hilbert42

Unlikely, as Wi-Fi is flea power (not high enough to do damage). Moreover, Wi-Fi chips have an inbuilt power limit so as to comply with spectrum management regulations.

Anyway, why wouldn't you want to fry the Wi-Fi chip if possible, that'd solve everything? If I had that problem I'd simply stuff the chip or short out its RF output (bridge solder across its antenna pins).

There are multiple ways of fucking the chip, likely the easiest is shorting B+ to the high side of its antenna pins (that'll likely do the trick). Another method is to hold the tip of a hot soldiering iron on the center of the chip until it fails.

Of course, you shouldn't do this unless you know what you are doing. The Wi-Fi chip may also control Bluetooth so if you still want that risky comms pathway then consult the chip's datasheet first.

An automatic failsafe mechanism should be installed to stop/cut the power to the moving train in situations like this, it should work irrespective of any instructions or actions by the controller or the driver.

When safety parameters deemed the Renefe train to be travelling too fast and too close to the Iryo one it should have stopped automatically. Such safety measures aren't rocket science but straightforward engineering, (interlocks, etc.). Over the years there have been too many accidents in situations such as this for such equipment not to be installed.

For a moment I visualized myself in that busy control room and easily making that mistake even though I'd made the correct decision hundreds of times previously. Not only are 69 lost lives a terrible tragedy but the life of the person who made this momentary slip has been ruined forever.

It should not have been allowed to happen. It's worth remembering that Westinghouse brake systems (which are well over a century old) automatically default to on (stop) when there's a fault, and the high speed (now decades old) Shinkansen has very sophisticated stopping mechanisms and has never had a major crash. The question is why such safety measures weren't installed here.

In fact, I'm a very heavy internet user, always have been. Much of my web usage is pretty well automated, I use multiple browsers selected from an 'open with' app. This android, de-googled smartphone currently has four different browsers 'tailored' for specific types of sites and all flush clean after use (cookies etc. are never stored). And toggling airplane mode is the quickest way to change one's IP address.

What's important for me is to separate jobs, functions, etc. that are best processed on the internet from those on other media—SMS, voice telephone, eyeballing people in person (physically going to a store), etc.

This greatly reduces my need for services that use JS. By separating and processing jobs by type I automatically avoid many having to be handled by the web—for those JavaScript can't enter the picture even if one wanted to use it.

For example, I used to do internet banking but I'd never do so again on two accounts—security and that it undermines the use of cash. (A cashless society is the quintessential way to lose one's autonomy, ultimately it's a very dangerous move towards totalitarianism. That most people don't realize this, or if they do then they're prepared to trade it for convenience simply horrify me.)

That Big Tech has enshittified the net out of all recognition in recent years means I've no longer use for social media, Gmail or any Google services—goodbye all Google JS. In short, whilst I do purchase stuff online, I purchase most from shops for cash.

Most of my time on the net is confined to specialist tech sites and they're the ones least likely to use JS in a restrictive way. Yes, I agree Cloudflare, etc. is an increasing problem but the web is so big there are usually alternatives. News is often syndicated, so when NYT and such make life difficult without JS, I just jump to the same story on another site where JS doesn't matter (such blocking nonsense is really a trivial non-issue for me). I've dozens more examples but by now you'll have gotten the gist.

"Unfortunately this idealistic principle (no JS) attracts the worst people."

Again, how did you come to that opinion? Where's your evidence/stats? Generally comments like that come from web/JS programmers who've realized that client-side users have them stymied when they disable JS.

An additional reason I avoid JS is speed, webpages become blinding fast when there's no JS. Once one gets addicted to the great rendering speed there's no return. I'm not against JS per se, trouble is you JS programmers have weaponised it against users, webpages of 7, 10 and even 20MB are now commonplace. Presenting such slow massive pages to users is nothing other than abuse.

I do not use Tor.

BTW, I should point out that my views about JS and privacy abuse were formed from my years working in govt. surveillance where the stakes are very high.

"You're protected from the methods I use here. You disabled JavaScript, so this fingerprinting trick can't run at all. You're still vulnerable to network-based methods. Read on to see what it does to everyone else.

From now on I’ll call you:…"

I've run sans JS as default almost since its inception in the Netscape days and I've very little difficulty without it. On rare occasions when I'm forced to use JS I'll cut-and-paste the URL into another browser.

I no longer use ad blockers as I just don't see ads with JS disabled. The other privacy precautions I take are the obvious ones such as no Google or social media accounts, flushing cookies at session's end, regularly randomize my IP and never let Chrome anywhere near my machines and make judicious use of multiple browsers (this is being written in Privacy Browser on Android).

Using NewPipe and sponsor block on PipePipe increases privacy and makes YouTube ad free.

Client-side scripting was a mistake which was obvious from the outset (or not severely limiting the reach of scripting engines).

What I find hard to understand is why alternative plugin JS engines haven't been developed that are under user control. Spoofing, randomizing and returning junk data to webservers would go a huge way towards stopping fingerprinting by websites.

If legal tender is offered as a method of exchange then it should automatically be the best (least expensive).

Frankly, what's happened here is outrageous. By not legislating and outlawing this practice we've another instance of government ineptitude.

My solution is to have my local drycleaning shop that offers an alteration service to deepen the pockets. I shouldn't have to pay extra to get right-sized pockets manufacturers should have provided.

I'm guessing, but I'd imagine as jeans first became popular in the days of horse riding side pockets really weren't a practical option, the rider's motion would contribute to things sliding out of them.

My complaint is that modern clothes designers have forgotten or stopped implementing good pocket design that was fully solved several centuries ago.

"I would really like some slacks with vertical deep pockets."

So would I, and deep pockets do exist but unfortunately not in mass produced pants that are commonly available (one's regular clothing). I have some army BD fatigues/dungarees with really good side pockets. They're not only deep but they're cut in a sort of a shallow 'P' shape. The P-cut at the bottom forces keys etc. to slide down one's side at 90° to the pocket exit when one is sitting. It's thus almost impossible to accidentally lose something out of them.

The questions are why don't manufacturers just copy this excellent design and why don't more people complain. If people stopped buying pants with shallow pockets the problem would be solved overnight.

It's understandable that modern pre-made clothes have to trade off the number of sizes and fittings. Unlike tailored clothes, economies of production mean they cannot be an ideal fit for everyone.

However, what I find completely inexcusable is that modern pants' pockets are almost inevitably too small, and often even zippers are too short making changing in and out of them awkward. These are rarely an issue with suits.

I'm fed up having my smartphone, keys and coins fall to the floor whenever I sit down. The problem is even worse in vehicles as the seats tilt back further. I've permanently lost smartphones because of shallow pockets.

Unlike clothes' sizes, there is no intrinsic limitation to pocket sizes, so why do we continue tolerate pockets that are not fit for purpose?

It's not only a pants problem, shirts regularly have pockets that are too shallow to take a pen, even the upper pockets of my overalls are not deep enough for a pen let alone a notebook or 6" rule.

Surely I'm not the only person who whinges about this. Why are pocket sizes a problem nowadays when never so decades ago?

What on earth would possess anyone to buy an AI/screen based fridge in the first place? Screen addiction must be worse than I'd realized.

More broadly, Force majeure refers to an act of God or such outside of human control.

Moreover, the reduction in or loss of manual trades (woodworking, machining, toolmaking, etc.) whether at home or in industry, amounts to an overall deskilling of the citizenry which has strategic implications.

This ought to be a salient lesson: never store card details online despite the convenience. Further, as I do, use only a debit card for online purchases with the available credit only marginally more that for one's immediate purchase. It's also an excellent policy in case of being hacked.

Companies that allow employees to use cards with essentially unfettered credit have to take a large amount of the blame in circumstances such as this. There's no reason other than bad policy or irregular monitoring of expenses to allow expenses of this magnitude to build up. The company's financial policies need drastic overhaul.

"Bluff" because no one other than perhaps Stalin would have followed through—to essentially extend WWII (this time between former allies).

So pragmatism was the order of the day, thus Poland and EE were sacrificed.

It seems to me the EU is overburdened with trivial regulations (like regulating the maximum power consumption of domestic vacuum cleaners) rather than prioritizing core issues of its single market, manufacturing, trade, etc.

Trouble is small vested interests hold overly powerful sway over EU-wide policy. The example above is a case in point, individual member states should be able to set their own regulations independently if deemed warranted.

You're correct, annoying regulations are bloating the EU bureaucracy making it lethargic and uncompetitive.

That's unfettered capitalism at work—"free" implies no bounds. Multinational corporations have never been more powerful now than at anytime in history.

If they were to change some within the citizenry would stand to gain at the expense of others. Inequality would increase.

Seems—for now—middle democracies aren't prepared to pay the high price of social upheaval such a policy would create.

So what! Until the 20th Century pharmaceuticals/medicines were unregulated (eg: buy laudanum (opium) anywhere without regs and instructions said it was fine to give it to kids). After deaths, disasters and addiction regulations tightened—especially so after birth defects and thalidomide. Now the industry is tightly regulated.

Right, it took over one hundred years for pharma to be regulated. So be it for software. It's time the Wild West came to an end.

There'll always be whingers along the way, especially if they stand to lose profits. The "Good Times" for the software industry ought to be over because consumers are no longer benefiting in the way they should. Want a quintessential example of 'junk' software: Windows 11.

Right, depends on the quality of the rubber I suppose. I've been suspicious of rubber because when it's old it often turns into a gooey mess or goes hard and cracks (as with VR [vulcanized rubber] used in house wiring in the days before PVC — and often a cause of fires.

At the moment that's a bit close to home. I'm in Australia where power is 240V and only two days ago I needed to test an old Advantest spectrum analyzer and I wasn't sure if it had been strapped for 240 or 110V but didn't have a 240/110V transformer to hand so I dug out an ancient variac/auto-transformer to do the job and its power lead was vulcanized rubber which had turned into a sticky mush (replacing the lead didn't help as the windings had a short to the laminations).

Similarly, the rubber insulation on my super flexible AVO multimeter leads with many, many strands of superfine Cu wire has disintegrated. It's similarly perished (but they're well over 30 years old).

My first experience of silicone comes from its use as the outer jacket/insulation in microphone cables used in an industrial environment (TV studio). It was wonderful, cables were super easy to roll up and keep orderly, and despite its so-called reputation for not being rugged enough heavy camera dollies would regularly run over it without damage. These cables would last for years (the only occasional issue with them was when an XLR connector would get ripped off when caught on something and someone pulled super hard to free it).

I've no issue with using VR for leads except I've not been able to get it (for example, I can no longer get a replacement for my AVO leads).

The warning has been there for 80 years and still most are unaware. When Vespasian built the Colosseum it was to help rule over the unruly. Netflix and ilk are its modern incarnation.

Users need to know the electrical features of their H/W and its limits. If a loudspeaker output stage is designed (hardware wired) so that it can never act as an input then no later firmware update can turn the speaker into a microphone.

This is why hardware authentication is becoming more and more important.

limits

Why wouldn't one be? Not that long ago 'dumb' TVs never even had firmware (and that was the situation throughout most of television history). Allowing a manufacturer to update TV firmware online is dangerous and foolhardy. (Same reasons why I never let any of my printers go anywhere near the internet—any driver software is always blocked by a firewall.)

Perhaps a few are unaware but most know. As I said in my post, some (like me) only want traditional FTA — and with it comes anonymity by default.

Smart TVs undermine and subvert the virtues of FDA services. It should be mandated that it's possible for modern smart TVs to switch to FTA-only mode if viewers so desire. Similarly, regulation should ensure that dumb TVs always be available for those who want them.

Fully solve it by disconnecting network cable/Wi-Fi so there's no internet.

For me a TV set only receives FTA signals and has connectors for local media/AV input. It ceases to be a TV set when it starts doing what my PCs and laptops do.

(Anonymity is the reason why FTA broadcasting is still so very important, by design it's only one-way — broadcaster to listener/viewer. Unfortunately smart TVs and the internet subvert anonymity by design.)

Despite the point in my comment about power cable extensions coverings becoming hard through the lack of plasticizers, I confirm your point about overplasticized PVC in instrument cables.

I have a lot of instrument leads that I thought were silicone only to find that after a year or so they've gone hard. So much so that new unpacked ones can no longer be easily straightened (the kinks remain unless one heats the cable up and then straightens them).

Despite availability issues,the problem is trying to determine what's real silicone and what's not.

What's made this situation worse is that it seems that worry over plasticizers and health etc. has lead to a reduction in the amount being used in cables. I have some power extenstion cables whose jackets have gone so hard that I can no longer coil them effectively — even though I take care the coiled cable still ends up a tangled mess.

Even if silicone jacketing is more expensive it's so good I'd pay extra. Trouble is it's not normally available on products found at the local hardware shop.