Another option: It's genuinely easier, for what amounts to namespacing reasons. Like, if I came up with a cool new C compiler, I'd probably name it ${MYNAME}cc just because that's an easy identifier that is very unlikely to have a collision and doesn't require me to spend time thinking of some name that is clever, unique, and accurately conveys what the project is about.
Meh, a lot of people name their projects or product series using puns on their own name, or an abbreviation, not from pride or ego at all but simply for convenience of a unique namespace.
Think of some coding heavy project you always wanted to do but haven't had time for.
Open up cursor-agent to make the repo scaffolding in an empty dir. (build system, test harness, etc. )
Open up cursor or Claude code or whatever and just go nuts with it. Remember to follow software engineering best practices (one good change with tests per commit)
I don't think this should be a matter of regulation, as you can create a device that broadcasts powerful signals at almost any frequency, with high school physics and garage engineering.
It should very much be enforced though, similar to speed limits on the road. It's much easier to zero in on weird electromagnetic waves than it is to catch people speeding on roads.
By requiring high-school garage engineering to DOS your local RF services you prevent essentially everyone from doing it.
I'm all in to allow free access to reading waves, but broadcasting is regulated for good reason. Today I was in the subway when my Bluetooth headset started lagging, it's happened once before on a highway close to a specific car, this is DOS.
The radio spectrum is limited and it must be regulated and follow regulations, enforcement is really hard, it's a lot easier and reasonable to dump it on the manufacturers by locking the juice behind closed firmware.
2.1033 Application for grant of certification. Paragraph 4(i) which reads:
For devices including modular transmitters which are software defined radios and use software to control the radio or other parameters subject to the Commission’s rules, the description must include details of the equipment’s capabilities for software modification and upgradeability, including all frequency bands, power levels, modulation types, or other modes of operation for which the device is designed to operate, whether or not the device will be initially marketed with all modes enabled. The description must state which parties will be authorized to make software changes (e.g., the grantee, wireless service providers, other authorized parties) and the software controls that are provided to prevent unauthorized parties from enabling different modes of operation. Manufacturers must describe the methods used in the device to secure the software in their application for equipment authorization and must include a high level operational description or flow diagram of the software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters. The applicant must provide an attestation that only permissible modes of operation may be selected by a user.
2.1042 Certified modular transmitters. Paragraph (8)(e) which reads:
Manufacturers of any radio including certified modular transmitters which includes a software defined radio must take steps to ensure that only software that has been approved with a particular radio can be loaded into that radio. The software must not allow the installers or end-user to operate the transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved. Manufacturers may use means including, but not limited to the use of a private network that allows only authenticated users to download software, electronic signatures in software or coding in hardware that is decoded by software to verify that new software can be legally loaded into a device to meet these requirements.
That appears to be a post arguing against adopting a rule that was proposed a decade ago. Was it ever actually enacted? I don't see the text of the proposed rule present in the relevant section here:
I wonder if Aliexpress SDR sellers follow this regulations. And as for transmission power, you can simply connect regulation-complying SDR to regulation-complying amplifier and work around it.
> By requiring high-school garage engineering to DOS your local RF services you prevent essentially everyone from doing it.
Likewise for requiring someone to change out drivers or firmware.
> The radio spectrum is limited and it must be regulated and follow regulations, enforcement is really hard, it's a lot easier and reasonable to dump it on the manufacturers by locking the juice behind closed firmware.
By far the largest problem in this space is users importing devices purchased via travel abroad or drop shipping and then those devices don't follow the rules.
Getting domestic users to follow the rules is not a significant problem because a) most people don't know how to modify firmware anyway, b) the people who do know how to do it are sophisticated users who are more likely to understand that there are significant penalties for violating regulatory limits and know they actually live in the relevant jurisdiction, c) if those users really wanted to do it they're the sort who could figure out how to do it regardless, and d) there is negligible benefit in doing it anyway (increasing power increases interference, including for you, and it works much better to just get a second access point).
Interactive and SVGs don't really mix, although intuitively it would seem that they do. Rendering remotely complex SVGs tale multiple seconds, while any kind of interactivity demands ~30+ frames per seconds.
Without interactivity, postscript is vector graphics too.
I'd be curious to know what classes as complex for you, since ive done some frankly crazy stuff with svg's, which outperformed any raster implementation. Ultimately, poor performance was always my fault, especially initially when i was still treating it with paradigms better suited to the world of raster graphics.
> ChatGPT cannot know or understand anything, so it is not intelligence. It does not know what its output means. It has no idea that words can mean anything.
This argument does a great job anthropomorphizing ChatGPT while trying to discredit it.
The part of this rant I agree with is "Doing your own computing via software running on someone else's server inherently trashes your computing freedom."
It's sad that these AI advancements are being largely made on software you can not easily run or develop on your own.
reply