dsuth

7 ms·

1.
by dsuth 8y ago
Honestly updates seems to be a more or less solved problem in Win10, for general use at least.
2.
by dsuth 8y ago
> We can have magsafe back too. :) Yes please. Honestly the new format is such a clusterfuck of unwanted features, poor hardware implementation, and removal of wanted features that it makes you wonder how it got out the door. Hanging ont
3.
by dsuth 8y ago
This. I gave up after several rounds of dist-upgrades broke, then fixed, then re-broke things. If you’re making fundamental architectural changes on a regular (monthly) basis, it’s pretty clear you’re not interested in being taken seriously
4.
by dsuth 9y ago
This is similar to me, but for engineering. Getting jobs via networking is much, much easier than cold-calling an interview. Talk to your friends and workmates, ex-managers etc. If you've done good work in the past, people will be happ
5.
by dsuth 11y ago
> 1. Snapchat's design is remarkable for its hidden features that you discover by social-networking Honest question: isn't this just bad UI design?
6.
by dsuth 11y ago
Are there any good breakdowns for laymen you could point to about this behaviour? It sounds fascinating.
7.
by dsuth 11y ago
I don't believe the tech industry is necessarily worse than other male-dominated industries, but that's not really an excuse not to try and do better, is it? I like to think that geeks are slightly more enlightened than our busine
8.
by dsuth 11y ago
No, it's an implication that the OP is dressed like a prostitute. That's not cool.
9.
by dsuth 11y ago
It is difficult to teach tech to women when there is a perceived bias against women in the tech industry. That is the point of this article, and others like it. There are many efforts going into positive reinforcement for women entering t
10.
by dsuth 11y ago
That's kinda the whole point of the article - to raise awareness of an issue that women face. This is not about taking sensitivity classes, it's about accepting that there is a problem, and doing something about it as part of a co
11.
by dsuth 11y ago
About the same time they move away from the Imperial measurement system.
12.
by dsuth 11y ago
So you don't know what's in the standard, but you make assertions and continue to support them? That's a fairly disappointing level of discourse for HN. It requires a very similar software development process to all other fun
13.
by dsuth 11y ago
Because this completely dis-incentivises companies to spend money developing features in the first place, and makes it impossible for them to recoup the sunk cost of development over car sales, since they're competing against companies
14.
by dsuth 11y ago
European car manufacturers are required to develop safety critical software under ISO 26262, which is a derivation of IEC 61508, which absolutely does require formal verification and validation activities. If you change the code outside of
15.
by dsuth 11y ago
Don't get me wrong, I'm the last person to defend the overuse of software patents. Where people are genuinely creating extremely complex functionality in software however, I think they deserve some protection for their outlay. On
16.
by dsuth 11y ago
Don't worry, I'm just as furious as you are! I want realistic solutions though, and I don't think forcing vendors to open their source will fly. For one, you will never force all vendors to comply, as some are completely outs
17.
by dsuth 11y ago
Are you serious? Absolutely not. Unless you can show that you are competent to modify safety critical software, and have a certified process in place to do that, it would be illegal for you to modify the code, and you would be personally li
18.
by dsuth 11y ago
By purchasing a car, you purchase an end product, which is designed to be suitable for your purposes. You don't purchase rights to a million manhours of software, free to do what you will with. If companies had to amortise the cost of
19.
by dsuth 11y ago
> But the idea that code applying to the primary control functions of an automobile cannot be known (is not published and cannot legally be reverse engineered) is just a bad idea. Why is it a bad idea? Do we know the code base of airplan
20.
by dsuth 11y ago
A random sample of each make and model of car should be periodically put through far more stringent testing than normal, in an effort to catch this kind of thing. Allowing this cheat to go undetected for so long speaks to the failure of the
21.
by dsuth 11y ago
I'm surprised that the EFF would suggest going to the level of having companies publish their code. A huge number of manhours goes into developing the software that runs a car, and a significant amount of IP is tied up in it. Forcing v
22.
by dsuth 11y ago
You would have to assume that by 'automatically failing', the test would involve checking the software version, and if it's not updated, the car instantly fails the test. I can't imagine a test centre knowingly passing a
23.
by dsuth 11y ago
Not sure why you are equivocating in this instance. It's clearly an intentional breach of regulations, which the CEO has fessed up to. NOx emissions are a serious concern, whether they 'are' 40x too high, or 'up to'
24.
by dsuth 11y ago
That's not how pollution works. Exposure limits are based on relatively safe values; exceeding those values can seriously affect people in the area. 40x legal limits is a serious issue, not a case of 'a bit more of a bad thing&#x2
25.
by dsuth 11y ago
Students at my sons school (Australia) use the school computers to research topics, and create PowerPoint presentations. It seems like a reasonable way to introduce early school kids to computer skills, as well as some of the better uses fo
26.
by dsuth 11y ago
Thanks for that comment. I have some more reading to do on CAN bus, and admittedly I come from an industry where the default is generally to turn things off in unsafe or uncertain conditions, which simplifies the protocol significantly. Tha
27.
by dsuth 11y ago
I disagree; it's not necessary to throw everything away, but an improvement should, and must be made. Existing protocols can be extended to include security (and have, see Safety CIP for an example). Any form of engineered design is un
28.
by dsuth 11y ago
Thanks for this description (and others below). In that case it's not reasonable to use this for safety critical applications, IMO. Any element on the bus becomes a potential point of entry, and there's no defence in depth once on
29.
by dsuth 11y ago
Regardless of the firmware question with the V850 module, I'm surprised that other modules on the CAN bus would accept commands from an entity that 'should' only have read access, without validation. I'm not up to speed
30.
by dsuth 11y ago
This appears to be offering a fundamentally different experience from Starbucks, whose business model, as I understand it, is to offer a bunch of weird, vaguely coffee-related drinks, but more importantly, space to sit down and drink them

More ›