As someone who only has a 5w transmitter, I avoid field day and major contests. I love doing Parks on the Air when camping, and that ends up being a lot more enjoyable.
The Wikipedia data dumps [0] are multistream bz2. This makes them relatively easy to partially ingest, and I'm happy to be able to remove the C dependency from the Rust code I have that deals with said dumps.
The same could be said of many things that, nonetheless, are still used by many, and will continue to be used by many for decades to come. A thing does not need to be best to justify someone wanting to make it a bit better.
“Best” is measured along a lot more axis than just performance. And you don’t always get to choose what format you use. It may be dictated to you by some 3rd party you can’t influence.
bzip2 is still pretty good if you want to optimize for:
- better compression ratio than gzip
- faster compression than many better-than-gzip competitors
- lower CPU/RAM usage for the same compression ratio/time
This is a niche, but it does crop up sometimes. The downside to bzip2 is that it is slow to decompress, but for write-heavy workloads, that doesn't matter too much.
So? If I need to consume a resource compressed using bz2, I'm not just going to sit around and wait for them to use zstd. I'm going to break out bz2. If I can use a modern rewrite that's faster, I'll take every advantage I can get.
I imagine the same way you share a key for a HomeKit-enabled smart lock.
The only scenarios where one is so injured and/or drunk as to not be able to complete the non-rigamarolish process of sharing a HomeKit home key either by doing it themselves or walking someone through the process are ones where the key holder is so incapacitated that they would be unable to share a physical key.
All of that is someone irrelevant because Express Mode is enabled by default, so if you are unconscious all a person has to do is pull your phone out of your pocket and use it to unlock and start your car the exact same way physical keys work in that situation. It even works if the phone's battery is dead.
Also, every implementation of CarKit Car Keys I have seen is the same as HomeKit home keys: there is a backup. Either a physical key, PIN, fob, or card.
> non-rigamarolish process of sharing a HomeKit home key
I have not used homekit, but from some searches it only seems to be a non-rigamarole process to add someone as a homekit user if the other person has an apple device? Also, is the Internet required to enroll someone?
> ones where the key holder is so incapacitated that they would be unable to share a physical key.
I don't need to be conscious or my phone have battery (or reception) to have someone take a key from my pocket.
> Also, every implementation of CarKit Car Keys I have seen is the same as HomeKit home keys: there is a backup. Either a physical key, PIN, fob, or card.
I was responding to gp who wanted none of this as it all defeats the security they desired. A 1-factor physical authentication token as a backup would be suitable for nearly all edge cases I can think of. As long as the person carries it, but then we are at worst where we are today, at best I could potentially authenticate or add someone from afar.
I'm not saying that smart locks aren't useful, just that they can't only be "smart", which I assume you would agree with since you brought up things currently having backup methods?
> By making adding an authenticated driver not a rigamarole, but easy and intuitive.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that this will be possible in many situations. What if I'm not near my car? What if my phone is dead? What if my car's battery is dead and it needs jumped?
I'm also just cynical that the automakers or app developers are able to not enshittify the process.
What if when I set my wife up I added her as a user but not admin and now she can't share with someone without having to involve me, which may not be physically possible in all circumstances.
> They call you an ambulance.
You don't call an ambulance to take a drunk person home. Calling a taxi when there is someone able to drive is a waste of money and a huge inconvenience the next day to retrieve the car.
You also can't call an ambulance in the wilderness.
I also meant injured in a more broad sense. What if I just have a bad headache or migraine? I don't want to be fumbling with my phone or car electronics trying to navigate adding someone.
They call 911, and they read the license plate number and the authorities send an override signal that turns on the car and only allows it to be driven to the nearest hospital that appears on the screen on the console. If they go off course, they have 30 seconds to get back on course before it coasts into a 5mph limp mode (to find a safe place to pull over) for 1 minute before it completely stops and shutsdown and locks them inside for the police to come get them.
Eh, the car will probably be self-driving at that point, so probably only the first half.
The last thing I want to see on any car is the ability for the government to just remotely hijack random cars. Not just because cops already and routinely abuse their privileges (imagine some crazy police officer doing that to their ex girlfriend!), but also because any such capability can and eventually will be abused by malicious actors. Think of the usual "for the lulz" trolls, organized crime rings involved in looting people, or nation-state enemies.
I have my BMW key in Apple Wallet. When I was out of town and needed to share the key with another person, all I did use a standard share sheet for the key. It let it share via SMS, email, AirDrop, etc.You can revoke the key later.
Literally everything is pointless, even existence, from someone's point of view.
You don't have to understand how something amuses someone to understand that it amuses them. You also don't have to belittle people to ask them why they are amused.
Will such a system handle a sudden demand nearing the maximum capacity of its terrestrial counterpart? That's really the crux of the issue: in an emergency public networks can be overwhelmed.
Many county government agencies don't work with hams anymore because they have sat links and other communication available to them. I'm sure as technology progresses and it becomes feasible and affordable to give individual first responders satcom abilities, but I'm not sure that every person with a cell phone will be able to stabily access satcom in an emergency for a while yet.
Are you used to wearing aids? Like have you worn them for several years? I remember when I first wore hearing aids it sounded like really tinny bluetooth speakers hovering behind my head. It was distracting and a bit depressing to think this was what I was going to have to listen to.
Over a few months my brain priced it in, and now I don't get that at all. Putting them in just means I hear better. It is like my brain has noticed the new sounds and interprets them before I hear them. The audiologist I spoke to said this happens to everybody, however the longer you've had untreated hearing loss and the older you are, the longer it will take your brain to adapt.
reply