These days I don't think Arduinos are meaningfully more accessible than, say, an ESP8266 or ESP32. If I was starting a new hobby project today I'd choose the latter.

Don't the latter require separate board support in the Arduino IDE? That was at least the case in the past

That's only if you're using the Arduino IDE though, and it's so commonplace that instructions are widespread. Many are using MicroPython/CircuitPython which are independent from Arduino.

esp32 with 'free' (built-in) wifi/bluetooth is just so much easier to work with. That was my experience a few years back.

The first esp8266 I bought was as a dedicated wifi chip for an arduino (or something) project. I discovered after getting it, that it came with a 'free' MCU (that was default flashed with a UART/AT-command firmware to allow other MCUs to get wifi)

funny indeed, as the add-on card (esp8266) is a lot more powerful than an Arduino.

The GNU project can't go to the men's room without a thumbs up from Stallman, who is so disconnected from how real people do their computing that by his own statement he hasn't written any material amount of code in almost 20 years and can't even figure out how to update his own website, instead relying on volunteers to do so.

Stallman comes from the era when C was good enough, because computing was not a hostile environment like it is today.

GNU is never going to "rewrite it in rust" as long as he's living, and probably for several years afterwards.

In other words, it's a social problem not a technical one.

In fact, it is not a problem at all.

Let new generations of Free Software orgs come along and supplant GNU with a GBIR (GNU But In Rust), but don't insist on existing, established things that are perfectly good for who and what they are to change into whatever you prefer at any given moment.

>x-ai-instructions header

These CEOs got rich by pushing a product built on using other people's content without permission, including a massive dump of pirated textbooks. Probably sci-hib content too.

It's laughably naive to think these companies will suddenly develop ethics and start being good netizens and adhere to an opt-in "robots.txt"-alike.

Morality is for the poor.

Microsoft has always been the bad guys. Does nobody remember Embrace Extend Extinguish any more?

Those of us who came up in the 80s and 90s remember that bad behavior and even worse software is baked into Microsoft's DNA.

That sort of organizational culture doesn't just evaporate.

MS was hostile towards competitors, not users/customers. You can run a VM of Windows 9x or NT and see how quiet the experience was. No pervasive spyware or ads to bother you while you work.

That’s only because they had no practical way of doing that since no computer was expected to be online 24/7.

Had they had the opportunity, they would 100% have taken it. Windows was never about serving a good experience to customers, it was always about serving the Microsoft-owned experience to customers—and these two things are very much mutually exclusive.

I don’t think they would have done it any other way, it always had to be a slow ratcheting of control over the user. If the user hostile experience that exists today was the default back then, everyone would have moved to something else while they still could.

>Does nobody remember Embrace Extend Extinguish any more?

EEE was something a single Microsoft employee allegedly came up with 0 evidence of it being used internally within Microsoft.

Internally, it was Embrace, Extend, Innovate, used in an executive memo from 1994 [0].

But it doesn't matter where it originated or who first said it. The reason this phrase gained so much popularity is that outside observers could see that's their strategy was (and still is).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

I simply manually periodically download everything to disk/software raid. Really important/sentimental stuff like baby photos and videos I have on DVD with par2s.

>against a startup company that has already produced such whey protein powder from a fungal culture there is a lawsuit that alleges that they have not separated properly the whey protein and that what they have sold contained more fungal protein of uncertain quality and safety than the good whey protein that they claimed to sell.

Sounds like par for the course in the VC-backed startup world

I drive a 2013 VW diesel and literally every aspect of vehicle ownership today is inferior except for emissions.

I don't usually make salads with 750 calories and an entire day's worth of sodium when I cook.

You probably do, but you don't count the calories, and instead of everything being in the salad, you have a few ingredients outside (bread, nuts, cheese, whatever).

Salads being a healthy, low-calorie thing is an idiocy; it's only possible if you don't use any dressing, and at this point you are only eating crunchy water. Otherwise, the oil in the dressing is over 800 kcal per 100g. Most people will put the equivalent of 50-70g of bread just as dressing in their salad. It's mostly fat and not filing.

In other words, it's extremely dumb to think salads are healthy; only fat women believe that shit and this is exactly why they end up like this.

First Americans invented how to ruin salads with dressings, now they are complaining that dressings make salads less healthy. Whew, how ironic.

I'm not American; I'm French. We invented the vinaigrette, and I have worked at quite premium restaurants. You are just clueless, and it's not even worth explaining.

Salad is a stupid meal for rich people to feel superior. It's wasteful and plain stupid. And if you are actually a worker (or someone who needs to be physical), you are ingesting the wrong type of calories. But that's the whole point. It's not sustainable for a worker; thus it is a class signifier.

Buddy, 100g of olive oil is like 7 tablespoons. Not even Americans put that much on one salad.

As others have mentioned it's the critical mass and the algorithmically-addicting dopamine treadmills that are the problem this law seeks to address.

The packaging story in common lisp is.... Not great.

It's hamstrung by archaic naming conventions that confuse newcomers. What CL calls a system is roughly analogous to what most other languages call a package. What CL calls a package is what other languages call a namespace.

Despite all that it's a pretty good language if you can find libraries for what you need. The de facto standard implementation (sbcl) has a very good compiler and an acceptable GC. The language itself is expressive and it makes for very quick and pleasant DX. I love writing common lisp.

> * What CL calls a system is roughly analogous to what most other languages call a package.*

Or a crate, or an artifact, or a module, or a gem, and there's probably other variations I can't remember off-hand.

> * What CL calls a package is what other languages call a namespace.*

Or a module, or a package, or... actually, I don't know what Perl or Ruby call it. I believe C calls it a header, but that's not quite the same thing as a package.

Turns out naming things is difficult (as well as cache invalidation, off-by-one errors concurrency, and).

Racket has packages (1) that work quite well. Chicken Scheme has Eggs.

(1) https://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/index.html

Eggs? Goodness. And I believe Chicken is R5RS as well, so I don't know what they call libraries/modules/packages/whatever (in R6RS and R7RS they're called libraries, but R5RS didn't specify anything). I expect Racket to call them libraries considering the Racket/R6RS connections.

Is it archaic? A lisp program is a dynamic image. A collection of symbol is very aptly named a package. And third party module can be named as a system (collection of packages).

Agreed, and I think package as used by Common Lisp and Java is more common than “namespace” which the parent commenter believes is the modern word for that!