rramadass

I suggest that you post it to HN with your comment/recommendations so people can benefit from it.

I submitted the NIST portal here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50349123

Most (all?) people today spend at least a couple of hours everyday surfing the web on all sorts of devices. Hence they have seen all sorts of Web UI (good/bad/ugly) and thus know how to navigate them to get to what they want.

Hence to harp on website navigation is foolish. Particularly when the site is actually pretty good design focusing on information and not UI fluff.

The amount of nonsense in this thread regarding navigation makes you think it is all being orchestrated to hide this from the public. Downvote and Flag them all.

Point people to the portal here so they can actually get good value out of it - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50349123

In particular, be sure to go through all entries under "Guidance by Topic" section (also "Videos" if you want to) and within it "Securing Data and Devices". This is highly relevant to everybody at home struggling to control a dozen Smartphones, Smart TVs, Tablets, Voice Assistants etc. Many of these papers are from the NSA!

The paper itself includes three hypothetical usecases viz. a) IP lawyer helping small businesses, b) Individual who just started a eCommerce company selling novelties they manufacture in their home workshop c) A marketing and sales consultant helping small businesses.

Each of the above links to detailed worksheets for their cybersecurity strategy which can be downloaded as supplementary material. This contextualizes everything in the real world.

W.r.t. your comment on "florist ... etc", you are simply making up stuff. Most of the small business owners are pretty sharp (you have to be to manage everything yourself) and know what they exactly need. The only help they need is with navigating the technological path given the complexity involved.

The NIST portal and the submitted paper help immensely with that and should be recommended to everyone.

The portal itself has a nice ToC at the left which one has to just browse to easily get to what you want/looking for. Everything is nice and user-friendly.

PS: The above link was to my HN submission to the NIST portal so people can discuss it there.

Everything is available if you had cared to look - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50349123

We must not encourage useless comments like these particularly when it comes to publications from NIST. NIST is one of the best sources for technical information. While they have traditionally focused on govt. agencies and experts, they have also majorly expanded their offerings targeted at general public/small businesses/solopreuners/etc.

Here is their main portal for the above; Small Business Cybersecurity Corner - https://www.nist.gov/itl/smallbusinesscyber

Or you could download it directly from the link given by a user here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50345842

Right, the gp has not read it or are intentionally trying to spread FUD.

This is a good document as is generally the case for all NIST documents. It is even more relevant for the "general public" since every home has similar problems as far as cybersecurity is concerned.

Cybersecurity knowledge is vital for everyone nowadays. Hence I highly encourage people to read this and other documents linked to.

NIST is one of the few orgs who still do a pretty good job and hence should be always taken seriously. Based on their recommendations create your own checklist/workflow and have everybody at your org/home follow it.

I think i now have a decent top-level view of your architecture (courtesy some simple back-and-forth with Gemini in "AI Mode") and it is pretty good.

Thanks for sharing.

You might find some interesting books/papers if you search my comments, many of which i have not seen others mention.

If you know what you are doing and have explicitly disconnected/cut all antennas including entire MIMO arrays (many people miss one or more antennas) in the motherboard then the only remaining explanation is "accidental antennas".

This is only possible if the WiFi-chip has dangling metal pins/traces/joints whose length is comparable to that of its wavelength, in which case these will act as makeshift antennas. These will pickup ambient WiFi RF, but for this to work at all you need lots of RF power i.e. a very strong signal strength which means you have to be very close to the WiFi router.

The whole thing works because of Physics and not Engineering (the "accidental" part) and hence very iffy (may not work at all) and should not be relied upon.

I am not the person you asked the question of, but here is the answer;

Smart TVs have a built-in "WiFi-Chip" on the motherboard and its antenna hidden in the TV frame itself, exactly like the antennas in a Smartphone. The different radios on a Smart TV viz. OTA, WiFi, Bluetooth, Satellite, Zigbee etc. all operate at different frequency ranges and hence need their own antennas. Many of these antennas are either a) etched on the motherboard b) hidden within the plastic back frame or c) directly taped to it.

Axiom of RF Wireless - There can be no transmission/reception without an antenna either external or internal.

PS: Since RF Wireless is everywhere today and most people do not have much of an idea of this technology, i very highly recommend the book The Essential Guide to RF and Wireless by Carl Weisman for study. Expressly written for a non-technical audience, it explains everything simply and beautifully. It really gave me the invaluable overview and the grounding i needed to understand this important science/technology.

I don't agree with this since this only showcases popular books known to a certain age demographic and relatively recent times.

What i am really interested in are those unique books recommended by one person only! There are some real gems and classics out there which few people have heard of.

Perhaps this could be added?

Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50333364

I suspect your confusion lies in not looking at the end-to-end aspects of Software Engineering and only focusing on local aspects of Design.

Labour doesn't mean just "typing", that is your misunderstanding. It means bringing various facets of design together to produce the final code artifact viz. main logic, typing concerns, correctness concerns, exception handling, design/code patterns, elegance, simplicity etc. It is the "cognitive load" that becomes too much. AI frees me up from thinking about all the minutiae but know enough to give instructions which can be followed and later verified. Read Dijkstra's "The Humble Programmer" to understand what i mean.

> That is incredibly wasteful. Requirements are set agains a world model that always evolves against its own set of constraints. Which does ties into the flexibility argument. No need to reinvent the wheel, when only a few things varies and some just stay true for years and decades.

Again a misunderstanding. Fred Brooks said "Plan to throw one away; you will, anyhow". That is exactly what a Prototype/PoC/"naive" MVP is. That doesn't mean you need to throw away everything everytime, it means for complex projects your prototype is often the first time that you have sorted out your requirements, design problems and satisfactorily validated your architecture. Sometimes you have to "throw one away" and restart but usually the product is always evolved (i.e. Product Families, Software Factories etc.) and almost never thrown away completely. That is what design is all about and which the above workflow accommodates. This is standard Software Engineering.

> Nope, it’s not. This is related to having a good mental model of how your software process data, not related to how you design your interface.

Whut? Designing a concrete Interface implies you have sorted out the mental model of how the software structures and processes data. That is why you verify the skeleton app design interfaces w.r.t. your requirements. This is just design philosophy 101. The details of how to drive AI to do this is in your prompt using "architectural constraints", pointers to specific libraries/frameworks/patterns etc.

> As I said, your comments put “code” as a first place citizen, which no experience dev does.

No, it does not, this is your fundamental misunderstanding.

> What I argue about is that it’s always about data, the rules that it follow, which will then be realized by code.

This is just generic platitude but nevertheless taken care of in the workflow above. You allow the tool to do it but with strict guardrails in place. It is manifested in the final approved prototype.

> You don’t write code and assert which type of data that it can handle. That’s a fool errand as the outside world is naturally messy. You define the data first, and then write the code. Meaning when the data changes, the code needs to evolve. You need to have a very good mental how that changes propagate, which you won’t have of you just regenerating code.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how DbC works. DbC assertions establish pre/post/inv predicates which define subsets of the program "state space". This means you know the function signature i.e. the types/ranges-of-objects on which you will operate and are establishing their safe subsets within which the code shall operate. You first write the pre/post/inv and then write code to satisfy the constraints. See articles on DbC by Bertrand Meyer given here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48358691

> That’s why no one builds a factory to produce factories. Although there are common elements, a factory is designed for the product it will create. So you start from the product, you don’t start from the factory. Your methodology is a framework for building factories, but with no mention of any product.

The product is specific to your problem domain and your understanding of it. The above problem-solving workflow can be applied to generate requirements artifacts instead of code. It is a general methodology which you can adapt for any purpose. In fact there are now a whole bunch of startups focusing on just "Requirements Modeling", "Specification Driven Development" etc. to structure ambiguous product requirements so that AI does exactly what you want it to do.

"We must not judge of the means," said [ I ], "by this shell of an [Social Network]. The [HN Crowd], so much extolled for acumen, are cunning, but no more. There is no method in their proceedings, beyond the method of the moment. They make a vast parade of measures; but, not unfrequently, these are so ill adapted to the objects proposed, as to put us in mind of Monsieur Jourdain's calling for his robe-de-chambre --pour mieux entendre la musique [trans. Monsieur Jourdain calling for his dressing gown—the better to hear the music]. The results attained by them are not unfrequently surprising, but, for the most part, are brought about by simple diligence and activity. When these qualities are unavailing, their schemes fail. [HN User], for example, was a good guesser, and a persevering man. But, without educated thought, he erred continually by the very intensity of his investigations. He impaired his vision by holding the object too close. He might see, perhaps, one or two points with unusual clearness, but in so doing he, necessarily, lost sight of the matter as a whole. Thus there is such a thing as being too profound. Truth is not always in a well. In fact, as regards the more important knowledge, I do believe that she is invariably superficial. The depth lies in the valleys where we seek her, and not upon the mountain-tops where she is found...By undue profundity we perplex and enfeeble thought;

-- Based on Dupin's indictment of the Parisian Police in "The Murders in the Rue Morgue".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50095908