).

(Hey so I apologize if this has been touched on in the main thread, but I didn't spot anything related so starting a new one).

We should consider even further: what about consequences of successfully colonizing Mars? I feel it would mean almost certain doom for both planets. I'll explain:

Imagine all of the hurdles mentioned in the linked blog are overcome. Improbable for the U.S. or EU, sure, but consider China. If everything goes well, they end up with a sustainable outpost with several hundred to several thousand inhabitants and a reliable supply line back to Earth. Everything is great, yeah?

But looking a bit further down the timeline, we will end up with generations of humans native to this outpost. All living deep underground, rarely seeing the surface. Sure there would be domes you could visit to check it out, but they'd probably see as much traffic as a planetarium or scenic vista - more apt for school trips than any part of daily life.

We know very little of the role of epigenetics in these conditions, but you might imagine that tunnel dwelling folk in weak gravity are probably going to express genes differently during development, than we see here on Earth. Different diets, different light exposure, different gravity and even different focal lengths will all have an impact. The forces of evolution will bear an increased impact here also - children that blossom into more Earth appropriate bodies will have increased pressure against their thriving in these conditions. Social forces will likely begin to exclude them from the gene pool, accelerating the occurrences of whatever Martian traits emerge.

These generations of inhabitants would eventually put pressure on the supply lines from Earth via the growing population. Or some enterprising politician will manipulate the supply lines in order to exercise despotic authority over them. Eventually the Martians will see pressure to become self sufficient. This will plainly lead to a revolution and independence - an intolerable insult the the patron government. Back on Earth, the strange look of the native Martians will stir racist hatreds and clamoring for subjugation with extreme prejudice. Recall that in the past few years we've seen extreme hatred rear up over the pettiest of differences, to the point where neo-nazis are flourishing and attempting coups in the most powerful nations. Hating weird gray/green skinned, 8 foot tall spider people from Outer Space would be reaaaal easy for these people.

The Earth will send their troops and bombers. The Martians will burrow deeper and humiliate those invading troops with relative ease. The Earth will maybe nuke the place? But that will have very little effect, even the aftermath of fallout and irradiated rock will be negligible to the Martians. But they will be angry. And it would take little effort to rig something up and launch Phobos at the Earth at 1% c.

But the Martians would soon learn that they were dependent on Earth for more than manufactured goods. Their delayed access to the internet would disappear, along with scientific advancements, intellectual culture, entertainment and archives going offline and leaving them with whatever had been cached/stored in their local cloud hardware. Would Mars have developed a chip fab (and the equally important thousands of suppliers for a chip fab) by this time? Medical knowledge? Would they have needed expertise in Computer Science? Imagine if some disaster left Earth with little more than a single hospital and a computer retailer, how would we recover?

Mars Colony may just soldier on for a while, but more than likely would ultimately succumb to genetic degradation, scientific stagnation, room to grow the civilization, lack of elements or molecules that are difficult to procure on Mars, etc.

Colonizing Mars is the worst idea. Just the worst.

| Particularly disgusting

A phrase particularly lacking in decency, making you a bad actor on this forum. Especially when you are wrong. It takes an elevated sense of self-importance to say that because you don't like a moderate opinion it is palpably revolting.

Twitter isn't a technical problem, as others have pointed out. It is a social problem. One that leads to behavior just as intolerant and dvisive as Fox News or any of the demagogues making their fortunes by bringing out the worst impulses of the stupidest people. One that leads people like yourself to drag down the discussion with such uncalled for invective.

Trying to discuss the problem invariably brings out dim outbursts, such as your own, meant to stifle discourse. Yes you feel entitled to your own set of rules and care little for the effect it has on others, but the effect of Twitter is destroying the fabric that coddles you, that protects you and allows you to have small selfish views at the expense of everyone else, with no evidence that you understand the consequences.

| You're not required to participate. Nobody is, in fact.

As long as Twitter remains a powerful platform for social influence - even if you explicitly avoid participation - you face the effects. Nobody in the U.S. can escape the grandstanding, the vitriol, the ostracizing, or the influence that the forum represents. The problem extends to many other nations. Something should be done and discussing it freely is a sane approach.

So choke down your bile, bite your tongue and make your points with some dignity. If we all pull together we can get through this, I just know it.

Just out of curiosity, can you explain to me what you mean by 'marketing names' in relation to IMEC? I'm not quite convinced you understand what that organization is, what they do, or what they have accomplished.

I wasn't being condescending, and I am objectively not 'wrong'. I merely urged you to gather information you may not be familiar with. Particularly IMECs roadmap.

I will point out that you instantly went into condescending mode after complaining about my imagined condescension. I assure you, I'm well aware of what a process node implies about measurement of larger features. I'm also aware of the promising approaches coming down the pike.

I'm _also_ aware of the decades-old Internet tradition of people posting about the hard physical limits and immediate death of Moore's law, even as the limits are overcome year after year.

I am glad that you have a handle on the problems we face here, but please try to keep in mind that these challenges are a beginning, not an end.

Perhaps you are unaware of the angstrom scale process nodes on the semiconductor roadmaps? i.e., IMEC, TSMC and Intel all aggressively pursuing "20A" at the moment with an eye toward a new generation of sub-1n production.

This isn't just some arbitrary guesswork on a blog, it's practical planning by the major suppliers. Check it out.

Interesting take. You have casually dismissed the Goldbach Conjecture (perhaps the deepest centuries old problem in number theory) as 'trite, trivial and uninteresting'... Suggesting that you are only minimally familiar with the issue... then toss about an inapplicable phrase 'self-referential recursive logic' as if you are deeply immersed in such matters, perhaps even _much_ smarter than the thousands of mathematicians (including the likes of Euler) that have applied themselves to this problem. An odd contradiction!

I do believe this opinion places you very high on the 'confidence' axis, but not especially far along the 'competence' axis.

It is weird hate.

Positive Feedback:

I quit like the tight, minimal look. the variation in key heights and the concave number row keys seem like excellent positioning features.

Honestly, I've used so many keyboards in my time that I'd be quite happy to adapt to this layout and give it a go. It would look great along with my minimalist tower.

Questions:

Does it have feet to provide tilt? It was unclear from the website, but as best I could make out it does not, only lays flat on the desk.

Is it backlit? I would assume 'no' since it isn't mentioned, but the picture of the low profile switches made me second guess, and backlit keys are fairly standard these days.

Are the low profile switches pluggable? I haven't checked in detail but I imagine that manufacturer makes something like blue and brown variants of that switch and I like to have different switches in some places, would be nice to swap out without busting out the soldering iron.

Can the bluetooth module be (truly) disabled or deleted? It could be considered a security issue. I would prefer to avoid bluetooth in a desktop setting.

Otherwise, thanks for posting, this looks pretty sweet. I've signed up under the waiting list.

While looking up a reference image for another comment in this thread, I came across another cool GUI site:

https://guidebookgallery.org/guis

This seems much more comprehensive, has screenshots of specific UI elements and controls to view different tabs within those screenshots.

The KDE 1 task manager looks _very_ similar to the Windows NT 4 task manager (from the mid nineties): https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/winnt40 (scroll down to 'task manager' and click the faint tab control marked '3' in the upper left of the specific screen shot)

Until Win10, the NT OSes had that same basic task manager with the cool looking green graphs. WinNT 3.51 had a much more crude looking task manager

minor nit - this is a very poorly named site. A better name might be "the history of workstation and personal computer graphical user interfaces", a very far cry from blanket coverage of all "user interfaces".

Even foregoing simple UI such as the handle of a hammer, or even the mechanical interfaces of yesteryear such as the differences between a Curta calculator and the original Burroughs adding machine, or a Jacquard loom and so forth...

Limiting ourselves to just binary digital computers we're still missing a lot at this site. IBM 1401 card punch machines... the IBM 360 operator console... the VAX DCL, the original UNIX sh, etc., etc.

Your conceptual model is way too vague.

Same can be said for you? A "Thinkpad" is nowhere near as sophisticated as a human. Your challenge equates to something like "Go put a human pancreas cell in a jungle hut in a bath of nutrients. Come back in a month. It will be dead and not have even tried to survive."

At a certain level of abstraction, the matter you are comprised of is indistinguishable from a computer, while still being a useful comparison: despite the means, circuits and cells both take signals, process and return modified signals. Likewise, we can compare both of these things to a member of a colony organism, such as an ant.

Though each element has different levels of sophistication the actual "sentience" occurs at a higher level... a sum of all the signals leading to a decision. For a human, whose thoughts surf over a network of squishy cells, this decision might lead to something like movement or dance. To an ant colony - movement or dance is not really an option... it is a big deal to move the colony, no matter how much movement any given ant might display.

For an AI - well it would entirely depend on attached mechanisms. Have you not seen humanoid robots move or dance? Given enough circuits in an appropriately sophisticated arrangement, could we conceive of a robot that observes visual signals, makes decisions about the information, and subsequently changes it behavior in response? That sequence alone qualifies that mechanism as "Sentient", though we might not be able to declare that it is "Sapient" or has "Consciousness".

Frankly I think you should probably shut yours off for a while.

Frankly, I think you should read something like a basic text describing these issues. A simple primer to give you at least a basic footing in this conversation. The concepts I've just described are decades old and have been continuously poured over by thousands of people much smarter than you or I.

I fail to see your point, really. I'm not sure how your premise of "[trying] to build something like a new hardware device or systems" forces anyone into the app store, or even if it did compel them - say in the instance of the Roku app - what reason is there to charge for this? Bake it into your hardware price.

I don't buy this for a minute. With all due respect your comment reads as so much noise. Are you rejecting the premise? Then identify the premise and rebut it. Are you citing Wittgenstein or Chompsky, or just name dropping for the borrowed prestige? Since there is lots to chose from in their respective oeuvre, which arguments are you indicating? How does Wolfram run afoul of Kolmogorov?

I'm asking in earnest. Perhaps you know your stuff after all and we can get some signal here. Otherwise, I'm sorry to say but your comment comes across as empty, fluffy posturing that does not add much.

thanks, that is bound to come in handy at some point.

AS an aside, this kinda touches on what I mentioned about discoverability - I sorta go out of my way to understand how to get stuff done on these various OSs and this one eluded me. I was under the impression you would have to install powertoys and use 'send to...' commands to get this done on windows GUI.