[flagged]
Argument from authority is not particularly strong. The information on putty.org is considered misinformation by the vast majority of professionals in the field of infectious diseases.
Readit Newszettabomb commented on PuTTY has a new website putty.software/... · Posted by u/GalaxySnail
zettabomb commented on Replacing tmux in my dev workflow bower.sh/you-might-not-ne... · Posted by u/elashri
The conclusion I come to from this is that yes, I actually do need tmux, as the alternatives proposed are far more annoying and provide no benefit. I don't have a need for graphics in the terminal, and frankly I find it odd that we wouldn't simply display graphics... with the graphics system. But I do have a need for seamless session persistence and multiple terminals, and I do enjoy splitting a window when I'm running a command on multiple servers.
zettabomb commented on Ubiquiti launches UniFi OS Server for self-hosting lazyadmin.nl/home-network... · Posted by u/speckx
For all of Electron's promise in being cross-platform, "I'll just press this button and ship this Electron app on Linux and everything will be fine" is not the current state of things. A lot of it is papercuts like glibc version aggravation, but GPU support is persistently problematic.
The Element app on Linux is currently broken (if you want to use encryption, so basically for everyone) due to an issue with Electron. Luckily it still works in a regular browser. I'm really baffled by how that can happen.
A hybrid car trivially improves total energy input needed, since it replaces braking by generating heat by braking by storing energy later to be reused.
The same should he true here, right? The added energy needed to carry the weight of the motor would be easily overcome by the gains from regenerative braking?
Only if the motor were in the hub of the wheel, which given the typical size of the hubs, seems even less likely. Remember that bicycle drivetrains are typically one-way due to the ratchet, so you can't apply braking force via the chain.
zettabomb commented on It's a DE9, not a DB9 (but we know what you mean) news.sparkfun.com/14298... · Posted by u/jgrahamc
To which extent can a man go to not accept is wrong in an argument…
DB9 and RJ45. Period.
I have never once in 45 years of working with open system had somebody misunderstand what you mean with RJ45 or DB9.
That kind of pedantry can be saved for worst errors, like “baud-rate”. There is no such a thing. Baud is a unit [symbols/s]. It could be symbol-rate. I do have seen it bite a team, because symbolism rate was different as bit-rate. And still, I do not think is critical 99% of the time
I'd accept I was wrong if I was wrong, but I'm not. The standard 9-pin serial connector is a DE9 and nothing else. Cannon, the original manufacturer, says so, and no reputable sources say otherwise. Maybe you haven't been confused in 45 years. Other people could be. You could learn something and get it right, instead of being stubborn and objectively wrong.
zettabomb commented on It's a DE9, not a DB9 (but we know what you mean) news.sparkfun.com/14298... · Posted by u/jgrahamc
zettabomb commented on It's a DE9, not a DB9 (but we know what you mean) news.sparkfun.com/14298... · Posted by u/jgrahamc
I do not think you are correct.
D-subminiature connectors are codified by both IEC 60807-3 and MIL-DTL-24308K.
Neither IEC 60807-3 nor MIL-DTL-24308K "standardize" or "codify" D-subminiature connectors into DA/DB/DC/DE sizes.
Is there an actual standard referencing DA/DB/DC/DD/DE? It wasn't linked in the article.
I do not think there is, and I think that everyone claiming that DA/DB/DC/DD/DE is a "standard" is wrong.
After all, we 100% DEFINITELY want to be "correct". Words like "standard" have meaning.
It appears DA/DB/DC/DD/DE is just a trade practice started by Cannon. Maybe that's why the "standardized" and "codified" specifications refer to sizes 1 through 5 (or 6).
If we want the opinion of the ultimate arbiters of standardization, both Digikey and Mouser adhere to "the standard" by organizing shell sizes into IEC 60807-3 and MIL-DTL-24308K-compliant numerical sizes with letters in parentheses to denote that the letters ARE NOT a standard.
The most likely reason that DA-DE sizes are not in the standards is that DA-DE were once trademarks or otherwise proprietary designations created by Cannon. Indeed, practically the only consistent and quasi-official spec sheets that list the A-E sizes are published by ITT Cannon but even they reference the actual standards (e.g. "E Size 9 (MIL-DTL-24308 Size 1)").
I assert that DA-DE are proprietary designations created by Cannon (now ITT Cannon) and calling them a "standard" is incorrect, IN AN ENGINEERING CONTEXT.
In support of my position I have referenced both IEC 60807-3 and MIL-DTL-24308K and provided real-world examples from domain experts. I have also found pdfs for DIN 41652, CECC 75301-802 and referenced spec and marketing materials for Amphenol, Assmann, and Farnell/Newark and the only instances of a "standard" is when they list A-E sizes as an afterthought to aid people who are not following the actual standard to source standards-compliant parts (or ITT Cannon).
What is there, besides blog posts, to show that I am not correct?
edit: As a certified, triple-audited, ISO 9001-compliant weirdo, I am going to write up a nonconformity report, digitally sign it, print it out, manually sign it, then stamp it, then initial the stamp, then get it co-signed, stamped, and initialed, then scan it, then upload it into BMS, then print it out again, write the document control number on it, stamp and initial next to the document control number, have a second engineer stamp and initial it, and then hand it DIRECTLY to Quality if anyone ever refers to D-Sub connectors using non-standardized nomenclature ever again.
This is serious business and we are serious engineers here.
Besides the fact that you're clearly not taking this seriously, anyone can codify whatever they want, including Cannon. They invented them and wrote the spec, along with the nomenclature. If you want to use the names, use them correctly, otherwise use something else.
zettabomb commented on It's a DE9, not a DB9 (but we know what you mean) news.sparkfun.com/14298... · Posted by u/jgrahamc
Phone jacks. Invented in the late 19th century. Still in use today.
I assume you're referring to the 1/4" jacks, not RJ series?
zettabomb commented on It's a DE9, not a DB9 (but we know what you mean) news.sparkfun.com/14298... · Posted by u/jgrahamc
XLR used (mostly) in audio is also from the 1950s.
The biggest problem with these standards is they are used for everything and so you cannot be sure that if the cable fits it will work. If a USB cable fits it will almost always work - but if it doesn't it will be obvious to your average idiot way (that is you can plug a mouse into a power supply - but nobody expects it will work). USB-C somewhat violates that, but even still it mostly is a case if you can get the connectors to fit it works.
Didn't even think of that, yes of course XLR and for that matter, 1/4" TS/TRS connectors were originally for switching phones at AT&T, before automated switching. Incidentally, you can also blow up quite a bit of stuff with them, depending on whether they are at consumer "line level", pro audio "line level", or even speaker level. We're definitely too comfortable with "if it fits, it works" (or at least isn't harmful".