• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 20th, 2023

help-circle



  • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s worse than that, people will argue shipping good code is impossible. Good testing is hard, so it’s avoided for things like unit tests. Something that’s only equivalent to basic QA in manufacturing. Every software functions is a design change and the system needs to be fully validated and tested. That’s means driving the car, and not shipping the code and using the users cars to prove your design.


  • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Broken software shouldn’t be accepted as much as it is. Especially in safety critical systems like cars, especially when they remove manual controls for things like steering, brakes, hand brakes and door handles. Fly/drive by wire is more dangerous when the software is unreliable. Mechanical linkages fail immediately or take a long time. Bad software fails in uncertain and potentially chaotic ways.








  • People have attached pens to 3d printers and used them to write letters, effectively print. Most consumer 3D printers are useing or based on open source software.

    I think the issue is, printers are relatively cheap to buy and replace. So building your own and programming it hasn’t been necessary. Where as 3d printing was completely in accessible before the reprap movement. 3D printing software is open source as it is motivated by people wanting to build their own machines that could build machines. Something you couldn’t easily buy.


  • It’s the most highly optimised software available for consumer computers. Much easier when you support a very limited set of devices which you have compete hardware control over.

    It is UNIX so very similar to using Linux when you use a terminal.

    The UI is very polished and very stable. MacOS has not changed how the UI works or feels in a long time, during which windows and Linux (gnome/kde) have changed a lot. Both becoming more like MacOS. macOS has changed a little mostly features and styling.

    It has wide support, including support for priority programs that Linux does not. Apple appears and feels like they respect user privacy much better than Windows. You feel like you paid for the product and you are the customer. Unlike windows, where you pay to be exploited for data harvesting to the real customer advertisers. Apple is in many ways in between windows and Linux. Not as free and open, but not as exploitive and limited as windows. It’s a common misconception that MacOS is somehow locked down or walled off, it’s less locked down and walled off than windows. But like Linux it requires some terminal know how.


  • It was very likely a designers decision. It forces the use the use case they wanted; wireless mice should be used wirelessly. I would bet they fought marketing and management to get this on the final product.

    Marketing would want the mouse they can advertise as being useable with and wireless. Female ports are easier to mount and manufacture with they have depth to set the socket. So a plug on the front is much cheaper and easier to manufacture.

    The fact the charging cable doesn’t get used in motion means it will last longer and you wouldn’t have people useing fraying cables on the front of their mouse.



  • A small computer, large capacity ssd and two WiFi interfaces (2x usb dongles, or dongle plus usb).

    Small computer could be anything: raspberry pi (or generic and), nuc mini pc or laptop. If you want to use it without a plug you’ll need to add a battery, usb c powered devices could be more convent to power from a battery.

    A ssd is better for this use case. Not because it’s faster, but they are more resilient to being knocked about and dropped. They are also much smaller, especially M.2, and aren’t fussy about how they are mounted.

    The two WiFi interfaces would allow you to create a WiFi bridge to access the internet through a WiFi network and access your media server. It would need some configuration, you may also need to have the computer act as a router if you want to use multiple devices without reconfiguring.

    It may be easier to have your device act as a WiFi hotspot and have the media centre automatically connect to it. This would make it difficult for multiple devices to use it simultaneously, and you could accidentally allow the media centre to do all its updating and downloading over your mobile connection.

    This type of thing is going to be expensive and troublesome to configure unless your already experienced with that sort of thing.

    I think a better solution, especially if you already have a media server. Is to set your media server for external access.

    To get media when you don’t have internet, buy a large capacity flash drive (or external ssd/hdd). When you have access to your media server download all the content you want on to the drive. I think iOS jellyfin can do this without much modification.

    Once out of range of your media server. Delete the content you’ve watched on your device (iPad) to free up space. Connect the external drive through the usb port on the iPad, copy over the next lot of content you want to watch. Disconnect and then watch the content.

    Jellyfin can download the content, but you may need another app to play it when you don’t have access to the media server.

    This approach lets multiple people access a much larger amount of media, effectively simultaneously. It doesn’t require a large amount of often expensive local device storage - you use cheap external storage. It much less expensive if it breaks or gets lost and has very little configuration -if you already have a media server running jellyfin.


  • No it doesn’t, or at least it didn’t for years if that has changed recently.

    No one that knew about this was talking about it or doing anything about it.

    The reality of the situation is only three organisations are capable of producing fully fledged browsers. Google, Apple and Firefox. Every variant, spin and de-whatever is nothing compared to developing a browser. All the chrome derivatives had this in them, arbitrarily execution of code from google. Code that wasn’t included in the binary when you downloaded or updated it. The sort of thing a virus would do. The sort of tool you would use to compromise the security of a system.

    If you want a de-googled chrome the only option is safari, it’s chrome before google got its hands on it. If you want properly open and accessible browsers you need to use something else entirely like Firefox.

    De-googled chrome is a myth.