The responsible party, in the case of the Federal government failing to provide a national ID, is the contingent American citizens who are rabidly against the idea of national ID.
An SSL intercepting proxy like Squid will do what you're looking for, insofar as the HTTP(S) protocol. Doing that at a gateway level, instead of on the client itself, loses visibility into process IDs or other client-local state.
The old Microsoft Proxy (and later their ISA Server product) used a proprietary encapsulation between the client and the proxy server that exposed client-local state to the proxy server to let you do "magical" stuff like filtering by process name or username at a gateway level. I wish there was a free software solution that did that.
The option for a single renewal for 14 more years doesn't strike me as onerous. It makes a concession for the "audience hasn't made you rich in the first 14 years" and is still light years ahead of the current de facto infinite duration.
It won't ever change, though. No chance ever. Other than to be actually made infinite. The nature of "intellectual property" and money being speech in US politics locks that in.
As of late I've been watching a Youtube creator, DiPDoT[0], building a relay computer.
DiPTDoT's project is still in-progress. His computer has an 8-bit data bus and a 16-bit address bus[1], like the Zusie. His registers are a little more generous than the Zusie.
I really enjoy the sound of DiPDoT's test rigs running his cards thru functional testing. The rhythm of a relaying computer running code with loops is probably pretty fun.
One of the most polished diy relay computers (and video series) I've seen is by Paul Law [0]. He's been working on it for over 10 years, and has just started a series on using it to calculate Pi.
the guy uses same relays as I do and he solders them onto pcb. Ive learned my lesson the hard way that these relays are unreliable and they do die, so in my design all of relays are socketed. hope the guy will adjust his design too
There's money here to whoever can capture the activation of these muscles to control prosthetic cat ears. At the rate I see them the prosthetic cat ear market must be double-digit billions.
Seriously, though, it makes me wonder if the activation of these muscles could be used in a hearing aid application. Why not add a couple rear-facing highly directional mics and use these muscles to control their gain?
On the theme: The phrase "junk" DNA always irritated me. I'm glad it is being replaced with "non-coding".
Anybody who has looked at a 4kb demo can intuit that "junk" code likely has a function, even if it isn't immediately obvious machine code for the host CPU. I'm no geneticist, and I understand cells aren't CPUs, but I've read enough to know there's at least a tenuous analogy to non-coding DNA and the kind of "junk" you might find reversing a 4kb demo that procedurally generates its output.
Yup, DNA turned out to not merely be a sequence of triplets telling a dumb matter printer which hard-coded proteins to make - at least according to what little I understand of evolutionary developmental biology[0], DNA is much more like procedural generation in gamedev or demoscene. That is, there's plenty of recipes for various structures and body parts, and then there's lots of DNA that's responsible for conditionally enabling or disabling or modulating those recipes, depending on more DNA that controls when and where and how much to enable them, and then more - a complex network of logic.
--
[0] - Didn't get much further than this four-minute intro to the field, but it is a good intro: https://youtu.be/ydqReeTV_vk.
(EDIT: It's actually the second part of a trio, that starts with a four-minute bottom-up overview of organic chemistry[1], and ends on a three-minute intro to nanotechnology[2]. I recommend the series together for how well it frames humans in relation to other life and universe as a whole.)
There’s also epigenetics with mechanisms like histone modification and DNA methylation that can control expression without changing the DNA, but still being heritable.
Only the first one is DNA, and only a small portion of 'coding' DNA was initially regarded as important.
My question is how? Structural organization implies information. Who thought "Nah, evolution put that in for shits and giggles"? Was it just things we couldn't observe at all without modern scanning electron micrography?
More to the point, there is still chromosome structure when the cell is normal mode, expressing proteins instead of replicating itself. It's just it is spread apart, probably like a pop-up book where "pages" will snap open and become accessible for transcription as part of gene regulation and other times will be folded up so genes in that section aren't expressed.
Some of the reason it is tough to make GMO products that are really effective is that it's not enough to put a gene in and have it expressed a little, you want to have it expressed a lot. For instance the first version of Golden Rice produced Vitamin A but not enough to matter, it took several years to make one that expressed the genes strongly enough that it made significant amounts of Vitamin A.
> Was it just things we couldn't observe at all without modern scanning electron micrography?
Perhaps also that we couldn't imagine, much less accept, that a dumb semi-random process tweaking bits could, over time, organize those bits into higher level abstract structures. We still mostly talk about evolution mutating genes, where perhaps if you zoom out a little, it's actually working at a higher level of abstraction.
Incidentally, this is the same outlook as some people have today wrt. LLMs - they can't accept the idea that backprop running on a blob of weights representing a simple (if large) graph can start encoding increasingly high-level, abstract organizational structures.
Can't observe and woefully hard to understand. Remember in the 1950's the only genetic disease they could trace to a mutation was sickle cell and that was guesswork. They didn't have any of the cute editing techniques or amplification and sequencing tools. It's a miracle they figured out what they did.
so the thing that makes this complicated is that having non-coding DNA that does nothing for an individual can still be helpful for a population. they essentially serve the same purpose as commented out code that is really common when devs aren't using version control. the comments won't affect the program as it currently exists at all, but they make it so small changes to the code can more easily change the functionality.
Maybe not as much commented as unused. Turns out, there's plenty of that in DNA, and you can force turning it on. See e.g. the bit about snakes growing legs in the video I linked - they still carry the blueprint for legs in their genome, but have it suppressed.
It's worth pointing out that Lennart Poettering simply rubbed some people the wrong way in his communication, and that ended up reflecting on systemd, irrespective of the software itself. (I am not making a case that this is good or bad, right or wrong. Just pointing it out.)
It was absolutely the way it was done and the arguments use to shut up the opposition. Then the distros all just adopted it and it was case closed and &*@#$#@ you. This happened with GNOME turning into some attempt at a tablet/phone UI and that upset enough of us to result in Cinnamon and MATE.
You have the people who like GNOME as it is now just as people accept systemd but you might as well be talking to Mac fans - to people who have to learn to like it because they have no choice.
Technically I think launchd might be the inspiration for systemd and for people who like the way the Mac works it's "yay" but it's not necessary.
Anyhow, I like dinit. It's declarative with a simple config language and not a monolith - absolutely perfect.
Of course, the scope is different, the kernel is about 30 times as large as systemd (which is less than I was expecting frankly), but they both match the description "low-level large C language project". Therefore in my mind they should have a similarl density of CVEs per lines of code:
Systemd has 4 open CvEs in ~1M lines of code.
The linux kernel hash 18 open CvEs in ~30M lines of code.
The example I like to bring up, albeit not in California, is the Brigham Young University police searching local law enforcement databases for sexual assaults on BYU students and reporting the victims for "Honor Code" violations. There's a ton of reporting about this, but as a good overview: https://www.kuer.org/race-religion-social-justice/2021-12-17...
Persistence inside the WMI database is fun. There was a good talk about this at DerbyCon[0] years ago. I think it has gotten more press since several APT groups were using it but it still isn't a well-known persistence mechanism.
reply