If you have a memory-mapped peripheral where there’s a readonly register, I could see it being const volatile.

This is being used in a LoRa module (it’s a Reyax RYLR896 (which is not great for my purposes ngl)). The STM32 acts as an intermediary between its UART interface and the LoRa module’s SPI interface, basically doing some rough translation and some encryption, nothing major. I believe the LoRa stuff has its own crystal, so I would imagine there is no need for an external source.

Okay, I think this is a passive crystal from Seiko-Epson. I’ve never seen one in this package.

Edit: https://www5.epsondevice.com/en/products/crystal_unit/fc135r.html

Most of the embedded world uses those.

These would be great for backups if they’re cheap enough.

You can (could?) get Thinkpads with Ubuntu preinstalled.

…such as?

I’ve had Ziply Fiber before (but not 50 Gbps) and would max their upload for months and they didn’t even bat an eye. It’s the only ISP that I would ever recommend.

If you had really slow Internet, like smoke signals or semaphores across a nation, you could characterize it as millibit:

1 bit over 1000 seconds = 1 millibit/s.

But yeah, it’s basically meaningless in today’s age for Internet speeds.

Not sure what you mean here, this is what the forum post said:

After emailing (admittedly not current best practice), the passwords are hashed and only the hash is stored.

But in situations like this there is a much larger chance it’s being stored in plain text.

I suppose, but OP said in the title that the passwords were being stored in plaintext, despite that not being the case.

People weren’t really nitpicking.

• it’s obviously bad to send an email with a plaintext password
• the website owners had apparently already resolved the issue
• it does not mean the passwords were stored in plaintext
• the OP sounds like a skiddie in a bunch of comments and doesn’t seem to understand how most websites with auth work

I feel like most average people (regardless of age) don’t even know alternatives to internet browsers exist, so why would I expect a judge to know? They’re obviously not experts in every field, it’s up to the attorneys to inform them and persuade them one way or another.

Are people here unable to see that the layman might not know what Firefox is off-hand?

I can’t believe they’re still tax-exempt.

• founder has donated several thousand dollars in support of anti-gay-marriage groups
• they optionally replace ads on websites with their own ads
• they are associated with crypto schemes (like their own cryptocurrency), and previously promoted an ftx widget
• they sometimes add affiliate links to the end of urls, so they can collect revenue

For anyone wondering, this paper is theoretical (modeled using a method called DFT).

Well, your post implied the majority was for removing the bot entirely—which isn’t accurate. I was just noting that a majority of folks would like to keep the bot around, with or without tweaks.

But yeah, if bots anger you, you ought to just tick “hide bot accounts” in your settings and move on. 👍

Because you seemingly misunderstood the results of the poll. Your post implied an “overwhelming response” that were against keeping the bot, when the actual results were a majority of keeping the bot around.

Why not just go into your settings is hide posts from bots? I feel like that’d be easier than blocking every bot individually.

It’s 48 against versus 58 for keeping the bot (and 20 votes abstaining), where against is “the bot should be removed” and keeping is either keeping the bot as-is or modifying it slightly.