It’s fairly easy to get into an irrecoverably broken state using an intermediate-level Git operation such as an interactive rebase (as of a couple of years ago). (It’s probably recoverable by reaching into the guts of the repo, but given you can’t do the rebase either way I’m still taking off a point.) The distinguished remote URLs thing is pointlessly awkward—I’ve never gotten pushing to places where those remotes are inaccessible to work properly when the pushed commit updates the submodule reference. (I believe it’s possible, but given the amount of effort I’ve put into unsuccessfully figuring that out, I’m comfortable taking off a point here as well.)
I like git submodules, I think they’re fundamentally the right way to do things. But despite their age they aren’t in what I’d call a properly working state, even compared to Git’s usual amount of sharp edges.
Ehh, Framework isn't open-source hardware and its repairability is reliant on a single vendor. A nice step in the right direction, but MNT is the only company making computers that meet the bar for true "anyone can make their own" open source hardware (and certified[0] by the Open Source Hardware Association). This means MNT could go under, and anyone can still make/repair the entire machine. Not the case for Framework. If they close up shop, their hardware just lost its repairability. Their tagline "you can use them for as long as you'd like" has a big caveat - "as long as Framework parts are being manufactured". MNT doesn't have this limitation. The actual schematics are open source. Heck, even if individual components in the BOM stop shipping, compatible hardware can be made by the community because the entire computer is "known" and not encumbered by NDAs and whatnot. New PCB revisions can be made by whomever has the skill to do so. Too cool :D
that's amazing, I'll look them up! I hadn't realised they were that open, I assumed everybody was repairable like framework (i.e. pray they don't go under).
I know, right? The prior fully-OSHW computer I knew of was Novena but that was quite a while ago https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/novena Great quote from Bunnie still true today: "if you can't hack it, you don't own it" :)
Right? SpaceX is presumably in compliance with the requirements set out by the relevant licensing body, otherwise their noncompliance would be the lede. So the actual boogieman here would appear to be the licensing body.
Blaming a licensee for loose licensing requirements seems obviously ridiculous... but that's just the D in MDS, now isn't it?
Actually Starlink is not in compliance with the regulations. It exceeds a lot the permitted out-of-band emissions.
Because of that, SpaceX has requested from FCC a waiver that would allow it to exceed nine times the out-of-band emissions permitted by the current regulations.
The competitors of Starlink, i.e. AT&T, Verizon, EchoStar and Omnispace, have petitioned FCC to deny SpaceX's request.
SpaceX argues that they should be allowed to break the rules because "This out-of-band emission restriction will be most detrimental for real-time communications such as voice and video, rendering such communications unreliable both in critical and in common circumstances, increasing risk in emergency situations" and complying with the rules risks "needlessly sacrificing reliable real-time communications, including emergency voice and video, for American consumers, limiting the most powerful supplemental coverage system in the world to just a text service".
According to SpaceX, complying with the regulations requires that "To achieve this reduction, SpaceX would sacrifice substantial system capacity and capability, either turning down power by half and keeping all beams active, reducing its beam count by half, or a combination of the two".
All these arguments look like a complete BS. SpaceX knew the regulations and they could have easily designed their equipment to be compliant, but this would have increased their costs, perhaps a lot, due to the need to include more expensive filters in their equipment, possibly increasing the size and weight, which would have also increased the launch costs. So they have attempted to save money by using the strategy "ask forgiveness not permission".
I believe that any big company that uses this childish strategy should be severely punished, instead of receiving forgiveness. For small companies it is impossible to bring any product on the market without passing an expensive compliance test for radio emissions in a certified laboratory. When they are caught with a non-compliant product, they must recall it, they are not forgiven. SpaceX does not deserve any privileges, especially when their misbehavior affects the entire world, not only USA.
1300 is a nice sample size if you're sampling randomly.
If 1/3 of people have a trait, you'll get a good sense it's common after asking 300 people, even if the total population is a million. Surveying more gives diminishing returns as the result quickly converges on the real proportion.
The real problem with all surveys is the sampling isn't truly random, which skews results.
reply