riskable

joined 1 year ago
[–] riskable@programming.dev 4 points 11 months ago

It's because car manufacturers are loath to change microcontrollers in their vehicles because they've got decades of processes, tooling, and debugging with the (Atmel) chips they've been using since forever. When they decide to make a new car they basically just look at the latest Atmega(whatever) "automotive" chip (using really old chip tech) and choose that.

Atmel has "automotive" chips for everything! From regular MCUs to beefy ones with boatloads of pins and (slow ass) LCD controllers. They've made it so that car manufacturers don't even have to think! The engineers probably get an automatic OK to use whatever Atmel "automotive" chip they want but anything else requires a lengthy and expensive certification process.

Some cars are using STM32 chips made for automotive but they're not as common as you'd think!

Basically, the car manufacturers are extremely risk-averse because of low margins and something like an ECU recall can totally ruin the profitability of a new car. They're also lazy and don't want to try new things! There, I said it 😁

[–] riskable@programming.dev 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

It's because they cheaped out and used (cheap) electromechanical switches for the buttons and electromechanical rotary encoders for the knobs.

If they used magnetic hall effect switches they'd never glitch (unless the microcontroller itself is glitching). Hall effect switches are forever.

(And no: Even cars in Arizona don't get hot enough to wreck rare earth magnets... They'll lose strength slightly above 80°C but not enough to matter since the car knows its internal temp and can compensate if they didn't get the better sensors that auto-compensate).

For reference, hall effect switches and encoders aren't really that much more expensive for something like a car where you're going to be using/making millions of them. It probably saves pennies per car to use the cheap switches.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 6 points 11 months ago (11 children)

"The weather is bad": This one is the least convincing of them all.

Where I live it's 90°F (or higher) with 90%+ humidity at least six months out of the year (more like 9 lately though) and it rains heavily at random in random locations on any given random day. When the weather report says, "50% chance of rain" what it really means is that all day it will be raining down on 50% of the county for ten to twenty minutes at a time (LOL).

The argument that website is making is that if the weather is that bad it's too awful just to go outside (which is 100% accurate haha)... Therefore the weather preventing cycling is a myth? WTF? It's silly.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 19 points 11 months ago

Not with that attitude!

Gently rotates monitor and increases zoom level to 400%

[–] riskable@programming.dev 41 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not only that but if the SCOTUS rules that presidents are immune to prosecution for anything they do while in office Biden should just straight up murder all the justices that voted in favor of the opinion. There would be no (legal) consequences!

[–] riskable@programming.dev 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You're overestimating the intelligence and ability of his listeners if you think they'd notice the difference.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 27 points 11 months ago

They're investing heavily in podcasts because podcasts are far, far more profitable than music. If they can get people used to (and hooked) on listening to podcasts (any podcasts) through Spotify then all that money spent on popular podcasters will be worth it (in the end).

I'm sure Spotify would love it if they could stop streaming music entirely and just focus on podcasts. Streaming music costs them a ton of money and overhead (bureaucracy associated with keeping track of and paying artists globally with bazillions of laws and regulations and fees to navigate) whereas podcasts just cost bandwidth.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 32 points 11 months ago (13 children)

The point of any church is to centralize wealth and power. Otherwise why bother with the bureaucracy, the buildings, and the mandatory meetings?

The problem with centralizing wealth and power is that it attracts people who prioritize wealth and power. The problem compounds itself by making it ridiculously easy for basically any man (men, usually and specifically) to become leaders with basically no qualifications necessary other than claims of faith and a little bit of charisma.

People who wish to abuse power (e.g. for personal sexual satisfaction) will seek institutions that already have power that readily and easily allow it to be abused. Churches have always been their perfect home, always ready and willing to accept new abusers into their flock.

Religion and piety are the easiest things to lie about. No qualifications necessary! In fact, you can work your way all the way to the top of any religion and count on it to protect your abuse at every step of the way because publicly acknowledging that abuse happens is really bad for any religion or religious institution.

Once you get higher into the organization you'll learn about other bad things the church and its people have done and be able to use that knowledge to blackmail others and maybe even hold the entire institution hostage! It's how big, rich church leaders are made!

I don't know what the solution is but I can say that so far the best defense against sexual abuse in general is to avoid church and religious institutions.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You're using DARE as a positive example‽ the DARE program is widely considered to be an enormous failure. Here's a decent rundown:

https://www.talkitoutnc.org/dare-program-effectiveness/#:~:text=program%20failed%20to%20live%20up,rate%20of%20teen%20drug%20use.

(But if you just search it up you'll find hundreds of similar articles)

I was in school when the DARE program was quite strongly promoted and I specifically remember being fed endless misinformation about drugs. It was never about educating children it was about trying to scare them with bullshit.

"If they were wrong about marijuana being addicting they're probably wrong about everything else..."

...aaaaand that's how young people ended up trying all sorts of new things they shouldn't have.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Prediction: Murdoch will be dead by then. He's 92.

Edit: I think we'll see news that he's dead by next Saturday. Why? Trying to cash in my hopium 👍

[–] riskable@programming.dev 74 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

This article is misleading: The cards are already "AI accelerators" they just come in monstrous sizes and coolers that aren't suitable for cramming more than one into a computer (server) case.

What the Chinese chop shops are doing is removing the components and resoldering them on to smaller PCBs and putting on smaller (but more powerful and jet-engine loud) exhaust-style coolers.

Basically it's just old fashioned harvesting and re-using of PCB components. A common thing during the shortages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 7 points 11 months ago

Some banks? No. All banks.

Even credit unions do this. They may not have as many or as expensive fees as regular commercial banks but they still have fees and certain features aren't free. If you deposit $100,000 (or more) you'll find that a lot of those fees get waived, your interest rates will be better, and they will generally treat you better than the peasants with like $5,000 in their savings.

It's just another advantage that the rich have over every day people. Most of them take these things for granted or don't think they matter in the slightest. It never occurs to them that regular $3 fees or occasional $25 fees can have a huge impact on the poor and the middle class.

Full Disclosure: I work for a bank.

view more: ‹ prev next ›