For most businesses, you’re not the target audience of your website, your potential customers are.

ARM is a much more mature platform, and the licensing scheme helps somewhat to keep really good physical implementations of the cores, since some advances get “distributed” through ARM itself.

Compute capabilities and power efficiency are very tied to physical implementations, which for the best part is happening behind closed doors.

- Early (ESP8622) MCUs had weak security, implementation flaws, and a host of issues that meant an attacker could hijack and maintain control of devices via OTA updates.

- Their chosen way to implement these systems makes them more vulnerable. They explicitly reduce hardware footprint by moving functionality from hardware to software.

- More recently there was some controversy about hidden commands in the BT chain, which were claimed to be debug functionality. Even if you take them at their word, that speaks volumes about their practices and procedures.

That’s the main problem with these kinds of backdoors, you can never really prove they exist because there’s reasonable alternative explanations since bugs do happen.

What I can tell you is that every single company I’ve worked which took security seriously (medical implants, critical safety industry) not only banned their use on our designs, they banned the presence of ESP32 based devices on our networks.

I’d say it’s true, but the LLMs and humans don’t have the exact same definition of what “obscure” is.

Karel is almost a subset of Pascal with some keyword swaps. And there’s a LOT of Pascal (and similar languages) around.

From the PoV of a statistical based tool like an LLM, Karel is just another flavor of a very popular structure.

What would have you done when the Bitcoin fork happened 50/50? Would you have gone int ICOs? Which ones? Etc…

There’s simply too many “new things”, so by trying to get exposure to them you’ll be massively in the red.

Let’s say you get into 1000 “new things”, and you strike it lucky and hit BTC. You’d had to buy BTC in early 2013, hold it over the whole period and sold at the historical maximum for you to be at break even.

If instead of buying 1000 “new things”, you’ve put your money into the S&P you’d be at +250% by the same time.

As a freelancer I do a bit of everything, and I’ve seen places where LLM breezes through and gets me what I want quickly, and times where using an LLM was a complete waste of time.

If this doesn’t get fixed, I’m going to have to rethink a lot of my digital life, including my company’s.

That’s very market and country specific. Spain makes more than 1k tweaks to it’s food regulations each year, which would kill lots of restaurants if they were to be in compliance.

The result is that everyone tries to make as much money as they can and build a “inspection fund”, because you’re guaranteed to get a fine if inspected.

Also, a lot of countries do have IDs...

Consumer rights aren’t features, and they’re very intentionally written to not be.

> "Force of the state making sideloading mandatory is bad" > ...Except we have antitrust laws?

Then sue them over those.

> Listen, either it's the case that "sideloading" is a threat to normies or it's not. Are normies your 1% or 99% of users? I thought according to you 99% of users won't sideload.

I meant that 99% of users aren’t afraid by the term “sideloading”. That you’re not using something doesn’t mean you’re afraid of it, it just means you don’t want it.

> you're right, why not let corporations be corporations and do anti-consumer things, they'll be very good to us (while they lobby the state).

Because corporations tend to die when they do anti-consumer things, but governments keep doing anti-citizen things without much trouble.

Nowadays it’s not even that hard to build your own phone, but it’s not going to be a slick smartphone for sure

Features aren’t rights, if you want a phone that let’s you run whatever you want, buy one or make it yourself.

What you’re trying is to use the force of the state to make mandatory a feature that not only 99% users won’t use, it vastly increases the attack surface for most of them, specially the most vulnerable.

If anyone were trying to create a word that gives a “deviant” feel, they wouldn’t use “sideload”, and most people haven’t even heard the term. There’s a world of difference between words like “pirate”, “crack”, “hack” and “sideload”.

If anything I’d say it’s too nice of a term, since it easily hides for normies the fact that what you’re doing is loading untrusted code, and it’s your responsibility to audit it’s origin or contents (something even lot’s of devs don’t do).

If you want to reverse engineer your devices, all the power to you, but you don’t get to decide how others people’s devices work.

Does it really matter? There’s always a first country to do anything.

It makes no sense actual exposure to radiation is increasing because of the lack of nuclear plants…

Or we could treat nuclear rationally and stop increasing the price three orders of magnitude past diminishing returns..

Also, you can’t converge to a diverging number, for Rust to get close to C++’s level of complexity, the C++ WG would have to stop with their garbage.

My only point is that if you get published in a journal, at least two people have seen it.

Are you nuts?

X-ray inspection is not that rare, there’s even small assembly houses here (Spain) that can do xray automated inspection.

This has been standard for years to the point I’ve been sent forms for assembly houses RFQ where there are checkboxes for xray inspection, and I haven’t handled a serious assembly development in ~4 years.

What’s new and they’re advertising here is CT, which is another level.