The argument against security through obscurity isn't that it doesn't work at all. It does to a degree, only it is not as strong as people think.
An example from the meat world: not publishing your vacation dates well in advance for the world to see somewhat reduces your chance of being burglarized. That is security by obscurity; not reliable, but not completely inefficient either.
But if you live in a fortress (security by key material), you can well declare your vacation dates without running the risk.
I'm pretty sure Xi is also a sociopath, but he differs from Trump in that he's competent. And maybe that's a good thing for American democracy--if we had a competent dictator who could manifest massive infrastructure projects maybe the pro-democracy backlash would be significantly attenuated?
The world also consists of people. Are you saying that people around me are better than the Russians? Sure, nice to have finally agree about something.
But that just proves the point you were trying to argue with.
No, you misread. I didn't say people around you are better; I said you probably live in a country with working government institutions and fair elections.
I don't feel you approach this discussion in good faith. I see no point in continuing.
It is silly to grant agency and moral responsibility exclusively to people living within democracies.
The Putin regime made an informal deal with the population "You stay out of politics and we're gonna stay out of your life". The people outsource political power to the regime.
This passive majority represents the bulk of the population, but not the whole of the population. There are two smaller groups. Ultra-patriots who criticize Putin for not doing more war, more suffering etc. And those who criticize the Putin for the war, although this group is not very vocal, but here I do agree with you that's it's difficult to publicly protest in an authoritarian regime.
S has never implied Xtensa, and C doesn't imply RISC-V. That's a widely held misunderstanding. S, C, P, etc. are product categories, not ISAs. S devices are high performance SoCs; large feature set, high frequency, not the lowest power or cost.
Just appending 1 to S3 is odd though. This MCU is step change for Espressif. S4 or something would make more sense.
Not saying you're wrong (appreciate the explanation) but S has been Xtensa and C is RISC-V; even if you don't imply, it's how the things have been. And given S2, S3, and C5 are all clocked at 240 MHz, the performance difference is kinda blur.
Espressif is all-in on RISC-V, expanding their portfolio of RISC-V devices where they previously had only XTensa: ESP32-S31 is the first big departure from the coincidental alignment of ISAs within their product structure and definitively ends further debate about what those letter designations mean.
BTW, S3 has an RISC-V core in addition to the XTensa cores. That's the part that's running in deep sleep.
In practice, most Espressif users barely know or care what ISA is in play: they have ESP-IDF and the Espressif libraries papering over the difference for nearly all purposes.
This is how Jeroen Domburg, Espressif Technical Marketing Manager, addressed this matter in a post on hackaday.io:
"We actually never intended the CPU architecture to be part of the name, as for 99.9% of all users, it doesn’t matter: you write your code in C or some other language, and the compiler plasters over any difference in ISA. Available peripherals, supported radio protocols and CPU power and memory are more important."
FWIW, Custom Attributes in .Net are kind of a pain in geneal, powerful but painful
Why? What's kind of painful in general about them? They are just pieces of static data. You can abuse them, e.g. have some obscure logic somewhere, but you can abuse many things just the same (ahem, Reflection, excuse me), so this factor doesn't make a distinction.
Probably why JS still doesnt really have them in practice.
Did you mean JS doesn't have TS decorators? Those are an entirely different beast.
reply