So you’re saying all those gold plated, vibranium braided, ultra expensive hi-fi cables audiophiles buy can actually help carry good speeds over a useless adapter system?!
Is your point that you’re more likely to experience security vulnerabilities when using FOSS? Cause past a certain point of development that’s not generally the case.
Perhaps they simply mean they don’t want it internet connected at all. If it needs updates, have it be a device, USB or OBD or something, that would be the only vector for updates/direct OS control. Sure, allow internet for some features maybe, but isolate updates and the anything serious from remote tampering.
I’m from an era where jailbreaking and installing whatever you’d like on a device was the wild west, and have seen nasty stuff accidentally sideloaded. Giving people the option to infect their cars with ransomware could get people killed, so not opening that can of worms isn’t the worst idea necessarily. That said, FOSS stuff is usually fine, but I highly doubt it would be a fully encompassed ecosystem that you’d be installing. It’ll have add-ons, other smaller projects. Tweaks. That’s where you’ll get into trouble.
Oh man, i’ve never been able to get over the: “i really want to play a game now that i have 30 minutes to spare and some energy left” ah fuck, 60gb update…fine i’m off to bed then.
Can’t imagine what i would do if a car update would come with the worst possible timing like having to take your partner to the hospital for an emergency.
My Charger’s Irratainment system decided to update during traffic in Dallas rush hour (I don’t live there) and it took my navigation with me until I could regoogle my phone enough to use that.
This appears to be true on the surface but is not accurate. I am a structural engineer and when people need to do something with their buildings, the engineers (structural, mechanical, fire, etc.) and the architects need the plans or at least a survey. If a side has the plans and the authority on the plans, that side has huge leverage over the building. Fortunately, this is never the case with buildings. Plans are considered public information. It would be so much better if the same applied to software.
The company was called Need to Know, and it was initially in an old Victorian under a freeway overpass in San Francisco.
So I got the computer Friday and ran into this 23 line fail that evening. I called around 8:00 pm, expecting to get an answering machine. Instead I got, " Hey come on over!"
So I drive back to SF and get there around 9:00 pm. Somebody immediately puts a drink in my hand. People are just partying in a low key way. There are computer parts all over the place, but people are just partying.
So one of the guys took my machine apart, diagnosed the CPU failure, and replaced it with parts on hand.
I’m back in Berkeley by maybe 11:00 pm with a fully functional computer.
Here’s where it gets ugly. I did business with them into the late 1980s. During that time , some psycho took on a grudge against them and literally burned their place of business down.
Several places of businesses, burned down sequentially. Fucking tragic.
I lost track of them by 1990. I don’t know if they went further underground or what.
But they gave me a really human intro to computing. I can only hope they are well , wherever they are.
Part of the problem is that concept art needs to be flashy to be noticed, but most usability focused designs are plain or very similar to existing designs.
I feel like I’ve been going crazy, web searching as a developer has become a daily nightmare and all the devs I ask are like “yeah, maybe it’s gotten a bit worse? Haven’t really noticed”
My favourite take on DI is this set of articles from like 12 years ago, written by a guy who has written the first DI framework for Unity, on which are the currently popular ones, such as Zenject, based on.
The first two articles are pretty basic, explaining his reasoning and why it’s such a cool concept and way forward.
Followed by more articles about why he thinks it was a mistake, and he no longer recommends or uses DI in Unity in favor of manual dependency injection. And I kind of agree - his main reasoning is that it’s really easy for unnecessary dependencies to sneak up into your code-base, since it’s really easy to just write another [Inject] without a second thought and be done with it.
However, with manual dependency injection through constructor parameters, you will take a step back when you’re adding 11th parameter to the constructor, and will take a moment to think whether there’s really no other better way. Of course, this should not be an relevant issue with experienced programmers, but it’s not as inherently obvious you’re doing something potentially wrong, when you just add another [Inject], when compared to adding another constructor parameter.
Exactly. Dependency injection is good; if you need a framework to do it, you’re probably doing it wrong; if your framework is too magical, you’re probably not even doing it at all anymore.
sopuli.xyz
Top