• 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 25th, 2025

help-circle



  • This is actually part of it though it’s more nuanced with smaller form devices, than say a desktop computer, that run on very little power and have parts from lots of different manufacturers rather than integrated motherboards.

    Firmware sometimes needs a hard reset to get past bugs, and sometimes a capacitor or two have enough power to keep a low power memory chip active for days, weeks, months, or longer.

    Problem at a high level is with devices that are not well integrated because a lot of products these days are a mishmash of pre-made rather than purpose-made components from various companies, and some have some kind of firmware running in local memory and they try to cache information rather than reloading each time to speed up startup times.

    Could be a motor driver chip for focusing the lens from some fly-by-night manufacturer with buggy firmware throws an error that the main device interprets as a potential for a catastrophic failure and refuses to start up to prevent what it thinks might cause damage or user injury. But maybe really its just a bug.

    That chip stays charged and continues to throw the error when the main board does startup checks and every time the battery is put back in, it replenishes the charge in the driver chip. Finally once it loses charge and has to load from scratch and actually runs the checks again it doesn’t remember that it previously threw an error and the current checks don’t trigger the error anymore, so it’s “fixed”. Could be that there is a part close to catastrophic failure or could have been a bug that triggered it, but for now it’s fine. Just a wild top of my head example, but the basic idea is there. Also, could be something physically is lose and it got knocked into a place where it’s making enough contact this time, but might get lose again shortly after.

    Always hard to say without a trained technician or a good product with good error handling. But good error handling isn’t profitable anymore. That means more development and testing time up front and less likelihood of the user having to replace the product sooner and since competition is more scarce these days, there’s no incentive to make better, longer lasting products.


  • Often the content is available without masking for a very short time so scrapers can access them or similar tricks to allow them access immediately after posting. But that requires that you hit the server immediately after the story is posted and there is no masking at all usually in those cases. That’s how things like archive.is get a copy for example. But none of that is client/browser side anymore, at least on the major sites. Otherwise it’s easy to defeat if the content is already provided to the browser and just masked with JavaScript or something that runs locally and can be blocked.




  • A long way.

    But first, 3 years? Maybe 3 months, though that is short and would require more fuel. More realistic is 6-12 months, though depends on at what point I’m the orbits you send them. Maybe you were seeing that the shortest distance between Earth and mars happens about every 2 1/2 years or so?

    But it’s not the brain or even feeding that’s the problem. The real issue is bone mass and muscle loss in low gravity without constant exercise, otherwise you could just improve on coma-like inducing techniques to make them safer for that length of time.

    But it would probably take longer than the trip to recondition the body to be able to survive and move around again on a planet with gravity. The amount of oxygen and food you’d save by hibernating a crew for 6 months seems minimal. It would require “artificial gravity” techniques like centrifugal force to mitigate that. But for such a short trip, the enormous amount of extra equipment for that would exponentially outweigh the air, food, and water, not to mention the enormous amount of additional power generation required.




  • It would reduce their short term revenue, but would improve their long-term revenue. Netflix used to have a great product, but they fiddled with it to make people watch only certain content that brings them more revenue. Same with Spotify. This then reduces the number of people willing to pay for the service and since there are few competitors that are better and/or have as much content they “piracy” is the only way to get the content you want for a reasonable price, with a good user experience.

    So short term these things improve revenue, but not as much as the revenue lost in the long term as people start to dislike the the poor experience or are unable to afford the higher prices. And people don’t want multiple services to have to check for new content all the time all with different poor Ux.


  • YouTube did make some changes to their terms primarily for creators that get paid for content. They added some new LLM-based scanning of content to find stuff that is too repetitive or didn’t contain enough original content. Assuming the creators you looked at have mostly original content rather than remixing of content which may be misinterpreted by LLMs as not being “original enough”, they could be falling victim to overaggressive hits if they use a consistent format in their content since LLMs don’t really understand context, only patterns.

    I’d be interested to find out if the creators got any notification from YouTube on the reason for removal of the content.




  • Unfortunately, the current state of the patent office is extremely understaffed and mostly nontechnical. So, there’s not enough qualified examiners to examine patents, not just in software, but medical devices, voting machines, and lots of other industries. So essentially if a patent is submitted by a major company, it just gets rubber stamped. And it’s up to the courts to sort it out. Unfortunately that sorting out is biased and understaffed, too, so usually the initial case will go to the patent holder by default and it’s not until an appeal or two on those biases and technical misinterpretations that it can be invalidated. So it’s rare for a smaller company to be able to spend that much money to invalidate an obvious idea like this. Of course this is by design to give large corporations an unfair advantage. If they want some tech, they just sue for a stupid patent, wait until the company either folds and then they can steal it legally, or goes bankrupt fighting it and they can acquire them hostilely.