gte525u

Organizational self-imposed DOS attacks.

It depends - some agencies you can apply directly without doing a phase 1. Others you need talk to the TPOC of the Phase 1 to find out the process or you have to be invited.

In the current environment - I would contact the TPOC - it could just be stuck in limbo.

SBIRs have been mucked up since last fall. The program lapsed and it just got reauthorized for certain departments. Without that reauth only those who had phase 1's could apply for phase 2's.

Are there benchmarks available to compare vanilla wireguard to fips wireguard?

We used it for a new Defense/Aerospace projects. Language-wise it's fine although verbose. Intent was to separate similar IP so there was no claim of cross contamination. Built-in threading and a robust standard library is nice.

Tool-wise - refactoring was a bit of a pain.

Very different use case. It's for one-off secure file transfers.

FWIW - I work in aerospace. I believe this is talking about their FAA Designated Engineering Representatives (DERs). They are employed directly by the company or are consultants - they are subject matter experts in their domain. They act as the FAA delegate within the company. They generally have authority that goes well beyond the typical employee or QA person.

The ones I have worked with have no problem telling management to go pound sand when they are pushing schedule.

There were a lot of waivers back in the day. A couple big companies (Boeing) still use it.

I would look at SCTP socket API it supports multistreaming.

From my experience, it seems to be the people that learned PASCAL first for some reason.

This works until someone tries to vertically align something like a table or a line that is wrapped.

^This - we're trying to use one to partially automate some system engineering type activities.

It's great for reviews where any given reviewer could be expected to have a misunderstanding of certain details or skip a section (RAG somewhat helps this) - but it's frustrating for artifact generation where missing details cascade through the project.

As great as the technology (right now) it seems so far from reliable business process automation.

Do you have any resources you could link to - for those that are curious?

FWIW - it happens in aerospace - ARINC 651/653

There a couple companies that make a DILS where the localizer and glideslope can be temporarily deployed. The intent is for emergency or short term use.

ARINC 429 definitely one way to do it. It has a fixed baud rate - there is no feedback to the transmitter. Typically, each "bus" contains a single or small subset of messages (called labels) over it.

It's line speed processing of multiple cameras in HW - it should be less power consumption than equivalent GPU or Jetson.

Somewhat related - but there are a ridiculous number of platform/systems that ship with derivative of Dinkum C++ standard library - MSVC (included). When you lookup the company behind it - it's basically small shop that seems to be primarily one guy up in MA.

Alternatively - you can get an export license for information to the particular person. Kind of like a TAA for a foreign employee. Previous employer had a European EW expert in the US office temporarily. Still not fast and lots of paperwork and limitations.

It may vary on your definition of major - but they definitely do in the southeast and lower midwest.

Out of curiosity - what were the rough edges in the distributed application space?

There is a python script[1] that pulls down LCSC parts as kicad symbols and footprints.

[1] https://github.com/uPesy/easyeda2kicad.py

Analog discovery series is cheap and good enough for a lot of tasks.

uCOS-II and uCOS-III were open sourced a while ago as well https://github.com/weston-embedded

FWIW - ARINC429 is a common one way serial bus used in commercial aviation.

Basically 'Ed Wood' reimagined?

Safety critical in aerospace uses MCDC as the gold standard for testing.

Shouldn't that be (void)a;

MISRA C++ lags quite a bit relative to C++'s evolution over the last 20 years. It's closer to JSF C++ style guide.

FWIW - usually when interfacing with foreign code like that you match what the foreign code's types than convert it afterwards. Then add an assert [sizeof(t1) >= sizeof(int)] or better a static_assert.

The intent isn't to make your code bullet-proof. It's to move towards a subset of the language with well-defined semantics.

Any safety critical coding standard work I've done always had a waiver process for both MISRA and mccabe-like complexity requirements - the intent is there's always some point where there is diminish returns for compliance.