dromtrund
Joined 10 years ago
Joined 10 years ago
If you buy a product that's more expensive, you'd be a fool if it's not superior to other products, so it's hard not to get personally invested in the idea that they are.
Most families would provide for their own if it was required, but it's not a scenario most people ever need to consider, even as a backup, as bad luck alone can't put you in that situation, you'd need to actively seek it out.
That has to be at least 5 years ago, but even back then, 99% of their software was out in the open. Now, their SDK is open source, their official toolchain is based on the Linux Foundation's Zephyr toolchain and their docs are open and buildable. Their support is done on an open forum and complete data sheets are available both as PDFs and (with the exception of the nRF51) as web pages. They aren't allowed to publish their LTE stack because of operator licensing, their Bluetooth link layer is still distributed as a library and some upcoming SoCs aren't publicly available yet, but aside from this, they're as open as they can possibly be.
I have always done this subconsciously, and although I can attribute a lot of my personal growth to this trait, it's also the source of a lot of self-loathing. If you can't accept the parts of you that differs from who you want to be, you'll spend a lot of energy focusing on perceived mistakes that others didn't even notice.
I wouldn't normally drive more than 1000km in one trip though, and that's at most once per year.
With the 3k€ lower price, a range of 430km, and fast charging stations every 30km along the major highways, there's just no reason to pick the Golf.
We still have a PHEV in addition to our electric car, but there's no reason to. If we're going on a 500km road trip, we'll take the electric BMW i4, no question.
A few other aspects: - dark mode by default - web tech UI, not terminal - decent looking widgets and decorations
I don't think these are the main selling points for vscode, but they do all of this better than their competitors.
Smartphones might genuinely be a thing future generations will look at asking "what were you thinking?", but this argument is completely moot, as it could be used against literally anything.
Studies will suggest that electricity is not harmful until it is. Studies will suggest that freedom of speech is not harmful until it is. Studies will suggest that touching grass is not harmful until it is.
Both this and encrypted communication interpretation works a lot better than the commenter above you claims. They've either not tried this sniffer, and are only making claims based on assumptions, or they haven't learned how to use it properly.
It's definitely not as good as commercial sniffer hardware, but it's perfectly fine 90% of the time, and the price is two to three orders of magnitude lower.
This sniffer is set up to follow the channel jumping, but instead of participating in the packet exchange, it just listens for both parts. As the channel jumps are predetermined, the sniffer can sleep between these events, then start the radio up to listen on the right channel at the right time.
The hardware does not support listening to multiple channels at the same time, so to follow a connection, the sniffer needs to listen to the connection establishment exchange to learn the timing and channel pattern for the connection.
Device discovery and connection establishment runs on three channels, but all beacon packets (advertisements) are sent on all three channels, so the sniffer only needs to listen to one of them.
The connection requests are sent as immediate responses to an advertisement. If we want to be sure we catch all connection requests for a specific device, we can choose to "follow" its advertisements, which are sent on each of the three channels in sequence.
The sniffer is implemented by interacting directly with the radio hardware peripheral, which acts just like a state machine with states RX, TX, idle, and a few warmup states.