Internet of shit
-
@Arantor On the internet, no one knows you're a
dogDover sole.
-
@remi said in Internet of shit:
@Arantor said in Internet of shit:
hair that only ever alternates between pale and burned.
Man, you really are of a peculiar breed! My hair never alternates colours...
Eh, mine seems to alternate once every 100 years, from observations so far.
-
@dkf said in Internet of shit:
@Arantor said in Internet of shit:
The best thing about is the amount of terminology invented for the thing that has no use anywhere else.
Either that, or the fact that it's a good excuse for a snooze in the sun on a summer afternoon.
That's what fishing is for, tho. Arena sports are for drinking in the sun.
-
@Gribnit sounds like you're doing fishing wrong.
-
@boomzilla there's no physical law preventing me from getting drunk on the way there
-
@Gribnit I'll allow it.
-
-
Complete with sound effects!
-
Welcome to the IoT.
-
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/google-docs-crashes-on-seeing-and-and-and-and-and/
It’s on the internet and it’s shit. So there
-
@hungrier said in Internet of shit:
I don’t think I want to be near anything that can cause a saber to ignite, and most certainly not when I have my trousers down.
-
Checks out.
-
@Bulb said in Internet of shit:
@blek quoted an article in Internet of shit titled:
Smart Screws That Can Detect When They're Loose Could Help Save America's Bridges
What about using rivets instead. You know, like any sane engineer. Rivets can't come loose, so they can stay dumb and still be better.
When the "Schwebebahn" was built in Wuppertal, engineers still knew that.
(though rivets are not mentioned in the article, but all the old construction use rivets instead of screws)
-
@blek said in Internet of shit:
Internet-connected screws
We all know: if you want to screw things up, you need software.
If you want to screw things absofuckinglutely, you'll need IoT.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Internet of shit:
rivets are not mentioned in the article, but all the old construction use rivets
I learned a month or two ago that welding is a fairly recent innovation. Up until about WWII, ships were still riveted together. Welding was just coming into use around the start of the war. Ships like the Iowa-class battleships are partially riveted and partially welded, and the welds tend to be massively over-engineered, because they didn't really trust the strength of welded construction, yet.
-
@HardwareGeek Yep. I have a book from 1935, titled Principles of Warship Construction and Damage Control (I’ll spare you the subtitle, as it’s 3.5 lines of small type) published by the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, and it says on page 184:
Until about 1915, there was only one method of connecting steel plates and shapes—riveting. Since then welding has come into use. In recent warships, welding has been used extensively in making connections both in structural and non-structural members.
It then sums up advantages of welding, but adds that:
The obstacle to early extensive adoption of welded joints was their uncertainty. In early days of welding, similar joints made by the same welder with the same materials, under the same conditions, and using the same technique frequently showed wide variations in strength.
Which by 1935 was solved, partly through X-ray and gamma-ray inspection techniques (for very important joints only due to the expense).
Still, it explains riveted joints in as much depth as welded ones, if not more — most of the illustrations show rivets being used rather than welds. Though that could be because this is the fourth edition of a book that was originally published in 1924, and they likely wouldn’t have redone existing drawings unless actually necessary.
The same applies to tanks: until the early 1940s, most were riveted throughout. By the middle of the Second World War, (almost) every one of them got welded instead, because of the savings in cost, time and weight, not to mention the automatic waterproofing welding provides.
-
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
the savings in cost, time and weight
Indeed, saving weight was one of major reasons welding eventually became dominant in shipbuilding. Although you may not think of weight as being particularly important in ships weighing 10s of thousands of tons, under the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, the major naval powers were very strictly limited in the displacement of the ships they could build. A particular class of ships might be limited to, say, 10000 tons, with a total displacement of, say, 60000 tons, meaning they could build 6 ships of the maximum weight, or a few more lighter, less capable ships. This forced some difficult tradeoffs between speed, armor, armament, and number of ships to stay under the treaty limit. (Unless you cheated, like Japan, but even then, there was only so much cheating you could get away with.)
Saving a couple hundred tons of rivets meant you could put a few hundred tons into something more useful, like bigger guns or bigger engines.
As it turned out, this benefit ended about the same time welding came to be widely used, as the treaty fell apart in the run-up to WWII. First Japan cheated, then formally withdrew from the treaty, and everybody else either withdrew or stopped bothering to comply, or something like that; the details are outside my area of expertise and to look them up.
published by the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland
Just about anything published by the Naval Institute Press (located on the grounds of the Naval Academy in Annapolis) is highly recommended by people who, unlike me, are experts in naval history. Almost all of what little I know came from one of them.
-
Just… wtf.
-
@Arantor At least it still performs its primary function while offline.
-
@Arantor said in Internet of shit:
Just… wtf.
Eh...
It's like being upset that your TV is complaining that it isn't connected to your cable box.
-
@boomzilla So it's really just a dumb name for a company selling "smart" products?
-
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
@HardwareGeek Yep. I have a book from 1935, titled Principles of Warship Construction and Damage Control (I’ll spare you the subtitle, as it’s 3.5 lines of small type) published by the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, and it says on page 184:
Until about 1915, there was only one method of connecting steel plates and shapes—riveting. Since then welding has come into use. In recent warships, welding has been used extensively in making connections both in structural and non-structural members.
It then sums up advantages of welding, but adds that:
The obstacle to early extensive adoption of welded joints was their uncertainty. In early days of welding, similar joints made by the same welder with the same materials, under the same conditions, and using the same technique frequently showed wide variations in strength.
Which by 1935 was solved, partly through X-ray and gamma-ray inspection techniques (for very important joints only due to the expense).
I still imagine it as kinda difficult when you've hoisted that massive X-ray machine that can examine welds on a 50m steel girder up on the bridge you're building and it tells you, yo, your welder has been doing perfectly fine joints so far but maybe he had one himself before welding this one because it's shit and you gotta cut everything to pieces and do it again.
-
@dkf said in Internet of shit:
@boomzilla So it's really just a dumb name for a company selling "smart" products?
It's a device that's supposed to be used to virtually attend stuff like aerobics classes.
-
@boomzilla if I wanted a device for televisual reception, I would purchase and use a televisual device. I would not purchase a device whose primary function is reflection and attempt to have it additionally be a televisual device.
However I am not body-proud and thus do not need a reflection of my fat sweaty ass trying to do gym shit.
-
@Arantor said in Internet of shit:
However I am not body-proud and thus do not need a reflection of my fat sweaty ass trying to do gym shit.
Have you considered the opportunities for detached hilarity?
-
@Gribnit if you are waiting for the inevitable “does my bum look big in this” joke, that opportunity passed by years ago.
-
@Arantor said in Internet of shit:
@Gribnit if you are waiting for the inevitable “does my bum look big in this” joke, that opportunity passed by years ago.
The nanny-state has also barred me from taking ownership of unattended indigents. It's a big boat...
-
-
@Arantor said in Internet of shit:
@Gribnit if you are waiting for the inevitable “does my
bumcock look big in this” joke, that opportunity passed by years ago.ď‚
-
@Tsaukpaetra here's a big cock. This is bigger for sure.
Erected by Johnson, of course.
-
@Arantor
If you’re so pent up your entire cock turns blue, you should see a physician.Filed under: or you’re @Tsaukpaetra
-
@izzion this, (alas/fortunately?), I cannot claim as mine.
-
-
@Arantor said in Internet of shit:
@Tsaukpaetra here's a big cock. This is bigger for sure.
Erected by Johnson, of course.
-
-
@dkf said in Internet of shit:
@boomzilla So it's really just a dumb name for a company selling "smart" products?
It's not even a stupid name.
If joining virtual workout classes is your sort of thing and you don't have a lot of space then having something that just takes up wall space seems like it'd be handy. Plus when you're not working out, it's a mirror.
-
@Arantor said in Internet of shit:
if I wanted a device for televisual reception, I would purchase and use a televisual device. I would not purchase a device whose primary function is reflection and attempt to have it additionally be a televisual device.
No but you wouldn't buy a TV, not connect it to anything except power then complain about the TV showing nothing but a message saying it's not connected.
-
@loopback0 I might not. Others, I cannot say.
-
@loopback0 said in Internet of shit:
@Arantor said in Internet of shit:
if I wanted a device for televisual reception, I would purchase and use a televisual device. I would not purchase a device whose primary function is reflection and attempt to have it additionally be a televisual device.
No but you wouldn't buy a TV, not connect it to anything except power then complain about the TV showing nothing but a message saying it's not connected.
But iT's WiReLeSs!
-
From ď‚™ a tweet
-
-
@HardwareGeek said in Internet of shit:
Just about anything published by the Naval Institute Press (located on the grounds of the Naval Academy in Annapolis) is highly recommended by people who, unlike me, are experts in naval history. Almost all of what little I know came from one of them.
Amusingly enough, the Naval Institute Press was the publisher of Tom Clancy's famous debut novel, The Hunt for Red October.
-
@TimeBandit said in Internet of shit:
At least they promote the comment that puts it into perspective saying such vulnerability has to be weighed against the other things in the security chain—because this attack still requires targeting a specific person.
-
@TimeBandit said in Internet of shit:
“The problem is that BLE-based proximity authentication is used in places where it was never safe to do so,” he explained. “BLE is a standard for devices to share data; it was never meant to be a standard for proximity authentication. However, various companies have adopted it to implement proximity authentication.”
Because the threat isn’t caused by a traditional bug or error in either the Bluetooth specification or an implementation of the standard, there’s no CVE designation used to track vulnerabilities.
So, maybe stop using the wrong technology? There are already several ways to do proximity "right".
-
-
@Carnage said in Internet of shit:
So, maybe stop using the wrong technology? There are already several ways to do proximity "right".
Is Tesla more a car company or more an IT company?
This because I’ve observed that car companies often do computer stuff fairly poorly. UIs on the touchscreen that almost any car has now, for example, are often not up to the standard I would expect from a modern computer device (desktop, tablet, phone, etc.), but I get the impression car companies don’t see the problem here. I suspect the security on the cars’ computers isn’t done much better.
-
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
This because I’ve observed that car companies often do computer stuff fairly poorly. UIs on the touchscreen that almost any car has now, for example, are often not up to the standard I would expect from a modern computer device (desktop, tablet, phone, etc.)
Plenty of IT companies fuck this up too. Both types of company are capable of hiring shit designers.
-
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
This because I’ve observed that car companies often do computer stuff fairly poorly.
Car companies and their contractors—the computer stuff is usually not done by the car companies themselves but by vendors specialized in car computer stuff—is a smelly stale pond where everything takes five times as long as anywhere else and nobody seems to care. In part because there is a lot of paperwork and (pretend) testing that goes with everything that bogs things down and in part because there is relatively little competition.
There is some good reason for the paperwork, though this style of quality assurance and regulation is pretty inefficient as it inevitably ends up with most people not understanding what's the actual point and just producing more useless papers to cover their asses.
And of course the lack of competition is in large part due to these certification requirements, as it creates a significant entry barrier for a company that would think of starting such business. It also means it takes a fairly big company to work in the field, and large companies provide comfortable shelter to s and s of the world who drag the efficiency down further.
I think Musk managed to flush at least some of this inefficiency out of the system and that is important part of his success both with Tesla and with Space-X. The fact Crew Dragon uses UI built with node and webview suggests he managed to find some people who understand how to do the certifications efficiently—because in my experience the software others build on “special” “automotive” or “aerospace” frameworks is not actually any more reliable and tends to be ungodly mess inside, the reason those frameworks are used is they come with a lot of the paperwork already done, so the thing can be certified without mostly knowing what you are doing.
-
@Bulb Then again, in his quest to be "different", he then manages to fuck up plenty of stuff that did not need to be different and has, in fact, a good reason for being the way it is.
See his insistence on the yoke which is fucking stupid in a consumer car. Just on example on Tesla doing things different solely for the sake of being different.
edit: If they did not change the design it seems to be even worse according to this article:
If that wasn't bad enough, the yoke design dispenses with traditional stalks for the turn signals, wipers, and high beams. Instead, controls for all of those functions, plus the horn, are located on flat touch-sensitive pads on the yoke's spokes. As a result, CR found them both easily activated inadvertently (bad for high beams) and difficult to find when you needed them (bad for the horn).
I have some touch-sensitive pads on my ID.3's steering wheel as well. However, they're not flat, they're also for functions which do not need to be found instinctively (i.e. they're volume and ACC controls) and you can drive perfectly according to the rules without them.
-
@Bulb said in Internet of shit:
The fact Crew Dragon uses UI built with node and webview suggests he managed to find some people who
understand how to do the certifications efficientlylook the other way.