There's a reason that many military and intelligence organizations worldwide physically cut / remove wifi and bluetooth chips from boards. The same is done when audio is identifiable, and specific hardware (only) greenlit.

I've lost hours of my life to calls explaining exactly this, only to have people ignore it, only to further have folks come back, tail between their legs. The worst part is learning this in industry, as I did. There's a reason for in-industry advisors. I wish that I had learned this the easy way.

It's literally the fastest way to have someone get up to speed with the customer profile and product. They can play with it whilst listening in to support calls (if a thing). They can learn about pain points and "hard edges" that as developers we don't always come across.

I uses to think that it was about fear of the unknown, or as you've said "Being angry at people who make you feel a bit weird inside".

I now firmly believe that it's a modern form of tribalism. Having an "other", whether as a scapegoat, a fear inducing device, or a target is simply too convenient to ignore. Whether or not one is a globalist is orthogonal to the fact that people ultimately decide, or evolve to see through a different lens.

1. When you press on someone's design respectfully, do they get defensive. Do they become argumentative.

2. When thoughtfully pointing out a concern, how does the candidate take it?

3. When you suggest a technology that makes no sense to intentionally challenge knowledge, does the candidate recognize why it makes no sense? Are they able to share what the negative of the approach is. If you indicate that you know the question is "senseless" but want their feedback, how do they communicate?

4. When you hard request a change that requires a literal rethink and rewrite do they become argumentative? Do they embrace the change?

5. When discussing testing, how do they think about it? I come down to the nitty gritty and ask about postive vs negative cases, table driven testing, what types of tests matter (for our situation) and why.

6. We discuss timeline tradeoffs, and then have the conversation about the candidate's approach given updates to see how they think.

You'll notice that I am never looking for a solution. I'm seeking communication, description, partnership while having a (relatively) thorough gasp of the subject matter.

Every single time I get a response from a candidate such as "I don't know, I'd have to learn more - or use AI to, or.. what do you think" turns out to be something I LOVE, because it creates a great fabric for the interview.

At the same time, I think we're far too far down the systems path now. We've hit a point where interviewing has become purely systems design "because the AI writes the code".

Not that I'm ever asked, but I inherently believe the act of critical thinking, communication, and expression are the key skills for those who already have the appropriate coding/engineering/cs/etc background. I now only interview for those skills - but through the lens of impossible to solve systems design conversations as opposed to problems. It tells me a lot about how people think.

I'm actually hoping that this will force Samsung to solve their silly lockscreen choices, and the fact that it needs to be "configured" to be useful, because it's separate (Multilock - I'm talking to you). Honestly, I would happily take even bigger. The extra real estate when you want it is great. But it needs to hit tablet(ish) sizes. We're just in early days.

Their robots do movement using sliding scale in 3D spaces (think poles that are left right, up and down, and the "picker" being able to glide and move. They currently have a ceiling slider that goes down and suctions things into a pneumatic tube to then end up in my grocery bag. IMHO it works pretty well - especially considering that delivery is ~$8 for me.

Ultimately we're going to end up with several different types of robots, and not with a human centric vision. The question is if bipedal is a long term dead-end, and merely a short term method to fit into the world we currently have designed.

Can we get there in the future - perhaps. But the accuracy needs to be much higher. I remember in the 90s when my father's clinic tried both Softvoice and Dragon. Comparing it to his receptionist typing out his notes, the accuracy was in the 80s - hence rejected. Just last week an AI startup here in Israel was kicked out of their HMO partner for having a transcription accuracy of only 92% in a mixed mode these where a doctor, patient, and caregiver are all in the room (think doctor + mom + kid)

For the curious - trained medical receptions have and maintain accuracy rates when measures of 97%. This is just transcription.

Hallucinating entire events is another, far worse thing.

To me, still, at a scale of 250 contributors (which we hit), Gitea solved all the problems. The fact that there's a command line tool (tea) that mostly works, means that it is beyond good enough for my use case, out of the box. It misses all sorts of things and depending on how important they are, you then invest in looking to close we they'll gap. That in turn creates its own maintenance and frustration costs.

In other words, there's no one shot. There's a good enough depending on need.

It was.. surprisingly a little bit under a day's work. It's now heavily tied into our way of working and thinking. This is the upside of the current world.

What used to be time spent in personal, throwaway(ish) shell scripting has now become the same, but for more full fledged tooling. It doesn't need to be consumable by others - but it does need to make my/our life/ves better

I don't have the socials, so I don't see things like what you mentioned.

As someone in love with fountain pens and ink, I can tell you that there are absolutely wealthy pen turners, private designers, and the same with watches.

I'm not in the US. I can't Amazon. I don't want to spend the equivalent of 1k USD just to get 3 devices in a brainless mesh that covers my ~125sqm place made of insane amounts of radio blocking concrete.

I no longer want to maintain my network, to have network. I want things that just work. The Orbi did that for me - but the costing makes me think abut the future, and not finding a painless solution. I guess that's the tradeoff.

To wit, I also want the mesh comms on another channel (i.e 6Ghz, rather then the 2.4/5.0) and the computers/IOTs/etc isolated from that. Perhaps cheap tri-band is insanely wishful thinking. It sure seems that way.