_sbrk

Uh oh, China hacker has found your telnet magazine.

First thing to do is get a GPIO pin or two to toggle. Plenty of debug patterns that one can blink out.

Far simpler, cheaper, and closer to the "understandable by one mind" machine. Add Bywater BASIC, if desired.

gcc will not let you actually define a negatively-sized array. Check it with some simple code -- I did. Even with -Wall -Wextra -O1 -std=c11 -Wpedantic, if I actually try to create foo[-1], on the stack or in BSS, I get the proper error: error: size of array 'foo' is negative

F = Field P = Programmable G = Gate <---- important A = Array

You aren't "programming", you're "wiring gates together". In other words, you can build custom hardware to solve a problem without using a generic CPU (or GPU) to do it. FPGAs are implemented as a fabric of LUTs (Look-up Tables) which take 4- or 6- (or more) inputs and produce an output. That allows Boolean algebra functions to be processed. The tools you use (Vivado / ISE / YoSys / etc.) take a your intended design, written in a HDL (Hardware Design Language) such as Verilog or VHDL, and turn it into a configuration file which is injected into the FPGA, causing it to be configured to into the hardware you want (if you've done it right). FPGAs are a stepping stone between generic hardware such as a CPU or GPU and a custom ASIC. They win when you can express the problem in specialized hardware much better than writing code to do something on a CPU/GPU. Parallelization is the key to many FPGA designs. Also, you don't have to spend >$1MM on a mask set to go have an ASIC fabricated by TSMC, etc.

Artix 7 is simplistic compared to any of the Versal chips. You buy an expensive FPGA and then try using an "open-source" tool chain that exposes 25% of the FPGA's potential. Not a great trade-off, eh?

It's not just that the boards are expensive; you'll also need a Vivado license to create any designs for it. That license is at least several thousand dollars for the Versal devices.

Unfortunately, my colleagues, who mostly use Outlook, employ HTML to its full extent when pasting in content to messages. ("Refer to the text highlighted in red.", "See the table for details", etc.)

Back in my BBS days, there was ANSI color with IBM-extended (CP437) block graphics to liven things up, so I can see it has gone full circle a bit.

It's good to see that cancel culture is alive and well on HN. You're free to ignore my comments, and I encourage you to do so, if you're not swayed by my arguments. However, if there's one thing I _won't_ do, it is to go along blindly with the gaping-mouth masses. I pride myself in being a free thinker, both behind the keyboard and in person. Not everyone expresses opinions the same way, and to tell me that my comments are unsubstantial is definitely a violation of the guidelines you posed. In the immortal words of Bob and Doug McKenzie: "Take off, eh?"

> I doubt there will be a single person for whom Thunderbird is their first email/messaging type app. Most would have used something on their iOS or Android devices first at least.

You'd be wrong. I, grudgingly, moved from mutt to Thunderbird after it was clear that email was turning into MIME-encoded web pages.

"The compose window now also takes up less space with recipients listed in “pills” instead of an entire line for every address.."

Yup, already hate it. I much prefer not looking through a list of buttons on the To line for the one I want to remove. Additionally, I can instantly see if I'm sending and email to my coworkers company or personal address without some damn tag after his name.