300000 GPS Transceivers?
I wonder what they need transceivers for.
Are they planning to spoof or jam GPS, or is this merely intended for providing AGPS services inside the trains?
Wouldn't a simple amplifier/repeater suffice?
11 publicly visible posts • joined 1 Oct 2019
Complex systems will inevitably degrade or fail, particularly if they're exposed to the elements (or space, as in this case).
The goal is of course to make them as reliable as possible, but it's far worse to sustain a failure and not be able to detect and report it.
Aircraft have many layers of redundancy, a single GNSS failure is not critical under normal circumstances. Even if all satellite navigation equipment fails, it will be perfectly possible to continue flying, but it will certainly make it harder to navigate. At least for now - traditional ground-based radio navigation stations (such as VOR/DME) are increasingly falling out of favor.
We'll see if recent GNSS jamming events can change that, so more resilience is built.
i386 is still a supported architecture on Debian, and it will be for the upcoming trixie release*.
But what comes after that, nobody knows... unsupported Debian architectures usually end up being "ports", which means that all compatible packages will still be built for them, and repositories are kept alive. But there will be much less effort put into maintaining the packages, and if one breaks, it's silently dropped unless someone steps up and fixes it.
* With a little caveat - official installation images will no longer be provided: https://lists.debian.org/debian-cd/2023/08/msg00005.html
I wonder what consequences this change will have on 3rd party contributors.
The FAQ sadly doesn't address this, and it also doesn't explain *how* they're going to pull off the "free after 4 years" hat trick.
I have contributed to Hashicorp OSS projects in the past, and I might still do so if I know that my contributions remain open source.
If they'll be locked behind a commercial license immediately, that's reason enough to spend my time elsewhere.
Now, I do understand their point of view, and I'm sympathetic with them wanting to prevent other companies from making a quick buck using their software.
But I'd really like some clarity on what this means for people who subscribe to the give-and-take idea of OSS.
It would be a bit easier if they'd have chosen an existing license instead of inventing their own, but only time will tell how that plays out in practice.
I was helping out with recabling the light fixtures in a mid-size department store once.
They were also doing some other renovation work besides the lights, and one work team was tasked with removing old unused cabling.
At some point, an announcement came on, ordering a building evacuation. They hadn't close the store completely, only cordoned off there areas where work was being done, so there were lots of customers in the building as well.
I was quite impressed how calm and quick the evacuation went. We spent the rest of the morning in a cafe across the road until they let us back in.
Turns out the colleagues ripping out cables were a bit too thorough: They cut off a bunch of sensors from the building's alarm system, and that had triggered the evacuation automatically.
I don't know what happened to those colleagues afterwards, but I'm sure the shop owners weren't happy about their lost sales.
Am I the only one here who thinks SecureBoot is actually a good thing?
The massive mistake was to hand over CA responsibilities to Microsoft, not SecureBoot itself.
Manufacturers screw up the non-Windows experience in many ways these days, it seems, but they really are not always to blame. Sometimes it's the whole industry that's screwed up...
I'd blame this on "modern" technology making it too easy for kids to get something done. Instead of developing complex problem solving skills early on, they only ever learn to go for the low hanging fruit and are completely lost when they have to climb the tree.
Modern technology should make it easy to get the tedious stuff done quickly, so you can focus on solving the real problems.
You are actually both wrong.
Japanese does have pronouns, and also gendered pronouns for persons. There are even some pronouns that are generally used for or by one gender, but may also be used to characterise a person (or oneself), independent of sex or gender. For example, a woman could use "boku" for "I" to explicitly express a less-ladylike demeanour, instead of the more common "atashi". If no such expression is desired, a gender-neutral pronoun like "watashi" can be used.
There's also a number of ways to address a person, both gender-neutral and gender-biased.
In contrast with English, where the address is usually gendered, Japanese also has the nice concept of referring to a person by their profession, rank or last name plus the gender-neutral "-san" suffix. This can be used almost universally and elegantly avoids situations where the correct address is difficult to determine.