The reason "--" autocorrects to an em dash in practically any word processing software (not talking about browsers) is that that's the accepted way to type it on a typewriter. And you don't need to go into any system settings to enable it. It came in around when things like Smart Quotes came in.

The complexity of actual fabrication was always, and still is, entirely within the foundry. But in the early days of that model, designs could be more easily handed off at the logical level, leaving the physical design to back end companies, which makes designs much more portable between foundries. (The publisher analogy.) What's changed is that the complexity of physical design has exploded, and you can't make the handoff at nearly as high a level, and there is much more work that depends directly on the specific process you are targeting. Much more work at the physical level falls to the fabless semi companies. So it is much more work to retarget a design to a different foundry or process.

It feels a bit like you are expecting completely inexperienced users, but the site doesn't quite anticipate their needs. Loading on mobile was not legible (which is fine, it's an early version.) Switching to the desktop version, the instruction for the initial design to "set" a bit is unclear. What is the function you want the user to implement? It's underspecified.

Further, there needs to be an explanation of what a testbench is, before you present a "Run" button, as well as an explanation as to what stimui the TB will present, and even the entire idea of Verilog simulation. It would be good to have an opportunity to see the testbench code and what the site expects the correct output to be; I didn't see an option for that. New users may not understand waveforms at all without an explanation.

The AI component is fine, but it feels a bit like all of the educational aspect has been delegated to the user to ask questions of the AI. A user who is inexperienced would not even know to use the word "testbench" is to frame their questions. I would suggest some careful thought as to who exactly your target audience is, and specifying early on what prior knowledge you expect them to have.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-rich-are-jk-rowling-jame...

Remote bricking has already happened on a small scale through normal internet connectivity: [Sol-Ark manufacturer reportedly disables all Deye inverters in the US](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42279010) Installed inverters remotely disabled after a dispute between a contract manufacturer and a client. In the HN discussion from November there are comments from security-conscious and off-grid folks talking about how they protect their systems, and none of that would be effective if there's a hidden channel.

If you count up from zero, then you'd also have to include in every packet how high it can go, so that a router has enough info to decide if the packet is still live. Otherwise every connection in the network would have to share the same fixed TTL, or obey the TTL set in whatever random routers it goes through. If you count down, you're always checking against zero.

is in the second sentence of the Mother Jones article. He is not a Salvadoran citizen, he's been sent to a third country by the US.

You could Google "national plant services van" on image search and find similar vans, and that the company is owned by is the Carylon Corporation, with revenue of $300m/year -- but that couldn't convince you that a government agency (it wouldn't be the NSA unless they're violating the law) didn't borrow it or copy it.

You could read that their services include "Digital CCTV inspection. Laser profiling. Sonar pipeline inspection." but that couldn't convince you that the monitor+joystick and other equipment is needed for sewer inspection, because you already believe it is for surveillance. (The irony being that the kind of mass surveillance Mark Klein exposed, or Snowden exposed, means there's absolutely no need to park a truck outside someone's house. You can track who they're communicating with already, and you can subvert their own devices to listen in, instead of parking a van out front for their neighbors to notice.)

You could look at who has the contract to inspect sewers in your town -- it's public record. But you could still choose to believe that the federal government did the same check, and went out and got an identical truck so as to be less suspicious (although in this thread half the people are saying "that's too clean/fancy/technological to be a sewer inspection van!" so if they did it would have backfired.)

Was he under surveillance? Who knows. Does this truck prove anything either way? No. Everybody is going to leave this thread with whatever hunch they came in with.