There is a faulty array iterator in the BIOS code that can copy arbitrary data to locations higher up in the memory map than the base pointer. Normally that wouldn't let you overwrite any executable code because the base pointer is very high up (might be a stack pointer?). But because of the memory aliasing, if you set the right value the write "wraps around" and lets you clobber the BIOS.

This means you can boot a custom BIOS, effectively, by just going into the memory card screen. From there you can execute a PSX.EXE without going through the mechacon checks, bypassing copy protection

---

I wouldn't mind learning more about the MGS port. Do you remember much about it?

It uses TCL for most of the scripting, IIRC. In fact I think MGS 1-4 use the same lineage of scripting languages.

MGS2 source code was leaked recently, but my guess would be that was a complete rewrite and shared very little from the PSX codebase.

I mean sure. Every company wants an infinite addressable market. But that doesn't mean it exists.

It might not be possible to sell 10x the software we sell today. It might not even be possible to sell 2x

I am willing to bet a Twix we'll look back on that stuff in 2 years with a lot of embarrassment

"Well. It's got a nine in it"

"What percentage??"

"Nine"

I think there is truth in this. A lot of the assistive technology (AT) vendors, also sell consultancy.

Go to the Vispero career pages (who develop JAWS for Windows) and a big chunk of the jobs are remote consultancy roles advising clients on accessibility errors and selling for billable hours.

What makes a web page accessible? Why, it has to work with JAWS, of course!

Vispero makes a lot of money from this; the consultants are all in India, the clients are all in the West, so they can hoover up the difference. I get the impression most AT vendors are extremely cheap, which may explain why it takes decades for them to improve things

I came across this problem pretty directly a couple of weeks ago - I wanted to see if I could port a small C program to Go, where one of the needs is to create gzip archives. But the Go stdlib insists on extraneous padding that breaks the backwards compatibility requirements of my program.

The padding isn't needed, it isn't useful, and you can't opt out of it. So the whole program went in the bin and I have resumed maintaining it in C

This is one of dozens of situations I've experienced where Go's allegedly pristine stdlib design has kicked me in the nuts

The author is someone in the demoscene who has been accused of "vibe coding" large pieces of work.

His counter is that if such things are possible, where is the vibe coded Photoshop?

He then goes on a tangent that "vibe coding" is a kind of easy accusation mostly levelled at "neurodiverse" developers

Which is why he ends the post:

    So.
    Where are the vibecoded Photoshops?
    WHERE IS THE THREAT YOU MADE UP TO ATTACK ME?

    I'm waiting.
    – gizmo

1. Argues that Tailwind requires div-itis

2. And that divs affect the accessibility tree

As mentioned below:

A