I skimmed this article, but I’ll revisit it later because MPU protections have always intrigued me, in terms of being a much smaller subset of the protections afforded by an MMU. That said, for work projects, I’ve only ever been able to make use of MPU regions for coarse-grain protection (eg prevent the DMA-dedicated regions from being accessible by everything) and not for per-task protection. So I’m always interested in ways that more isolation can be applied, precisely because it keeps code honest, which isn’t a bad thing. It’s no different than having software asserts.

Nice! For my reference, what model of helmet is this?

Also, sorry to hear about your poor experience at Cyclegear.

Which precise use-cases are we talking about? A modern phone can do:

• Short text messages, to individuals or groups
• Voice calls, to individuals or groups, using the existing telephone network
• Roaming across the world
• GPS navigation and tracking
• Data/Internet connectivity

IANAL. If a bank signs the copy they receive back from the counterparty, then generally yeah, it would be enforceable. Contract law demands that result, because otherwise there’d be no point to the words on the document. Working in the other party’s favor would be any lack of notice shortly after the bank signs the contract, because the longer the bank takes to notice a problem, the easiest it is to prove that they did not exercise the appropriate care when signing, incurring all consequences as a result. Missing more and more opportunities to recast or renegotiate the contract, that’s a poor position to defend.

That said, the other party must not have made any implied or explicit statements that the bank could have relied upon. Returning the modified contract to the bank in an email with the words “please find the signed contract attached” (my emphasis) could ambiguously imply that the original contract has been unmodified except that it has gained the other party’s signature.

Whereas the words “please find my signed proposal attached” would dispell any and all ambiguity, because it would clearly be a proposed contract by the other party, not the bank’s original proposal. Alternatively, a blank email with just the attachment is no statement at all, implied or explicit.

To be clear, a bank would almost certainly contest the contract, even if they don’t have a leg to stand on. And the usual reason for this – besides litigiousness – is that it’s the only way for the bank’s business insurance to pay out. Or at the very least, an attempt to slightly lower the damages by opening settlement talks.

This looks amazing. That said, you may want to have a look at rules 7 and 8 for this community.

Contributors: Claude

Please kindly see Rule 8 of this community and its associated post.

My client intentionally drops threads that go too deep – as a way to preserve my time – so you might not get an answer this way.

I’ll offer the contrarian answer: FOSS does not guarantee secure software; in-fact, neither does proprietary software, nor government software, nor anonymous software.

As others have mentioned, assurances about software come from audits or by trusting someone reputable who has done the audit. Delivering security guarantees is not what most FOSS projects are meant to do.

So what exactly do FOSS projects do? Why are they any better than proprietary software? The short answer is that FOSS is about continuity. You can and will find FOSS projects from 30 years ago, which have been kept updated so they can run modern machines. The folks doing that didn’t need anyone’s permission to do that; they can just do it.

Meanwhile, if Adobe of MSFT declare that a certain proprietary software suite is going EOL and will not receive any more security updates, then the user base is SOL. FOSS gives a potential route away from this fate, if someone or some group is willing to put the elbow grease into security updates. Even if it’s just one person.

So in the short term, there are no security assurances for either proprietary or FOSS. In the long term, all software cannot escape the unstoppable march of time and vulnerabilities. But at least FOSS has a chance to be corrected, years or decades later.

Speaking of woodworking tour de force (or not), !woodworking@lemmy.ca always seems to appreciate pics.

If you have specific, additional questions, I’m sure you can create a new post in this community to get additional information. You can link back to this comment to provide the full context.

I will start the analysis with the simplest case and then work upward. Supposing 75 kg on a normal doorway leverage-based pull-up bar and doing just purely-vertical pull-ups and curl-ups, this is within the design specifications for such pull-up bars. An example: https://www.garagegymreviews.com/equipment/iron-gym-total-upper-body-workout-bar

However, because this type relies on your downward bodyweight to press the bar into the doorframe, no swinging motion of any kind is allowed: all movements must be purely vertical.

There is another type of doorway pull-up bar that is akin to a tension rod, but I simply cannot ever recommend these in any scenario, because they have all the limits of the leverage-based one, in addition to also applying a weird expanding force that no doorway is ever designed for.

If the leverage-based pull-up bar was screwed in above the doorway, this would make it more securely attached, but not to the degree that you could swing full bodyweight around. And if you were already going to drill holes, you’d want something that definitely attached to the studs, so that it would genuinely allow you to swing full bodyweight away from the wall. Example: https://repfitness.com/products/wall-mount-multi-grip-pull-up-bar?variant=41067582914718

But maybe you actually want to swing in bitj directions from the bar, or may even over. In that case, you’d have to be farther from a wall or door and would looking at something that is mounted to the ceiling studs (properly called joists). Example: https://ultimatebodypress.com/products/ceiling-mounted-pull-up-bar-with-patented-reversible-risers-for-16-and-24-inch-joists

Ok, but wait, basically all of these remaining viable options involve holes in the wall, so none might be workable. Can we use a standalone/freestanding like this? https://thesportsroyals.com/

The issue here is that such a tower has no problem with vertical curls and pulls. But because the legs are fairly narrow, there’s only a limited range of swinging forwards/backwards before the tower itself tips over, taking you with it to the floor.

Supposing your requirements are rigid, the only other solution I can envision is some sort of triangular frame like a children’s swing set, where the center is a bar, where the triangles are as deep as they are tall. If the base cannot be that wide, then it would have to be weighted at its corners.

As a design, this is extreme difficult to find pre-made. But a variant would be to look at 4-post power racks, which can satisfy the depth and height requirements. For example, the REP PR-5000 can be configured as a 6-post rack, with the middle posts set using 30" depth to the front posts and 30" depth to the rear posts. In your case, would not mount the pull-up bars on the cross members as normal, but would put them on the middle post, at whatever height you want.

I don’t have exact numbers right now, but such a six post setup would already weigh something like 140 kg in steel, minimum. And bring over 2 meter deep and 1.2 m wide, the geometry is highly resistant to toppling, even if you swung 200 kg inward and outward. If it needs any more stability, a power rack easily accommodates adding weight plates at each post, to really make sure it doesn’t move.

But at this point, such movements would require 4 meter ceilings to do safely. And I think I may be entertaining the engineering here too much. What I will say is that if you’re doing gymnastics, then you have to use gymnastics gear, not resistance training gear. Swinging is not a general design goal for resistance training gear. This is the same reason why an exercise pole (aka stripper pole) is not going to be comparable to steel conduit for electric wiring.

If there is even a spectre of a doubt that your gear isn’t well-suited to your specific goals, then some reevaluate should be done. You may want to look at what a commercial gym has, if the same would work for you; gyms sometimes don’t have studs or joists to use, so their equipment is selected accordingly.

For handling international traffic under ICAO rules, ATC is indeed supposed to be done in English.

But if we take a look at some of the terminology in aviation, the French words cannot be ignored. Mayday and pan-pan are from the French venez m’aider and panne.

When radio silence is required, a station might command “SEE-LONCE” but this comes from the French word for silence. Though I think this is a rarity in aviation.

And then outside of aviation radio, the French left their mark on aircraft parts names: fuselage, empennage, aileron.

How much weight are we talking? And how much floor space are you willing to expend on this?

are normal bikes allowed on sidewalks and walking paths

In California, yes, that’s the default rule. Municipalities have limited authority to regulate road traffic, but can prohibit bikes from sidewalks if they post certain signs. As a result, most municipalities here allow it, with some downtown areas having restrictions where sidewalks are in heavy use.

pedestrian-only things

Sadly, the pre-1900 American conception of the sidewalk as a pedestrian refuge – paved, free of mud and puddles, in an era where unpaved roads and horse carriages were the norm – was entirely sidelined in the automobile industry’s desire to move product. It would be great if municipalities actually maintained their sidewalks – in the Western USA, most states make it the responsibility of the adjacent landowner – but seeing as they’re not even required to provide sidewalks, it’s truly a block-by-block situation.

As a result, there’s every incentive to reuse sidewalks for anything that can use them, despite the obvious walkability problems, issues for people that must use the sidewalk (eg wheelchair users), while also eating the risk of sidewalks not being designed for any wheeled device (and sometimes having no regard for sight lines that would give pedestrians a chance to see an automobile running a stop sign). The very existence of sidewalks in some places has been used to justify not building additional infrastructure for separate uses, such as bike lanes, based on the false premise “nobody bikes, so no need to build infra”, which is obviously why nobody bikes. Some places only have a disconnected sidewalk segment because a building (eg school) required it for ADA compliance.

Note that a sidewalk can be properly upgraded to a multi-use path (MUP) that can support mixed traffic (eg bikes, class 1/2 ebikes, (e)scooters, dog walkers, strollers, and pedestrians) but these have to be much wiser (>3 meters) and are only designed for low traffic volumes. MUPs easily reach their design volume if, say, a school has ended class and all the students are walking home.

For the narrowest of legacy sidewalks (ones which would fail the ADA requirements today but are grandfathered if they’re left unchanged since installation pre-1990) of maybe 1 meter wide, you are correct that there’s no way for a pedestrian and bicyclist to fit in this space. The common result is that the pedestrian steps off and the bicyclist gets by. Under the law, it’s supposed to be the other way around, and IMO, it’s a lot easier for bikes to ride over grass or surfaces adjacent to the sidewalk.

I agree that pedestrians should have first dibs on sidewalks. The present reality is that this is all artificial scarcity: there’s plenty of road space that should be rededicated from automobile lanes or parking so that sidewalks are widened and pedestrians and cyclists have the space they need. This simultaneously solves the e-scooter parking issue, reduces automobile congestion and driving speeds and collisions in cities, and improves air quality and civic life.

The modern automobile is quite good at traveling long distances. So there should be no genuine complaint with having cars drive the long way around a neighborhood or business district, so that pedestrians and cyclists can go the direct route to the front door. Through streets for cars don’t need to exist; use movable bollards to allow emergency vehicles to drive into pedestrian areas

Until the freight railroads that host most passenger trains can be convinced that electrification is good for them – and it definitely would be, looking at every other electrified mainline railway in the world is – it sadly won’t happen anytime soon under private ownership.

As an example, UP has been unusually hostile to overhead wires, claiming that they limit the vertical loading gauge to prevent double stacked containers. This is one reason why the farther part of the Caltrain service from San Francisco remains unelectrified, even after the publicly-owned rail section was successfully electrified to San Jose in 2024. Union Pacific refused to allow wires over their tracks down to Gilroy. This is an oddity for UP because they inherited the Southern Pacific’s freight trackage rights on Caltrain’s tracks, and do use those rights to service industrial customers on the way to San Francisco; I find their overhead wire argument to be unconvincing since if true, means that they’re chosen to give up any possibility of serving these industrial customers with double stack consists forever after 2024.

The obvious locations would be steep, single track sections of the transcontinental lines through in the Western USA, where electric locomotives would have a pronounced climbing speed advantage that increases track capacity without having to build a second track.

Wine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software)

An intriguing question. I do agree that even the ultra-rich had an eye-opening time during the pandemic, but I don’t agree that their wealth acts as a singular shield, which if pierced would herald their downfall.

When someone has the resources of tens of billions of dollars, the principle of defense in depth is both practical and is most prudent. For each of your points that suggest the ultra-rich were vulnerable, it might actually prove the strength of their fortifications.

they were conceivably vulnerable to the same indiscriminate illness as everyone else.

The thing with disease is that it cannot teleport: the transmission vector must convey person to person, through airborne particles, or some other physical means. What the ultra wealthy can – and do – buy are exotic islands or chalets in faraway places from other humans. Meaning that once there’s notification of a pandemic, they are best positioned to flee to whichever of their overseas fortresses as they may choose. Meanwhile, the masses have to hunker down at home, which is their only refuge, and hope for the best.

the government can and will shut down your business

The ultra-rich leave the daily operations of their businesses to professional managers. It has been a staple of prudent management for decades to have disaster preparedness plans and business continuity plans. You may have seen some form of these through wildfire or earthquake notification systems, so that a company can confirm which of their employees are accounted for. But such systems also serve as a planning exercise, in case a natural or manmade disaster takes out an entire industry.

The businesses of the ultra-rich already plan for things like the loss of most of the world’s hard drive production capacity due to flooding and the closure of EU airspace due to volcanic ash. These aren’t as detailed as those specific situations, but are about the business impacts: what it products can’t get to customers? What if required materials can’t reach the factory? What if war breaks out domestically and the production line is taken over by the government?

Not to minimize the impacts of the pandemic, but the difference is that it activated multiple continuity plans simultaneously, an unprecedented scenario but otherwise not unrecoverable. Fortune favors those who make plans.

Indeed, a part of many business’s plans during a catastrophic situation is to – unsurprisingly – beg the government for aid or a bailout. After all, if they can get the taxpayer to partially implement their plan, they will. And business lobbying for a bailout only requires a telephone and a contact list, so the ultra-rich’s lobbyists were kept busy in the summer of 2020.

What is most telling is that the USA stock markets recovered in the latter half of 2020. The ultra-rich have plenty of resources to survive a few months of disruption, as they have more runway to wait things out than, say, a typical working class household that needs rent relief or faces eviction.

universal income model is not only possible, it is completely affordable and can be quickly implemented.

One of the most under-assessed aspects of the ultra-rich is that they find ways to make money whichever way the wind blows. Even in a UBI scenario, they can still make bank if they are the sole vendors of certain commodities.

In fact, a UBI system which automatically tracks inflation is essentially a license for vendors to also increase their prices with exacting precision, perfectly in-time with inflation. This is why a UBI system should not be implemented on its own, but alongside other social safety nets and regulation on the “demand side” of money. That is to say, business regulation (eg rent controls, anti-monopoly rules, banking reform) are all part-and-parcel of a long-term plan that defeats economic inequality. They are not separate pieces, but the ultra-rich can still take solace that not everyone recognizes this yet.

The war of information would still be on their side even if UBI were voted into effect today.

The luxury services that their money had always effortlessly bought could be quickly ended by decree, scarcity, and the loss of human labor to illness.

I didn’t exactly care to track the happenings of the ultra-rich during the pandemic years, but did they actually suffer such scarcities? Their business empires recovered by the end of 2020, and it’s not like rich people don’t just find other intrigues to spend their time on. Rhetorically, what is a few billion here or there?

Were the ultra-rich terrified? Probably, but only for their paper valuation. They themselves would have been physically fine, and since there was no proletariat uprising during this time, they basically just made money during those years. Essentially, a financial blip but their lives move on. Maybe they’ll build more bunkers for their holiday homes.

In the space of mini PCs/NUCs, this does seem comparable. But bear in mind that the entire space of “home server” is a lot bigger than NUCs. After all, not everyone just wants to host an NVMe drive or two; they might want to fit some cheaper SATA SSDs or even spinning rust, as part of a cascade of stroage, with caching on SSDs and other nice things.

Likewise, the dual LAN ports with 802.3bz support is nice, but the reality is that most networks are only 1 Gbps with some devices supporting 2.5 Gbps. Quite frankly, for server use that actually needs one or both port’s bandwidth, the link would likely be better served with SFP+ slots, because of better compatibility with cheap enterprise switches available online, and because SFP+ transceivers run less hot than their twisted pair counterparts at 10 Gbps. Heck, you could even use a 40 Gbps QSFP+ NIC, which only requires a x8 or X4 PCIe slot (depending on PCIe generation of the NIC). On that note, a single PCIe slot is nice, but it does preclude the use of a double-wide GPU for transcoding use.

I would sum all this up as lacking expandability. Yes, it can be expanded somewhat. But for folks that want the capacity of an ATX-based build, this ain’t it. And for folks with abundant solar power, electricity consumption for older gen chips isn’t as much of a dealbreaker. It certainly checks off a lot of people’s boxes, yours included, but that doesn’t mean that people are “sleeping on” this, because at the end of the day, if it doesn’t serve their purposes, it’s not the right box for them. In terms of price, never underestimate the cost of $0.00 that is an old, unused laptop; they make remarkably decent servers for light loads.

Also, as of this writing, only the 32 GB RAM variant is available on the USA website.

That does appear to be the adhesive used to secure tall/heavy components so that they don’t break off during shipping or when lightly impacted.

Corporations even before AI have sued each other, precisely on the premise that “your code looks like ours. We think you stole it” and then have a petty fight in court because their lawyers couldn’t hash out a settlement.

Now with so-called AI washing, it’s only going to get worse, because LLM generated code doesn’t have to be 100% identical to be considered a derivative copy of the original. It all goes back to the central question: did this copy come from this original work?

The corporate IP lawyers will be making bank off of the ambiguity.