I love a straight-6 so much that I drive a car that uses two of them joined at the crankshaft! Each I6 has its own ECU and is entirely unaware of the other. Crude, but very smooth nonetheless.
Longer stroke provides a greater lever arm on the crankshaft, allowing the same combustion force to generate more torque during the power stroke. What's your counter-argument?
That sounds fantastic but it means nothing in practice. It's like something you'd hear in a "Engineering Explained" video, but with no real-world application. There's so much more that goes into an engine that it doesn't matter.
Again, it's a myth.
Similarly, there was always the debate over rod length (in the same displacement engines). You use the same crankshaft but the piston has the wrist pin located higher. The longer rod was always supposed to make "more torque" because of the angle but that ended up not being the case.
You can verify this buy putting engines together with different bores and strokes that are roughly equal displacements, and with the same heads/cam on them, they will make identical power. Picture something like a 3.50" bore and 4.00" stroke, and vice versa. Look up someone like Richard Holdener on YouTube for actual data. Displacement is displacement, it doesn't really matter how you make it.
Bore is what would make you more power after a certain point, anyway. You get more surface area to fit larger valves, etc. But again, using the same heads (that aren't shrouding the smaller bores), either combination of bore/stroke will make the same power throughout the rev range.
Then you get into things like piston speed and all that but none of that matters unless you're talking about a race engine. And when you are, they'll just rebuild it more often so they don't care how long it lasts.
If you could fit the same intake manifold, cylinder head, and camshaft on them. There's things other than displacement that determine the shape of the torque curve.
Compare a Suzuki G13B 1300 vs a Suzuki Hayabusa 1300 for example.
Consider the car analogy: if you want to drive on public roads, you need to drive an attested, unmodified vehicle that complies with the relevant regulations. If you want to play around and modify the car, that's fine, but then you don't get to use it around other people. You're also not allowed to buy some random, unknown Chinese or Indian car and drive it on the road. People already accept this when framed as a safety issue. I suspect they care more about their cars than their phones, and won't care about the requirements on the phone anyway because they're not planning to modify it, and as long as WhatsApp and Instagram keep letting them exchange shopping list additions and pictures of vacation cocktails, then what's the problem?
To be clear, I'm not in favor of a participation-in-society ban for jailbreaking your phone, but there's already precedent for it.
The analogy is a bit shaky IMO, as you can certify individual, heavily modified, foreign or even self-built cars in EU member states.
For cars, the local certification authority themselves decides what is road-worthy or not, not VW et al. You can add third party parts without the manufacturers consent. This is not the case for Android or iOS attestation, you're pretty much at the mercy of the foreign manufacturer and their local laws.
May I infer from your response that your quarrel is not with a central authority having the final word in what code you're allowed to execute on your own device, but rather that it should be the government and not a corporation signing the binaries that are permitted to run?
If you're expecting a perfect analogy, you're not going to find one. Law in its application also doesn't deal in exactness, but in generalities and vibes: that's why lawyers argue, and judges decide.
I'm familiar with the process for individually certifying unique and modified vehicles in several European countries. Invariably, the process is costly and onerous, which serves as a deterrent.
Cars can and do kill 1,500,000 people every single year, equivalent to a jumbo jet full of people every couple hours, plus an equal number of crippled and injured, plus untold number of pollution deaths. That's a ridiculous comparison (if anything cars are not regulated enough). Who am I endangering when running microg on my phone??
I will continue advocating for the devil, then! These are the top bogeymen we need to thwart in order to protect...
-children and women, harmed through unregulated and unobserved communications enabling human trafficking and the spread of CSAM.
-social healthcare systems, harmed by enabling the proliferation of illegal drugs, which leads to the over-taxing of an already straining public good, reducing access to people who would need help outside of drug-caused issues.
-society at large, harmed by enabling drug-funded terrorists to trade in weapons and coordinate their destructive actions out of sight of law enforcement.
For your and others' safety, please leave your signing keys at the door.
Plenty of democracies in Europe and elsewhere regularly and repeatedly fail to actually represent the desires and interests of the citizenry, but they keep getting reelected anyway. Why should this time be any different?
I'm sure they do fail, but at least they have the theoretical ability for citizens to more directly challenge crimes comitted by the government itself. Unlike the U.S., which removed it by statutes, most other common law countries, and all civil law countries, citizens retain the ability to force criminal prosecution (either by private prosecution or by appeal to a magistrate with proof a crime has been committed).
I have no idea what this has to do with the EU implementing age verification because politicians want it, and the powerlessness of EU citizens to arrest or impede the government's machinations. Feels Gish Gallopy.
What I can say that's at least tangentially relevant to the topic at hand is that I've lived for a couple of decades in both the USA and the EU, being a citizen of both, and have found Americans generally much more politically informed and involved. I find Europeans, particularly Irish, very well informed about U.S. politics that they are powerless to influence, and next to oblivious of anything going on at home. Given that Ireland has the EU Presidency right now and is choosing to use its bully pulpit to advocate for British-style draconian Internet regulation, that's doubly a shame.
Governments and businesses have already decided that it's fine to mandate that you own an unmodified smartphone made by one of the major manufacturers, so it's not much of a stretch to assume that they will also eventually require you to run an attested OS image made by one of the two major manufacturers. The fact that some run Linux internally isn't going to help your case: governments do a lot of things internally that you're not allowed to do. I used to watch cops in Amsterdam park on the sidewalk to go get a kebab, for example.
I'm happy to see the IEEE talking about this, and to see the topic getting attention in the technical press. The problem is, I think (for the most part) that technical people already Get It. Who we need to convince are average, non-technical voters who don't know, don't understand, think it's a good thing, or would happily jump feet-first into a wood chipper if someone told them it would protect the children.
I also suspect that social media has damaging effects on kids, and they probably shouldn't have access to it, but not like this. I'd probably be quicker to support something like saying that individuals <18 aren't allowed to buy or possess a phone or tablet that has access to an app store or web browser, and only offers voice- and text-based communications channels. Ok, so now it all happens on a laptop? What's "a tablet?" Is a Chromebook a tablet? It's fucking impossible.
I appreciate what you're trying to say, but here's a counter-example: .22lr ammunition is also extremely inexpensive per unit, but I can't buy that at all in Ireland without extensive, recurring background checks and a demonstrated continuing need for access. If a government decides you don't get to have something, they are well within their power to effectively eliminate it. I can no more make an ESP32 at home than ammunition. I reckon it's harder, in fact.
[To the government Cornholio reading this and panicking because I mentioned a gun thing: no, I'm not threatening you.]
As long as there's a country willing to build and sell ESP32s, I think it would be fairly easy to get hold of them. How does a customs agent distinguish between an ESP32 and another microcontroller? These things are in every gadget. Is a government really going to ban all electronics?
Just look at how ineffective governments are at stopping drugs. If people are motivated to smuggle things, they will. Is there going to be a booming black market in ESP32s? Probably not. But will motivated people manage to import them? Almost certainly.
First off, guns aren't a subcomponent of a vast majority of modern items. The ESP32 was an example but the reality is anything with a radio. Be it WiFi, Bluetooth, or anything.
Second off, guns are incredibly easy to make. Easy enough that they make them in prisons and Japan. But you know what's a million times easier than that? Radio. It's a common first electronics project. You can literally make it out of a few resisters, capacitors, and some wire.
Literally the cost of fighting this type of technology is taking down all wireless infrastructure. ALL of it. And even then it's still a god awfully expensive thing to fight because anyone with a hot pointy object, an electricity source, and some things that are slightly bad at conducting electricity can make a radio
> All electronics that can be freely programmed by the owner, not impossible.
I'm not sure that is possible. Most chips are reprogramable. You think your cheap electricians are going to put in high security defenses?
Even Google and Apple can't keep themselves from getting jailbroken. You think that's going to be true about a $5 toy with a WiFi or Bluetooth chip in it.
The power imbalance is not in favor of the individual citizen. Fairly simple to enact a law saying "unlicenced importation of electronic devices is an offence", only license major retailers, and have Customs seize anything that doesn't come with the right paperwork attached (which they already do). Drugs are far easier to make than silicon chips, despite how clever people like Sam Zeloof may be.
To have a firearms permit here, I need a "Good Reason" - that's the language from the law verbatim. "I like guns" is not a Good Reason. In that vein, what would be your Good Reason for receiving an import license to bring in technology which is apparently widely used by radicals to defy duly-ratified legislation about communications visibility and enable the creation of side channels which break the law and can be used to proliferate CSAM, drugs, and terrorism? I'm sure any sane person would agree that those are bad things which need to be stopped. Perhaps you should take up a different hobby, like jogging.
> despite how clever people like Sam Zeloof may be.
You don't need to fabricate silicon chips to create radio. You need conductors, resistors, and electricity. Almost every person currently alive has several objects transmitting radio signals within arms reach.
> The power imbalance is not in favor of the individual citizen.
Yes it is. Because the cost is so fucking trivial that it costs magnitudes more to send someone to find a transmitter than it takes to make a dozen transmitters.
1. Nobody cares enough to do all this except some nerds on HN.
2. Spurious radio transmissions from your spark gap set will be tracked down in an afternoon by government foxhunters, and then you'll be in jail for breaking the law.
I don't understand why people think they can meaningfully kinetically resist. The discussion now needs to be convincing the random voter why this is a problem for them, or the game is lost.
There's nothing preventing both from happening. By framing it as an "or" situation rather than an "and" situation you are acting as the type of person you're criticizing.
An impressively softwarey alternative to simply pulling out the wifi module and replacing it with an AliExpress Apple wifi module adapter board and a compact M.2 WiFi module with a supported chipset :)
I'm happy they've been able to build a $1,660,000,000,000 company on the back of me logging in once every two months, scrolling 3 posts, getting disgusted with slop, and closing the tab. Gives me hope that my harebrained ventures may also succeed!
I keep mine alive a) to squat on the account for my identity, b) just because I know there are family members that will do posts/messages once in awhile instead of sending me a direct SMS, so I log in every few months
I've used my Facebook account once in the last decade, still keep it open as I have no reason to delete it and give up my parked identity (I share a name with a nationally recognizeable politician).
You overestimate the amount of a crap I give about cleaning up accounts I don't use! It also helps prevent someone from credibly impersonating me, which is something that has happened to a few people I know.
It's for messaging with old people. It's like having a telephone doesn't mean you're talking all day. It's for people to be able to contact you and vice versa.
That is about right for me. I scoll a little longer but as soon as it changes from people I care to follow to slop I'm gone for a couple more months. there is value in following distant friends but it isn't worth hours per day of sorting through slop to find it. When it is only every month or two the non-slop still seems to rise to the top. (But God only knows what non slop they choose not to show me) I wish there was a way to block all 'so-and-so shared' as that is where most of the slop comes from. (Ads at least I can say is how they pay the bills and so I accept a few as non-slop)
Absolutely lol - as a human in tech; I like to try and live like it is 1999 - and the 1999 where I wasn’t inside writing Perl but 1999 like when I was outside roller blading, skateboarding, bmxing, before I had a cell phone.
reply