https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_number has some examples and a bunch of info. Most of them are pretty artificial, but the concatenation of the primes one is... at least interesting, not obvious (to me) from doing that that it'd be normal.
Hmm, you are referring to rich numbers but pointing to normal numbers, so I will be the nerd who points out that every normal number is rich, but some rich numbers aren't normal.
They have no fabs. They're using nvidia chips on server side last I checked, and what tsmc thei own design for in car? Those aren't cheap anyway. The markup on nvidia chips is high, but it's not _that_ high.
Last I recall, you get different answers if you taste just a sip verses a larger amount. Pepsi has a good first taste, but after a couple of sips it's pretty overpoweringly sweet, even compared to other sodas.
go.mod will always match whatever versions are being used directly, as far as I know. But it's not possible to lock them using go.mod. Like if you wanted to bump one version only in go.mod, you're then stumped for actually doing that. Because _probably_ the only reasonable way to get that to build is to do `go mod tidy` after doing that, which will modify go.mod itself. And you can't _really_ go back in and undo it unless you just manually do all of go.mod and go.sum yourself.
Running `go mod tidy` months apart with no other changes to your module will not change your go.mod. It certainly won't update dependencies.
You run that when you've made manual changes (to go.mod or to your Go code), or when you want to slim down your go.sum to the bare minimum needed for the current go.mod.
And that's one common way to update a dependency: you can edit your go.mod manually. But there are also commands to update dependencies one by one.
go always requires a dependency graph that is consistent with all the declared requirements.
Which means if you wanted to update one version, it might bump up the requirements on its dependencies, and that's all the changes you see from running go mod tidy afterwards.
Manually constructing an inconsistent dependency graph will not work.
I mean, they didn't bury it far in the article, it's like a two second skim into it and it's labelled with a tl;dr. Not a bad idea in general but you don't even need it for this one.
It's usually hard to explain why proving something is hard, because it's often just: existing/known/obvious approaches didn't succeed. Not terribly satisfying. Often you just have to try doing it and see, and even that won't be satisfying.
In most shitty routers: no. They don't even have raw ability to do that.
You can look around for something like device isolation, but I doubt you'll find it unless you go a couple of steps up from whatever router ISPs ~give away these days.
My ISP's router has isolation. Has had for 5+ years. Main SSID has it off so we can do LAN stuff. Guest SSID is used for IoT things and isolation turned off. Handy.
What exactly does it isolate? An SSID? IP addresses? individual MAC addresses? How does this stop a pre-infected device you purchased from shitting traffic out of your network, acting as a residential proxy or try to own your other IoT devices?
The one I've seen on ~basic consumer routers just disallows wifi devices from talking to each other at all, it won't route between them. I usually need something more nuanced personally, but it's not a bad start at all.
> it's because you're _paying_ to install a backdoor that will rip and tear everything on your network it can.
I mean, maybe. More likely imo you're paying for the absolute cheapest hardware and fastest never-updated software someone could throw together and make _any_ profit on. Someone probably had 100k shitty little chips sitting in a warehouse and this was a way to do something with them.
The outcome is really the same, it's just the steps to get there are more human nature.
Even many TVs with "reputable" western brand names, on the shelf at major US retailers, are often sold at a loss on the hardware and the difference is made up by collecting advertising data.
At a price tag of $5/ea the cost of just advertising and distribution exceeds the cost of the product itself. There is zero room for profit. The business model is installing back doors to the "clients" and stealing money, information, and anything else from them. Consider that even the cost of the included remote is a huge part of the actual hardware cost, and nobody is going to buy something like this without a remote.
reply