Building a tech and falsely advertising it to be something else that what it is (e.g. self driving instead of driving assistance) can typically done by different people. Lacking specific evidence, it's reckless to accuse this person.
right. i'm mostly ignorant of the subject and rushing to judgement based on bias. but he did lead the computer vision team for years at tesla that created autopilot. didn't resign in protest and to my knowledge hasn't apologized, but again i'm ignorant and not seeking new data.
> It was a challenge to write routines that would keep the computer tolerably in tune, since the Mark II could only approximate the true pitch of many notes: for instance the true pitch of G3 is 196 Hertz but the closest frequency that the Mark II could generate was well off the note at 198.41 Hertz.
There are several notes that sounds significantly out of tune, a bit similar to a beginner violinist. Which is kind of poetic in a way. The first computer to play music (in 1951!) had not mastered it yet.
It’s truly fascinating that it was out of tune because of the similarities of the Mark II timing with sound itself .. but that also computing rapidly, rapidly started operating in a much higher frequency band and is capable these days of bending audio realities in other astonishing ways ..
I'm not a lawyer but I would assume its copyright. Kind of like API in software. In software somehow this does not apply most of the time. But it seems in hardware this is very real. But I would appreciate a lawyer jumping in.
I know for example that Berkley when thinking pre-RISC-V that they had a deal with Intel about using x86-64 for research. But they were not able to share the designs.
I don't know why there aren't independent X86-64 manufacturers. Patents on the extensions maybe? But as I understand copyright, APIs can't be copyrighted so it's not that.
I doubt there is any legal barrier, because there are a few existing projects with x86 cores on an FPGA, as well as some SoCs. Here's a 486: https://opencores.org/projects/ao486
On Firefox/Linux, after allowing mic access, I get a "Failed to access microphone" above the button, and in the javascript console:
[ws] Microphone error: DOMException: AudioContext.createMediaStreamSource: Connecting AudioNodes from AudioContexts with different sample-rate is currently not supported.
This law feels like a battle in The Coming War on General Computation, as Cory Doctorow put it:
> I can see that there will be programs that run on general purpose computers and peripherals that will even freak me out. So I can believe that people who advocate for limiting general purpose computers will find receptive audience for their positions. But just as we saw with the copyright wars, banning certain instructions, or protocols, or messages, will be wholly ineffective as a means of prevention and remedy; and as we saw in the copyright wars, all attempts at controlling PCs will converge on rootkits; all attempts at controlling the Internet will converge on surveillance and censorship, which is why all this stuff matters.
> all attempts at controlling the Internet will converge on surveillance and censorship, which is why all this stuff matters
it really boils down to this sadly, and it should be pretty obvious shouldn't it?
i'm finding it befuddling that even technical audiences seem to resist connecting those dots, but strong motivated reasoning is at play: these are audiences that will often feel it will be them who will be in control, and they're also emotionally nudged by the idea of child safety
CSV can handle commas in fields just fine (quotes are required in that case). The root problem here is not the format, it's a bug in the CSV exporter used.
It is _the_ 2FA device. from SMS, to authenticators, to password managers, etc. It also has access to all of your personal information, your pictures, your contacts, your email. It actively receives notifications and messages from the outside world, from potentially any sender. It's connected through WiFi, GPS, 5G, bluetooth, UWB, every possible connection system imaginable. It can listen to your phone calls, read your text messages, interact on your behalf with pretty much everything in your life, and is a single facial recognition away from automating emptying your bank account. Not to mention the fact that mobile software does tend to want to at least survive a little bit when offline, so plenty of data is stored locally.
It's a key to your life. The perfect target for any attacker.
My Linux laptop is my 2FA device (email), it holds my passwords, and personal data like photos, contacts, email. It receives notifications and messages from outside world from potentially any sender. It connects through Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Ethernet, 5G (built in WWAN). It even has cameras, microphones and I use it for my online banking and shopping. The only reason why smartphones "need" to be ultra secure is because everyone and their mother have one and the truth is most people can hardly tell a difference between their head and their butt.
Well yes. Security measures aren't for the principled tech saavy scene who is up to date on the latest malware and exploits. That's how Apple rose to power; it put convenience first and told users it'd worry about all the privacy stuff for them.
A bit contradictory, but that's what the people want. They (as a mass) always choose convenience over both freedom and security. So that's why we always converge towards a centralized power, in tech and the larger world.
Because regular users (non-techies) install all kinds of apps on their phones, from all kinds of sources/vendors, but not on their desktop. Most people use only a handful of applications on their desktop (browser, office suite, …) but they have dozens if not hundreds of different apps on their phone.
reply