The very first patent was to duplicate an existing process (the loom) and have a monopoly to produce it.

I keep hearing this argument from patent proponents, but patents have never in their history been ostensibly for good.

10/100 ethernet over a different cable and connector type would have worked out pretty nicely.

For example, you get a kernel panic, or soft-reset for some reason. When you recover, you now have a bus in an unknown state, possibly mid-transaction, and if you pick the wrong order in which to bring the bus back to idle, you might wedge it or accidentally cause a side-effect (e.g overwrite a byte in an EEPROM).

* No way to safely bring the bus back to idle from mid-transaction. By "safely" I mean not accidentally transmit an extra byte which could e.g overwrite EEPROM memory. There is no combination of transitioning the 2-wire bus from an arbitrary state back to idle which works in the general case. If it's important, you end up adding a dedicated reset wire.

* No safe, universal way to bring the bus from tristate, or low, to pulled-up. There are designs where this ends up being necessary. You end up with a spurious transaction, which may wedge the bus, or having to add a reset wire or buffer.

* The protocol is extremely hostile to devices with non-zero latency response. It's designed as a simple "Address this register and then immediately read out a byte in the next clock cycle". Works great for trivial devices, but for anything more complex it ends up needing a bank of register acting as a "proxy" to access the higher latency side of the chip. At this point I2C is an awesomely bad choice, but people keep doing this, because it's so universal.

Yes, it sucks, but forgive me if I don't shed a tear for someone who has to find a way to pay taxes on their $50M of assets. They absolutely do have options which aren't terrible.

If a "wealth tax" did pass, then expect countless startups who specialize in handling the arbitrage of this.

I suspect if/when this gets to a higher court, the whole thing will come crashing down, because to allow Uber's weaselly redefinition of common terms, would be to allow other classes of employment to similarly become unprotected.

They usually turn out to have an underlying wonky or absent moral compass, and abusive personality traits.

The outward image is a confidence trick, and that's how they got where they are.

I don't think you understand what end-to-end means.

Is it reducing 10 year lifespan to 9 years? 9.99 years? 5 years? Was it 50 year lifespan? It's pointless conjecture.

This is not the 1990s. It is perfectly acceptable and even advantageous to design for a high peak:normal load ratio, with thermal throttling. In this case, it allows for a compact, cheap, fanless design for the vast majority of users.

There is no evidence the heat dissipated will impact lifespan. It is common for the components picked out in particular (power supply, USB-C controllers) to be deliberately designed to run hot. They aren't made on the same process as the SoC.

I feel like there is a missing piece of the software/hardware design art here. There are many takes like this on the Raspberry Pi 4 design. Why only one ethernet? Why no fan? Why not more USB-C? Because it's $35 and because, perhaps, you aren't the target majority market. It's going to satisfy the vast majority of people, and those it doesn't have very simple and cheap ways to mod it so it does.

You are the example it is making.

Back-propogation is not an "AI" algorithm.

You are ironically doing exactly what this article is about.

There's a complication with the few appended trailing blocks being invalid data, but the format might allow it, and git doesn't verify its integrity recursively.

The game-changer is it's chosen-prefix. A vendor can produce a pair of entirely different binaries with the same hash, but most importantly, they look and behave sane except for the last few blocks of the file. This is easily hidden, especially if the binary is encrypted.

It's not a stretch of the imagination to see how, for example, an IP camera vendor could do exactly this. Yes, it requires a nefarious/complicit vendor, or an insider who can pull this off undetected (not everyone has a fully automated build/release pipeline).

So it changes the threat model. SHAtter was waived by many because the threat model didn't convincingly apply to them. Example: git. That analysis needs to be repeated.

(All this assuming the attack described in the paper is correct and practical in real world implementation)

Where have you been in the last few years, and how have you not learned anything about abusive practices which entrap people? These companies are basically abusive — they abuse their staff with long hours and low benefits, taking full advantage of the cool-factor to entangle them. As anyone who has the slightest empathy and has read anything in the news cycle in the last few years would know, people caught in this situation are often unaware they're being abused, blame themselves, and don't realize there is better elsewhere.

If you're one of the people who are, right now reading this, thinking "That's a load of BS these people are idiots and they deserve what they get", then I implore that you think again and realize you are essentially blaming the victim. That's almost never the right side to be on.

What we need to do is expose these companies for what they really. Put all these things out in the open and air them for all to see. Perhaps at some point we can have all the major studios unionized, and perhaps once their internal cultures become less toxic, their external one will likewise clear up a bit. Here's hoping.

The entire point of the post is that _nobody_ can appreciate it. It is entirely a waste of space at best, and a cynical marketing ploy at worst.

The whole point of the EU is that Europe is better when it's together. There were multiple wars, involving the death of many millions, and that's just the last hundred years.

Independence is just dressed up nationalism, and all the ugly facets it is made of.