litchralee

I'm also poised to agree: setting the output air regulator to a low value does not change the reserve pressure in the tank. I suspect maybe Peppycito thought OP was talking about the governor, which is what controls when the pump turns on and off.

But even then, the most common design of governor only adjusts the peak reserve pressure (aka when the pump turns off) but the minimum reserve pressure (aka when the pump turns on) is usually a fixed value subtracted from the peak reserve. Usually the control for this is inside a box and turned by a screwdriver, because of how rare it is to adjust the reserve pressure.

That said, there is genuine merit in reducing the reserve pressure, if there's an explicit objective to prolong the life of the pump as much as possible and the air loads are not very significant. But this usually isn't the case for small residential air compressors, because those pumps tend to be built very small and thus oversubscribed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I've had similar trouble understanding this aspect in the past, so I'll share how it now makes sense to me, within the frameworks of existing IP law. IANAL.

Copyright law protects a specific, tangible work from duplication, meaning that if someone directly derives an unauthorized copy from an original work (eg scanning a book), then that's copyright infringement. However, copyright law does not simply look at whether a copy is identical to the original. There must be an analysis of the provenance of the copy: did the copy come from the original?

Two people can separately stand at the Grand Canyon visitor center and use their own cameras to take identical film photos from the same vantage point, such that the developed film is identical in every way. And yet, neither has violated each other's copyright, because neither photo came from the other. Person A can sell their copy to a magazine, while Person B distributes copies for free with their holiday cards. This is all A-OK.

The trouble is when somebody suspects infringement, because they see a copy that looks unusual similar to an original. If they decide to raise a copyright lawsuit, then the defense would like a way to affirmatively show that "no, our copy didn't come from your original". How do they do this?

In software, the approach would be to methods like the clean room approach. This is explicitly a method for legal reverse engineering, precisely to avoid copyright concerns. It works because while copyright protects a tangible work, it does not protect the ideas recorded by that work. So if somebody was given only the idea, and tasked with writing the software that re-implements that idea but without ever seeing the original, then the resulting work cannot possibly have been based on the original work. Rarher, it's just a take on the same idea, which is allowed to be similar, in the same way as the photo of the Grand Canyon. There is no straight line that connects the supposed copy to the original work, apart from the idea itself, which copyright does not cover.

With LLMs, there is zero assurance that any clean room approach was followed. By training directly on original, copyrighted works, there is a cloud of uncertainty about whether the LLM is regurgitating parts of the original (which would be infringement) or if it actually reduced the user's prompt into an idea, and then independently generated code which implemented that idea.

Copyright infringement poisons everything that is derived thereafter, so even the spectre of a doubt causes problems, because if GNU or whoever else builds atop questionable copyrighted software, that foundation collapse suddenly if someone brings a lawsuit to enforce their copyright. And those are pricey to defend, even if it's without merit.

The clean room method, when followed faithfully, is a way to discourage potential litigants from even filing a lawsuit, because it's clearly obvious that they would fail to prove a connection to the original work. Patents are a different story (where ideas are protected).

LLMs basically have the same problem as when an engineer quits and goes to work for a competitor. Will they have (accidentally or not) taken trade secrets with them and implemented those in the competitor's product? A well-advised company would go through great lengths to make sure that engineer isn't working directly on a competing product, to avoid a costly lawsuit. LLMs do no such mitigation.