Stack Exchange
log in

user1937198

 Discussion on question by Goga: How c…

Imported from a comment discussion on diy.stackexchange.com/qu...
user1937198
Nov 13, 2024 08:45
@Huesmann In Europe its common to mix renting and owning in a single building. Renters will often rent from landlords who own single apartments within the buildings in the same way as an owner occupier. So the distinction between condo/apartment doesn't really exist in the same way. That seems to mostly be a US thing.
 

 Discussion on question by euraad: How…

Imported from a comment discussion on electronics.stackexchang...
user1937198
Aug 9, 2024 19:38
When you say test, do you mean EMC emissions test?
user1937198
Aug 9, 2024 19:38
The harmonics are the core of this argument. From a frequency point of view, that straight rise is a pulse of high frequency waves. From the sound of it the worry is connecting two high bandwidth gates chips, which may be able to respond to that pulse.
 

 Discussion on question by user1937198…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
user1937198
Jul 22, 2024 20:35
@MichaelHall for commercially sold equipment it's 100% as tight. The core of this question is, is it the sale that is regulated, or its use. In aviation both sale and use are federally regulated. In medical, sale is, but its not clear use is, though their may be state regulations on use.
user1937198
Jul 22, 2024 20:35
Or in other words: the FAA can't stop you building a plane however you like. But they can stop you flying it.
user1937198
Jul 22, 2024 20:35
Ideally yes. In practice it's this doesn't usually come up because hospitals don't manufacture such devices themselves (though this is starting to happen with software as a medical device) and the FDAs mandate is limited in constitutionality, as it derives from the commerce clause. My understanding is in aviation this is closed as the FAA also has regulation of the practise of flight requiring use of approved equipment.
user1937198
Jul 22, 2024 20:35
@MichaelHall The "device" seems entirely irrelevant. What matters to that question is the meaning of 'user'. In the context of this question, I did not mean patients, but hospitals and similar medical organisations. I assumed Scott meant likewise, and interpreted his comment as meaning the FDA only regulates devices that are bought/sold, not devices that are constructed by the organisation that uses them without ever being sold.
user1937198
Jul 22, 2024 20:35
@ScottSeidman that leads to a potentially interesting loophole if no one covers this, as that would suggest you can build medical devices however you like to whatever quality specs you like, so long as you are the hospital organisation using them.
user1937198
Jul 22, 2024 20:35
@NateEldredge potentially either, or in the case of scanners corruption of scan data, leading to misleading scans.
user1937198
Jul 22, 2024 20:35
Fairly common to see medical scanners etc running a varient of windows, and as described in the motivating example, there's a strong incentive to install antivirus on those systems, which could then lead to issues.
user1937198
Jul 22, 2024 20:35
Manufacturer provided software is clearly regulated, non-medical software on a non-medical device is clearly unregulated. Non-medical software on a medical device by a non-manufaturer, such as has the potential to significantly effect the risk of use of the device? A lot less clear.
user1937198
Jul 22, 2024 20:35
@MichaelHall everything I could find was on the context of manufacturer provided software, or software separate to a medical device in a medical context. Not about the specific combination of non-medical software on regulated devices.
 

 Discussion on answer by MichaelK: Whi…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
user1937198
Dec 21, 2023 13:37
In the classic NBC trio of hazards, Nuclear is DoE, Biological is CDC, and C is EPA (who also cover the impact of chemical releases into the environment on humans)
user1937198
Dec 21, 2023 13:37
@MichaelK Nuclear material. Any radioactive material or radioactive hazard. They have people who know dose management, decontamination, hazard identification etc.
user1937198
Dec 21, 2023 13:37
In addition to the CDC, potentially the Department of Energy and the EPA. The CDCs expertise is primarily biological hazards, if someone is presented with an unknown thing and are worried about it being a hazard, they are going to call people representing the trio of NBC.
 

 Discussion on answer by ohwilleke: Do…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
user1937198
Nov 18, 2023 18:08
If a company falls within its scope, would a reduction in salary like this be considered a mass layoff for the purposes of WARN?
user1937198
Nov 18, 2023 18:08
There may be ramifications from an unemployment insurance perspective, as if you refuse to accept the new terms, it is technically the employer laying the employee off, rather than the employee resigning.
user1937198
Nov 18, 2023 18:08
@aroth In pure contract law terms, in a standard at will employment arrangement, the termination process is 'either party may unilaterally terminate the contract at any time with 0 notice'. So from a legal mechanism, the employer doesn't vary the contract they terminate it (per option 3) and offer a new contract for the employee to consider with the new terms. Its just in practice there is no difference in effect from a unilateral modification.
 

 Discussion on question by Nike Dattan…

Imported from a comment discussion on langdev.stackexchange.co...
user1937198
Nov 13, 2023 19:29
One line is what do the processors have. Sin and cos are often provided as native instructions because calculating them is common enough that is in certain tasks it provides a notable speedup. If the processor has it, but the language doesn't then you can't use the instruction easily, whereas if the language has it, and the processor doesn't, thats easy to handle.
 

 Discussion on answer by ohwilleke: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
user1937198
Oct 20, 2023 21:05
Tens of thousands of dollars is nothing. Transport for London has a long standing issue of over 100 million pounds of unpaid congestion charges over the last 20 years: questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail‌​/…
 

 Discussion on answer by kaya3: Why do…

Imported from a comment discussion on langdev.stackexchange.co...
user1937198
Sep 1, 2023 13:21
Another problem with this argument: loop loops can have a value. The value of the loop break statement. And there is debate about doing the same for while loops, but with the issue of how to handle the case of never executing.
 

 Discussion on answer by André L F S B…

Imported from a comment discussion on langdev.stackexchange.co...
user1937198
Jul 18, 2023 10:35
@supercat The problem is 'environment-defined semantics' in practice means defining the machine model, not an abstract machine. What are the 'environment-defined semantics' of writing a jump instruction into the code under execution? Even hoisting a read could change the semantics of a later write by rearranging the code written to.
user1937198
Jul 18, 2023 10:31
@supercat The standard has a set of behaviors that are expected to be defined by the implementation, that is the implementation defined behavior. Undefined behavior is just a removal of any burden of the compiler to document that case. And implementations are a allowed to document undefined behavior as implementation defined, but any programs that are not expected to be dependent on a specific compiler version should not depend on any behavior not explicitly documented by that compiler.
user1937198
Jul 18, 2023 10:27
@supercat Because the out of bounds memory access can already exist in the program. the reordering moves when it occurs, and thus the effect of the out of bounds impact
user1937198
Jul 17, 2023 22:16
allowing reordering subject to rules is the problem. what if the write modifies the code under execution to such that on a specific microarchitecture it results in a jump to non-code between the original and reordered write. You now have an apparently arbitrary subset of the code not being executed, and something completely different being executed instead. And so rather than trying to cover all these cases, the standard just goes, if you break memory safety, all bets are off.
user1937198
Jul 17, 2023 22:16
Due to the politics of the C/C++ standards, its usually an all or nothing of undefined vs implementation defined behaviour.
user1937198
Jul 17, 2023 22:16
You are escaping the abstract model, and a sufficiently detailed implementation spec would be the ISA spec and associated translation details, along with any optimisations. Consider the case of an out of bounds write of program code, the only way to define it is to include how the write translates to machine code, and what machine code is already present.
user1937198
Jul 17, 2023 22:16
The issue with undefined behaviour vs implementation defined behaviour is that undefined behaviour usually comes from at least a platform where there is a potential subset of that behaviour, where if executed, even with no transforms, the compiler can no longer guarantee the runtime state of the program at all.
user1937198
Jul 17, 2023 22:16
@supercat and to do so is a) implementation defined, and b) either limits your ability to move around accesses, as effectively all accesses must be treated as volatile unless proven otherwise, as all accesses have the potential to break memory safety, or you effectively dump the documentation of the optimizer as your implementation defined behaviour spec, and end up with a spec so complex no one understands it
user1937198
Jul 17, 2023 22:16
You can list the explicit transforms under which a write can be moved, but if a write can result in arbitrary behaviour when out of bounds, and that behaviour can be hoisted, then you are effectively allowing time traveling undefined behaviour. It is entirely possible for a hoisted out of bounds write to attempt to write to memory that would corrupt control flow between the ordinal write point and thehoist point. At which point anything can happen.
user1937198
Jul 17, 2023 22:16
And there are other possibilities of escape. Without WxE protection, an invalid memory write could modify code, which when executed would have behaviour dependent on the machine code of the system, and could do anything that is possible in machine code.
user1937198
Jul 17, 2023 22:16
Without memory safety, you can't prevent arbitrary memory load/stores, and without constraints on memory mapped io, you can't stop arbitrary load/stores having arbitrary effects. And thus any language that does not have memory safety, and does not place constraints on memory mapped io, must have nasal demon ub.
user1937198
Jul 17, 2023 22:16
@supercat now I have a pointer to a char array at $1000, and attempt to write out of bounds to index $B0EF, how do you stop that trashing the disk without runtime bounds checking?
user1937198
Jul 17, 2023 22:16
@supercat such a spec would make assumptions about the underlying platform that c doesn't provide. For example, there exist c platforms (without any optimisation) where a ub pointer dereference can result in a motor spinning up.
 

 Discussion on answer by Alexis King: …

Imported from a comment discussion on langdev.stackexchange.co...
user1937198
Jul 17, 2023 18:41
@Gilles'SO-stopbeingevil' and the reason for that is portability. Did you know there are implementations where sizeof(long int) == 5. Or what about implementations where writing to address space can have physical repercussions.
 

 Discussion on answer by Andy aka: Wha…

Imported from a comment discussion on electronics.stackexchang...
user1937198
Mar 3, 2023 01:09
@Andyaka With the way this answer is phrased right now, its not clear what is a core definition of a signal line, or if some of the statements are just examples of what a signal line could look like.
user1937198
Mar 3, 2023 01:09
To quote wikipedia: 'Alternating current (AC) is an electric current which periodically reverses direction' @Andyaka Where is the periodicity in a truely random bit pattern? Or do you have an alternative definition of Alternating Current?
user1937198
Mar 3, 2023 01:09
@Andyaka Because you said alternating current. Its the alternating that I have an issue. If I transmit continuous 1s in TTL logic, where is the alternation?
user1937198
Mar 3, 2023 01:09
@Andyaka By your definition, pretty much all mains power would count as signal rails and not power rails.
user1937198
Mar 3, 2023 01:09
@Andyaka Yes, theoretically by Fourier anything can be thought of as a collection of sine waves, but thats not necessarily the most useful abstraction when trying to explain the difference between a TTL square wave signal encoding of a random bit pattern, vs a 60 Hz clean mains power supply. Whats important is that there is a variation in the voltage (or more rarely current), and that variation has meaning.
user1937198
Mar 3, 2023 01:09
Maybe varying voltage would be clearer, since ac implies a periodic nature to the signal which isn't necessarily true unless specifically taken into account or only viewed at an average macro level.
 

 Discussion on question by Cyberstrato…

Imported from a comment discussion on electronics.stackexchang...
user1937198
Feb 20, 2023 03:01
Possibly what you are looking for is a phase locked loop with gain?
 

 Discussion on question by dtech: Does…

Imported from a comment discussion on opensource.stackexchange...
user1937198
Dec 26, 2022 21:56
You have the alternative of developing your own toolkit. If it wasn't for the GPL and the restrictions it poses on keeping the source code openly available and upstream-able, that toolkit would likely only be available under the expensive commercial license. GPL is based on a principle of shared contributions of software. By establishing your approval requirements, you put your software in a position of privilege vs all other projects that might want to use part of your code.
user1937198
Dec 26, 2022 21:56
@dtech Which platforms require GPL? If so that is a contentious choice of those platforms to require you to let there uses make changes without any restrictions from you in the changes they can make. They want that for their users. If you are unwilling to provide that freedom, they would rather not have you on their platform.
user1937198
Dec 26, 2022 21:56
Some levels are just not worth solving. Solve this at the technical level, and let users modify their clients in ways that don't impact the network. Otherwise, whats the point in using the GPL vs a source available license? It sounds like you want to claim to be open source, without actually being open source rather than source available.
user1937198
Dec 26, 2022 21:56
@dtech Consider someone doesn't use your client at all, and builds a client completely from scratch to interact with your service in ways the official client doesn't let them? Nothing you do with your licensing can fix this problem, and you might want to consider how to handle that, rather than trying to solve this with licensing.
 

 Discussion on answer by Jen: Is it le…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
user1937198
Nov 14, 2022 20:28
@ttbek And to add to that, the EU has actually ruled that the original publisher can't stop you reselling your indefinite, irrevocable license, regardless what they put in their EULA about not selling it to you (UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp).
user1937198
Nov 14, 2022 20:28
@jwenting How do you need any of that to run the game? All you need is the server binaries.
user1937198
Nov 14, 2022 20:28
@jwenting Thats how games used to be released. It used to be standard to support local hosted servers, and many games still support local hosted server modes. It can be advantageous for modding, and/or when people are located close together but far from the server.
user1937198
Nov 14, 2022 20:28
Their EULA says they can. I'm just questioning whether or not it has been established whether this is an enforceable clause. In UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp the European Court of Justice ruled that EULAs did not allow the prohibition of resale. As such, would the EU legal guarantee of conformity prevent Blizzard from invoking this clause. My reading is that if Overwatch 1 had been purchased after 1/1/2022, then that would make this clause at least partially unenforceable.