[–] 1 point 22 minutes ago*

Ok. so now you got to understand that algorithms were generally viewed as positive back then.

The thing to keep in mind is that an algorithm is the instrument which optimizes for some incentive structure. In the early days of Google Search, the incentive was predominantly Adsense ads displayed alongside the search results. So to optimize views of these ads, the search algorithm had to be good enough so that people would keep coming back to Google Search for their web search needs. More users means more views means more eyeballs for ads.

What changed everything started with the incentive, when it became clear that marketers' demands to hyper-target consumers could be met if websites like Google or Facebook could learn more about users than just the search terms they entered. This is when user tracking took off, where the incentive is now to monetize user habits and identity, ideally cross referenced to their social media profiles or login details.

With that new incentive, the way to optimize that is to use tracking cookies and to expand Google Analytics and AdSense so they appear on even more websites, each of which would report data back to Google as users moved around the web. Note how this means the quality of web search is no longer important, because whether or not the user lingers on Google Search, their habits are still recorded and monetizable. In this sense, we would say that the algorithm's optimizing incentive is no longer aligned with the user's interests, such as privacy or performance.

Capitalism, as always, requires an examination into incentive structures, and this explains pretty much most of what Google has been doing vis-a-vis web behavior for the last decade, with the notable exception of their Gemini AI. I readily admit that I have no idea how AI fits into their web search business model, apart from being a loss leader that keeps up the impression that they're a major player in the current bubble. And I often wonder if they have any idea too.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 37 minutes ago

    Excuse me, sir, this is dull_mens_club, not awesome_mens_club. I'll have to ask you to leave.

    JK! This is awesome! I love recovering e-waste, though usually I just collect the li-ion cells from wayside vapes. Regarding how this thing is driven, I'm continually saddened that display manufacturers don't bother with the tiny amount of extra SRAM needed to support a persistent image.

    For one project of mine in the distant past -- using a device similar to an Alpha Smart -- the display did have its own memory but the board designers couldn't be bothered to run the MISO line from the display to the CPU. So even though I could write to the display memory, I still had to keep a full copy of the rendered graphics in CPU memory, which was significant. All this made worse because the display chip itself supported a reasonable set of manipulations, like scrolling and shifting the display. But alas, none of it could be used effectively.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 15 hours ago (1 child)

    I've been rediscovering "old" tech. Not necessarily because DDR prices are through the roof, but because some things were genuinely well built in the not-too-distant past.

    And sure, I did enjoy servicing a 1980s VT320 serial terminal that I got for free, but I've also been examining what an original Raspberry Pi 1 is capable of doing. Did you know the RPi has hardware H.264 encoding capabilities? And mpeg2 hardware decode? With these things being fairly available -- just ask some tech friends if they have some to spare -- it's not inconceivably to make a TV frontend to access Jellyfin, in lieu of a Google TV stick or whatever.

    Likewise, some pursuits avoid new hardware outright: a FreeBSD-based router runs really well on older hardware, because the drivers will have been tested and rock solid by now. And Asterisk as a PBX software is great if you want to get into telephony. If modern packet switching is more your thing, dn42 is one such environment that you can plug into and pass traffic with other networks.

    And if you don't have PC hardware laying around, maybe try smaller: microcontrollers and embedded/IoT hardware is still fairly affordable, and has a breadth of applications, from home automation to just building things for the lolz. MeshCore and Meshtastic are comms networks built from low cost radios.

    Just because some hardware became expensive does not mean the entire hardware space is out of reach, and in any case, the software domain is wide open. In that regard, Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is timeless. This is akin to trying your hand at Software Defined Radio (SDR) before taking the plunge by buying an expensive ham radio.

    The tech field is not limited to just Apple and Samsung. There's also Dell, and Tektronix, and Linux, and Texas Instruments, and Arduino, and soldering, and KiCAD, and FlipperZero, and HomeAutomation, and IPv6, and more. Find your thing in this great big field!

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 16 hours ago

    In the end, programming is commanding a computer system to do your bidding. If your goal is to make electronic metal music, or complex 3d designs, simulate fluid dynamics, or solve for wheel settings on the Enigma machine, those are all programming tasks. Some may involve long runtimes, but the programming is giving the instructions to execute.

    Even formulas in Excel are programming. But make no mistake that programming and software engineering are very different tasks: the latter is about devising good designs that balance countervailing interests. Software engineers define the problem which programmers would command onto a computer to find a solution or produce a product.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 17 hours ago

    The way the question is framed is a tad confusing to me. The historical development of writing systems by humans is unambiguous, in that the spoken language came first and then writing systems later. So the idea that learning a spoken language is easier/harder due to its writing system is a strange mismatch of not-really dependent factors.

    Insofar as Japanese, Mandarin, and Cantonese are concerned, my cursory understanding is that Japanese uses a different ordering for nouns and verbs, while the latter two have more similar ordering to English, Korean, Vietnamese, and western European language. Someone should fact check that.

    That said, English is not a pinnacle example of a alphabetic language, because it has so many loanwords that its pronunciation system strains to logically capture all its rules. The romance languages do a more decent job of matching the written language to the spoken language.

    At bottom, learning to speak a foreign language can be done without learning its writing system. When speakers can't write the language, it is called illiteracy. But to learn a writing system without its spoken language, there are few examples, because every writing system conceived by humans always encoded some aspect of the spoken language's grammar. Pre-1900 Vietnamese using the Chinese script is not fully comprehensible to a Japanese reader, as an example.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 23 hours ago (1 child)

    It is time for all computing professionals billionaires and corporations to accept responsibility for computing's humanity's current state

    FTFY

    In all seriousness, Vardi correctly identifies the problems with "move fast and break things" and "efficiency at the expense of resilience". Yet then uses victim-blaming language that "we allowed" mega corporations to exist. Even if the "we" is read as "society at large", it cannot be reconciled with the call-to-action, which unambiguously targets the individuals of the industry. Without effective organization, no amount of individualized action can overcome a structural problem. It's unclear to me what his point is.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 days ago*

    In a nutshell, there will not exist any premade, out-of-the-box collaboration platform that works precisely for your use-case. And indeed, for anyone's use-case, because there are so many variables at play. Do you have:

    • to deal with scale of 10-100 people or 100k to 10M?
    • trolls and malicious actors that want to derail your project by bikeshedding?
    • a user base that might not already be skilled at recognizing toxic team members?
    • a legal entity for this project which is required to keep minutes or any other reporting requirements?
    • paid developers around the world, which only use this platform to talk to you, thus it must be secure to store PII?
    • and so on

    The reason people think it's easy to choose a collaboration tool is because they see Teams and Slack and think that they can just buy a product (or a FOSS equivalent) and they can hit the ground running. But anyone who has set up a Slack community knows that there are a lot of rules and conventions that have to be established. For example, FTX (the failed cryptocurrency exchange) was using Slack emojis to approve business expenses. Setting aside that example of colossally bad financial controls, every org of any size must establish what their baseline processes are, and that extends to the collaboration platform.

    but I don't want to worry about all the moderator tools and restrictions and BS either.

    Moderation is not optional. Every non-trivially sized collection of people will end up with disagreements that distract from their joint reason for being there. To not moderate is a choice, as demonstrated most succinctly by this post: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/

    At the very least, the collab platform you choose to use should have some tooling for a future moderator to utilize, so that you don't have to switch platforms the moment someone reveals themselves to be a neo-nazi, starts spamming swastikas into the chat, and you're powerless to do anything about it. For small groups, it's less probable but the risk grows over time.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

    Is the question in relation to immigration requirements, or for job prospects? For the former, any accredited university will likely not have a problem being recognized, not unless it's a for-profit university or has a sizable "controversies" section on Wikipedia. Online degrees from an established public university generally bear the name of the university at-large, so there'd be no noticeable difference when looking at the diploma.

    As for the job prospects, that's going to be very market specific. Perhaps the larger question is whether an online degree or not, is there enough demand in your prospective countries for MEs and EEs that employers are willing to go with a new resident from abroad, rather than from one of the established local universities?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    I didn't watch the video -- and YT isn't letting me speed-read a transcript? -- but generally speaking, if you have a need for memory that isn't backed by the filesystem, and you're writing in C, just use malloc. It's designed for that purpose, although malloc might very well be calling to mmap to obtain an anonymous mapping under the hood. Even if you're going to hold on to memory for the entire lifetime of a program, still use malloc in C.

    If your application does need some filesystem backing, or if you're allocating enough memory that hugepages might be reasonable, then that's when you'd want to use mmap.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago*

    Private party sales of cars in the USA use cash, yes. A fairly safe way to do this for a car is to do the sale in the lobby of the seller's bank or credit union. In specific detail, the buyer arrives and inspects the car to their satisfaction, they fill in most of the vehicle title transfer form but withhold the signature, then they go to the teller where the buyer produces the cash, the teller counts the funds and deposits it to the seller's account, and finally the buyer and seller sign the title transfer.

    In this way, the buyer's risk is minimized (they're meeting in a quasi public place with cameras, so gunpoint robbery would be unlikely) and the seller's risk is minimized (they don't even have to handle or count the cash, so a bad buyer can't even rob them after the sale).

    Not sure if this would be applicable to OP's situation, but it might be adaptable if the seller's bank is nearby and each party makes their own way to the bank to complete the sale, after inspecting the object.

    Note: if instead of cash, the buyer pays with an official or cashier's check, then this whole procedure is still valid because the seller doesn't have to deal with the risk of a bad check: their bank has procedures to verify on-the-spot the funds on an official or cashier's check issued by another institution. For a personal check though, such checks have a TOCTTOU problem, so sellers should not accept such checks for the sale.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    The CA cannot decypt: they don't have the secret key which only the server has. When requesting a new certificate from the CA, the server generated a secret key (aka private key) and then generated a derived public key that goes into a Certificate Signing Request (CSR). The CSR is what the CA receives, not the secret key, and then the CA returns the certificate file to the server, which has been endorsed by the CA and thus trusted by the user base.

    Phrased another way, a certificate is the instrument that confirms that a purported public key can in-fact be safely used, and that no MITM attack is happening (assuming you trust the CA that signed the cert). But once you've confirmed the public key, the rest of the cryptography is public key cryptography, meaning the secrecy of the secret key is the whole game.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 16 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    I'm deeply skeptical. If the whole premise is that natural language (which is how prompts to AI generation are given) is insufficiently precise to constrain output, and that formal specification is precise enough, then why are we bothering to use natural language generation? If this works as stated, then it's a tactic admission that the thing being checked is inherently flawed. Why not just use the formal specification to generate code then?

    I suspect that two things are true: natural language is inherently insufficiently precise for nontrivial code generation, and also that formal specification is not broad enough to describe all the code which is being generated today using AI/LLMs.

    Reliability of generated output was never an engineered goal for LLMs, and no amount of "reasoning by Lego" can fully compensate for this no matter how complex the mitigations in post. It's the same reason why safety (under any definition) cannot be "bolted on" to an LLM after the fact.

  • source
  • submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by to c/imadethis@lemmy.zip
     

    A few months ago, I was gifted a non-operational DEC VT320 serial terminal. This is a 80s/90s text-only CRT monitor, which was only displaying a thin vertical line rather than a proper picture. I've done some electronics repair in the past, but nothing this old or involving a high-voltage tube. But I figure that it would make for an interesting project over the summer, whether or not I can recover it. If nothing else, it is quite a retro talking piece.

    Fortunately, DEC -- aka Digital Equipment Corporation-- made a lot of these things, and also published troves of service information, which was the norm back then (#RightToRepair). Among the documents that can be found online included the schematics, which would be of incredible aid. That said, the quality of the scan is pretty poor, and it took quite a bit of cross-referencing of component identifiers with the parts list to confirm what couldn't be read.

    Before opening up the monitor, I did some preparatory research, to identify areas which would be worthwhile to investigate, and also to make sure I'm not going to shock myself in the process. My findings showed that because the CRT was able to display something beyond a single dot in the center of the screen, the issue would not be in the high-voltage generation circuitry, but rather the downstream circuits. Specifically, in the horizontal deflector path; this explains why the only image is a vertical line, because horizontal control was lost.

    Using the field replacement guide, I got the monitor open and then discharged the anode using a screwdriver attached to the ground strap. There was no spark or sound, which can happen if the bleeder resistor was still intact. A good sign as to what's probably still working in this monitor, but I take no unnecessary risks around potentially high voltage.

    The innards were reasonably laid out, basically existing as components that adorn the CRT display itself. The PSU, main board, and "arc protection" board were all easy to identify, although the latter was more like a connector than a board. I quickly ruled out the PSU by checking its output voltages, so the issue must be on the main board.

    logic board of VT320 from above, unobstructed by the picture tube

    It took a while to extract the board, since I didn't want to break any of the 40-year old plastic clips. But once out, I began matching the board to the diagrams and examining for any obvious damage. No obviously blown caps, no evidence of thermal events, no components rolling around on the bottom.

    At this point, I stopped to do some very thorough circuit analysis of the circuit diagrams, to absolutely understand what I was going to do. This actually took two tries, since each attempt revealed faults in my understanding, and I had to go back to the thinking chair. This part took a few days, until I finally internalized the circuit's behavior. As it turns out, this wasn't necessary, and I'll probably include it as a later comment, just for posterity.

    When I returned to the board, I made a plan to solder some trace wires, to verify my expectations when powered on. And indeed, after reinstalling the board, my oscilloscope confirmed that the H sync signal was intact and the power transistor was functioning as expected.

    oscilloscope traces, one showing a square wave pulse for 35 ms with amplitude of 4 volts, and another trace showing a single distorted sine pulse lasting 10 ms with peak amplitude of 200 volts

    Narrowing the search, I took the board back out and started tracing the lines on the PCB surface -- it was fortunately only a two-sided board -- and then compared my observations to the schematics. This revealed a difference, where the Horizontal Linearity inductor (H-LIN) was not showing connectivity, despite visibly being attached to the trace.

    Closer examination revealed that of the inductor's three legs -- two for electrical connections, one extra for support -- one had developed a hairline fault. This physical damage broke continuity, likely from the shock of impacting something. I made a repair by constructing a wooden splint for physical support, and then soldered over the leg for electrical connectivity.

    a tall inductor supported by wood splints, marked as H-LIN

    For good measure, I completed the exercise of verifying all other components, which showed that all other resistors, capacitors, and connectors were intact and likely working. And with that, I reassembled and powered on the monitor to see.

    monitor displaying: VT320 OK, Firmware and Set-Up Screens Copyright  C 1997, Digital Equipment Corporation

    And it works! In total, I probably spent a week on-and-off working on this. I will say that this is a strange machine to have, since I've been able to hook it up to a modern Linux machine and use it as a serial TTY. I even wrote most of the text of this post in vim.

    a VT320 terminal with vim open

    VT320 terminal showing a successful self-test with "VT320 OK"
     

    I only learned about this effort today. They seem to document the air protocol and the companion protocol, so that compatible implementations can be written to expand the universe of MeshCore nodes.

    I'm not sure I agree with using ZephCore (a port of MeshCore to Zephyr RTOS, apparently initially AI-generated using Claude) as the reference material -- as opposed to directly referencing the MeshCore mainline repo. But nevertheless, it's a good start to formalizing the protocol behavior necessary for an interoperable implementation to those existing nodes in the field.

     

    The convention in the USA for old urban centers and new suburban sprawl is to construct a street or road with a crown that drains rainwater to gutters along both sides of the road, then have storm drains to convey the water from the gutter to some nearby creek or tributary. But why?

    Wouldn't it be easier to construct the road in a roughly canal shape, so that rainwater drains towards a single V-shaped gutter at the road's center? This would cut the number of storm drains by roughly half, prevent leaves from falling directly into a drain and clogging it, make it possible to clear a drain by driving a streetsweeper over it, and also prevent a clog from flooding adjacent properties, since the road itself can temporarily impound more water until municipal authorities can clear the blockage (whereas side gutters would invariably flood the sidewalk and carry sharp debris that would damage tires entering a driveway).

    Furthermore, a center drain can be built once and then retained as-is each time a suburban arterial needs expanding -- "just one more lane, bro" -- whereas side gutters are regularly demolished and rebuilt to accommodate additional lanes. By routing water away from the edges of the road, sidewalks avoid freeze/thaw cycles, and the road surfacing can be continuous from the curb: no more bike lanes in the gutter. As a convenient benefit, the "drop" off at a curb-cut from a driveway to street level would cease to exist.

    And where required to improve water quality due to runoff pollution, a center drain can be excavated and rebuilt as a linear stormwater retention pond, where moderate stormwater can filter into the local soil slowly, with a predefined overflow level that will drain to the existing stormdrain pipes. This is already done for both surface parking lots as well as Interstate highways, so it's not an unproven design.

    Narrow alleyways in older cities do use a central drain, so I can't see why the idea stops making sense for larger streets and roads. The only drawbacks I can envision are aesthetic -- a neighbor's excessive lawn irrigation would draw a wet line across half the street -- and that the center channel would also carry leaves and wayward soccer balls into the middle.

    But even still, that doesn't seem worse than the status quo: gutters attract all sorts of detritus, but it's usually hidden beneath the wheels of parked cars until something punctures a tire. And at least in water-starved California, irrigation runoff deserves to be noticed and called out so that it gets fixed. There may even be some small road safety benefit from having a V-shape channel in the center, since it would unmistakably divide opposite sides of the street.

    For larger arterial roads that have trees in the center, this seems like free irrigation and water pollution control. It even works when the center traffic lanes are converted for running a tram or light rail train.

    What am I missing here?

     

    cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/61250326

    A crafted MeshCore node name could compromise any Home Assistant instance running meshcore-card as soon as someone viewed a dashboard with that card.

    The same XSS (cross-site scripting) pattern appears to be present in MeshCore-Home-Assistant-Panel-v2 and its HACS variant

    To be abundantly clear, and the post goes into detail why, this is not a bug in MeshCore but rather in how web dashboards are not properly sanitizing untrusted input. In this case, the untrusted input is via a field that any malicious MeshCore node could send.

    Well worth a read and a follow on their Mastodon.

     

    A crafted MeshCore node name could compromise any Home Assistant instance running meshcore-card as soon as someone viewed a dashboard with that card.

    The same XSS (cross-site scripting) pattern appears to be present in MeshCore-Home-Assistant-Panel-v2 and its HACS variant

    To be abundantly clear, and the post goes into detail why, this is not a bug in MeshCore but rather in how web dashboards are not properly sanitizing untrusted input. In this case, the untrusted input is via a field that any malicious MeshCore node could send.

    Well worth a read and a follow on their Mastodon.

     

    A reasonable overview of the MeshCore architecture and tunable parameters.

    Probably the only part I don't agree with is the idea that the companion/repeater dichotomy is an inherent part of the MeshCore architecture. I don't believe it is, although it's certainly part of the practical implementation. That is to say, if someone wants to use MeshCore purely as a private point-to-point link, then they can jettison the motions of companions and repeaters entirely. As a person to person mesh network, though, companions and repeaters are essential. The distinction I'm trying to draw is that MeshCore can be a lot more than text messages sent amongst friends.

    While reading, the explainer for the three-tier t delay seemed especially analogous to me to how circuit breakers are arranged: a nearby power strip might have a fast-tripping 15 amp thermomagnetic breaker, the upstream main panel might be using a 20 amp curve B (moderate trip rate) thermomagneric breaker, and the utility might be using a magnetic 400 amp breaker. By their nature, thermomagneric breakers will handle localized faults that are 3-5x the rating, while the utility's magnetic breaker will trip precisely at 400.1 amps, to protect line-side equipment. Whereas if the utility breaker tripped first, it would unnecessarily black out a whole neighborhood.

    Also observe that MeshCore's "flood-then-direct" behavior is identical to that of Ethernet (ie unknown unicast, then unicast), except that Ethernet frames do not get appended with the network path as they progress, which is akin to the postal service where letters arrive at their destination but with no indication of the routing. Accordingly, the MeshCore sender necessarily reserves space to store the mesh route, choosing a tradeoff between node-count (up to 64) or granularity (up to 3 bytes per repeater). This seems complex, but just like with the tax code, complexity is necessary to handle every reasonable scenario.

    I will also reiterate the ongoing bug in MeshCore's encryption, which is the use of AES-ECB in the year 2026. Although it's AES-256, ECB has been a known encryption vulnerability for decades and should not have been used in the MeshCore spec. Meshtastic appears to have avoided this particular foible.

    Note: the author's blog mentions in the About page that some AI is used to assist in his writing.

     

    Background: I spent 40 minutes typing up a reply to a different post, but decided that it ran on for too long. I'll include it at the bottom, but I'm curious to know how much cash is still used in this country.

    Certainly, a like-for-like Giro (Europe) system doesn't exist in the USA, with ACH, checks, and Zelle almost filling the void -- albeit incompletely -- which I suspect is responsible for the remaining cash utilization. But is that right? Is cash only used for when there isn't another option? Or is it a matter of consumer preference?

    I can understand tipping in cash, or paying for a Craigslist purchase in cash. But maybe I'm missing another dimension? Do some folks pay rent in cash? Or taxes? I'm genuinely curious, but please make sure not to dox your finances in the comments.


    My original comment

    It's annoying when they get suspicious of a 25k USD withdrawal for instance (even if you managed to prove the purpose of such a withdrawal, it remains at the banks discretion whether they'll approve the transaction).

    Let's break this down into multiple points:

    1. Suspiciousness of a 25k USD cash withdrawal
    2. Suspiciousness of a $25k USD electronic or check withdrawal
    3. Necessity to "prove the purpose" of any withdrawal
    4. Bank discretion and considerations regarding withdrawals
    5. Necessity of approval by the bank

    I don't believe any of these five points are actually issues. As background, cash withdrawals within the USA are still very commonplace, as the country is fairly rather cash-centric when it comes to businesses, due in part to the lack of a system like Giro (Europe) that has both low, fixed transfer costs and can be sent or received by third-parties. The Federal Reserve's ACH system requires established relationships between accounts, whereas Giro does not. Debit card systems aren't a replacement for Giro either. Zelle (USA) is closer, but still isn't quite as full-fledged. Hence, businesses often deal in cash, pay employees in cash, and consumers pay other individuals in cash (eg buying an automobile).

    To that end, for point 1, $25k as a cash withdrawal is not a daily occurrence but it does happen. I can't really think of ever paying for a private party used car by check, and such a cash-heavy transaction is often performed at the buyer's bank, so the seller is assured that the cash is good. In this setting, requesting to withdraw $25k cash is ordinary and mundane, if done very rarely. I doubt even prolific car buyers have this problem, but would be open to hearing evidence otherwise.

    For point 2, electronic and check withdrawals have even less suspicion than cash, because they always leave traceable evidence. Money laundering concerns are reduced because the entire money trail can be reestablished later, whereas as cash can easily disappear or be "forgotten". To that end, the suspicion isn't about the cash amount but the source and destination. Even a $1 million check is not suspicious, if it's coming from a law firm's client account to a client's personal bank account. That is, again, a thing that happens fairly regularly. More down to earth, people can and do pay housing deposits by check, and property taxes are often drawn electronically. When one or both accounts to a transaction is prominent and established, there is a low probability of money laundering.

    Point 3 is often though to be an issue, due to confusion about regulations for bank clerks on when to file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR). Bank tellers are required to follow Federal Reserve regulations that aim to prevent abuse of the American financial system for money laundering. An SAR must be filled in whenever the teller: a) thinks money may be laundered, or b) the transaction is above the bank's or regulation's fixed amounts. The latter is often pegged at $10k, so this is where people think that it's disallowed to withdraw over $10k. This is not correct.

    An SAR is something the teller fills in, and to do that, they might ask the customer some questions about the transaction. For the grand majority of people, the purpose is quite simple: cash purchase of a car, housing down payment, loan for a friend. Would the teller know if the customer is lying? Nope, not at all. But the SAR forms part of a trail of records, so that money laundering investigators can trace funds in the future. But note that the clerk can fill in an SAR for any type of transaction, including checks, and don't strictly need the customer's truthful answers (or any answers) anyway. An obligation to fill in an SAR does not prevent the transaction from going through. It's a speed bump, not a stop sign.

    As for the actual stop signs, that's what point 4 covers. A bank obviously cannot allow a withdrawal if it would exceed the customer's balance, or if they don't physically have enough cash, or if the withdrawal is not authorized (ie not named on the account, or PIN not known), full stop. But other situations may arise where the withdrawal must be delayed, either for the bank's own convenience or because the account agreement specifically requires certain holdings times.

    I quickly perused a random account agreement for Wells Fargo and the Available of Funds section describes that new accounts (less than 30 days old) will have elongated hold times for withdrawal against newly-deposited funds. This is applied in a first-in-first-out fashion, so only fully-draining the account would incur the longer hold time. In other cases, the bank may take more time but is required to inform you of that, and provide a definite date for when the withdrawal will clear. This verbiage does not distinguish cash vs non-cash, so they're within their rights to delay a check, as long as they obey their own agreement. If this is not tolerable, find a different bank.

    Finally, this also gives us some insight into the default behavior for banks subject to Federal Reserve regulations, which is point 5. A bank may not deny a withdrawal of unencumbered, unheld funds (cash or otherwise), except when the bank has actual knowledge that the withdrawal definitely is for laundering. It is, after all, not their money: it belongs to the customer and they are just the regulated custodian of it. A bank can certainly advise a customer not to fall for a pig-butcherint scam, but they cannot block the customer from obtaining their own money back out. They can, as described earlier, apply a temporary, finite-time hold on the funds, but that's it.

    To my knowledge, there is no Fed-regulated, FDIC/NCUA bank or credit union that requires pre-authorized approval to access a customer's own funds. I am open to hearing evidence to the contrary, but I don't believe such a thing exists. How would they even stay in business? To be clear from point 4, a bank can certainly ask for a few day's notice to prepare $50k in new $2 bills. But that's easy enough: just call the bank and verbally request the withdrawal, then collect it in-person days later.

    Who is disadvantaged by this? Mostly money launderers and con artists trying to abscond with their scam proceeds. But I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention rich people that prefer to suddenly go on vacation and pay for everything in cash. But the system is designed to be no obstruction to those that plan ahead, or are dealing in such small amounts that it's not a big issue. Normal everyday people all share the costs of money laundering, so it's not fair to disadvantage them just so rich people and scammers aren't inconvenienced by their inability to plan ahead. They don't even have to plan ahead: just keep a few racks in the safe.

    It is to me, frankly, a non-issue to withdraw money for me or anyone in the working or middle class, because the very issue of being "flagged by US banks" just rarely even a speed bump. And the rich folks have private banks that will gladly give them inordinate amounts of cash to spend.

    What exactly is the problem here, specifically?

     

    Here is the thing about open source, Andy: it isn't yours to fence. You don't get to ride a community's goodwill into a USPTO filing and a paywall. You don't get to turn "we built this together" into "I own this, pay me." That isn't a pivot. That's a rug pull dressed up as a business model.

    And here is the thing about the "license check" you shipped: it is a 32-bit djb2 hash of the device's Android ID, XORed with the four ASCII bytes MCPP, hex-encoded. That's it. Thirty-two bits. Less entropy than a decent ZIP password. A first-year CS student could break it. You used Claude to generate the code. We used Claude to read the code. It took 19 minutes. The receipts are one click away.

     

    CLAUDE CODE JUST RICKROLLED ME. I'm working on a project where part of it will involve videos, and in building out the project it created a dummy page, with made up content (relevant to me!) with two video links pretending to be something else and BOTH WERE RICKROLLs.

    Note: I'm using a broad definition of "programmer" to include HTML generation, and a broad definition of "humor" that includes Rickrolling. Together, I think this is appropriate for c/programmerhumor. Mods, please remove if not correct.

    submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by to c/notjustbikes@feddit.nl
     

    As background from the Wikipedia page, the Anaheim Transit Network (ATN) was established as a city-sponsored non-profit in 1998 to operate bus lines around the Disneyland resort in California, with private funding from the various hotels in the area to run this public bus system. These hotels are obliged to operate or pay for shuttles to Disneyland as part of their development agreements with the city, presumably to avoid untold amounts of automobile traffic.

    As the linked press release says, ATN will shutter its operations on 31 March 2026. The area will still be served by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), the county-wide bus service, but looking at the bus lines near Disneyland, coverage seems non-optimal as a replacement to ATN's service.

    Other reporting indicates that the City of Anaheim was unwilling to invest further into ATN (despite earlier indications), nor were the hotel operators.

    What I find utterly inexplicable is that these stakeholders -- especially the city -- are not recognizing this fact: data from Q3 2025 shows that ATN fixed-buses moved 96,300 average daily riders. From the same document, the USA's heavy rail systems did not exceed that rate, except in the San Francisco, Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Boston, and NY/NJ areas. Basically, ATN was moving metro rail levels of people on buses.

    I shudder to imagine how bad this will be for Anaheim once the closure occurs, where workers, visitors, and all other former riders will need to figure out how to move around Anaheim. Ride share automobiles hardly have enough capacity to absorb even a fraction of the prior riders, let alone more automobiles, even if they all carpooled. And seeing as many visitors to Disneyland use the buses to stay at farther hotels to reduce costs, this is a negative attraction. The difficulty of car-seats on ride share made the buses particularly attractive to transport younger children safely.

    Each individual hotel operator made an economic choice to not properly fund ATN, but together they will all lose out. Likewise, I don't see how the City of Anaheim is going to make up the transportation capacity around the Disneyland area. Disneyland itself isn't party to the agreement that funds ATN, but they do contract with ATN to shuttle visitors from a far-flung parking lot. But they too will be impacted if staff and guests can't afford to get to the park.

    Everyone is going to be worse off, and no one is stepping up to the plate to keep the buses rolling, when it's clearly the obvious thing to do.

    view more: next ›