In school we were taught that the OS does the printf. I think the professors were just trying to generalize to not go on tangents. But, once I learned that no embedded libc variants had printf just no output path, it got a lot easier to figure out how to get it working. I wish I knew about SWO and the magic of semihosting back then. I don't think those would be hard to explain and interestingly it's one of the few things students asked about that in the field I'm also asked how to do by coworkers (the setting up _write).

> But, once I learned that no embedded libc variants had printf just no output path

Did you mean "once I learned that no, embedded libc variants have printf"?

To clarify as I had to check, embedded libc variants do indeed have some (possibly stripped-down) implementation of printf and as you say they just lack the output path (hence custom output backends like UART, etc).

Sorry yes I had a comma there and then deleted it. I don't remember why but I remember doing it.

I don't understand your sentiment. Nothing honorable in sticking around to be forced to do the wrong thing. A leader bowing out is at the same time the most powerful signal they can send to their superiors.

An innumerable amount of hurt has been borne by 'good' people that hung in there when they should have walked away.

It’s a nice sentiment, but the federal govt can make your life pretty miserable they get a hankering to do so.

The US will just send you to an off shore concentration camp if you try to get in the way.

They know the system, but the system is changing. I also wish they could stay and use their power to delay and obfuscate to protect their employees and their goals. This is a power of being a manager, at the least. I also suspect that since funding is cut, their removal might decrease expense.

I would argue the even deeper problem is that it's implementation defined. Should be in the spec and they should conform to the spec. That's why I'm so paranoid and zeroize things myself. Too much hassle to remember what is or isn't zero.

I wouldn't depend on that too much either though, or at least not depend on padding bytes being zeroed. The compiler is free to replace the memset call with code that only zeroes the struct members, but leaves junk in the padding bytes (and the same is true when copying/assigning a struct).

Standard should be changed to require all uninitialized memory be set to zero.

Which includes padding bytes.

Wish I could comment on the routing like others but the render is stuck at 96.2% for me. Nothing else on the page shows it on my phone so I assume that's the problem. (And of course nothing in the log of error tabs).

I think just looking at the first code example you can already see the problem. A lot of duplication and hand written or auto generated code. I thought the point was to define it in the code. Put an array of pin functions. For loop the footprint. That kinda thing. This looks like a mess to get started with and even worse is at higher point count parts it looks like it'll balloon in maintainability. Altium has very solid footprint generators with a nice menu. This looks like it's missing an overarching API for creating these long lists of parameters. Doesn't feel like the juice is worth the squeeze on this one. If it's a simple schematic, just do it by hand. If it's complicated, this feels harder to wrangle.

Another example of weird code is the previousLedName. Like like really that variable isn't used and the first term of the && should be that indeed check. But even more so, it should be an if statement not rely on remembering short circuiting (lazy evaluation) tricks. Because that's what you mean. You mean if it's not the first one, connect to the previous one. So, the code should say that. I find it hard to believe such a high level language would prevent it.

I think the pin label lists don't make sense. They're maps where the value is an array where the first element is the key? Why is this not just a list of pin numbers to names or a map of they're not contiguous whole numbers?

And then the icing on the cake: you still have to define where in XY everything is.

So really, in thinking about this, this looks more like a file format than a tool. And maybe that's fine. But I'll stick to the native formats of the tools.

Looking back on this, lots of typos. I must've been really tired. I hope the point still came across.

I looked up a TPM for my Win10 desktop and one review said the Win11 checker still didn't like it. It also has a 6th gen cpu which I think is too old. Seems more likely that using one of the solutions to bypass the checks would work if I want to upgrade.

I have an Intel NUC from 2018. It has tpm 2.0, 16gb of ram but a cpu deemed too old. It’s faster than my sisters surface 2 laptop that I just upgraded for her that was released in the same year. I guess some cpus are more equal than others. The amount of e-waste from this blockage is going to be incredible.

You can still bypass the checks.

Because surface looks out for its own :)

They've been disrespecting consent for years now. There have been posts about it online. "No" turned into "maybe later" turned into "remind me in 3 days" and now, even when I do turn on the few features I like, I will get bombarded to turn them on [0]. Turns out my local library puts guests on a Debian based system with libreoffice. I'm sure the majority of people don't even notice but it probably reduced cost dramatically and is easier to lock down.

[0] teams has a new calendar that's actually better. But even after turning it on I still get pop-ups to enable it.

Remind me in 3 days is an awful feature

It's not a feature, it's an intentional bug

Looking at you, Duolingo. Turning off notifications in the app results in constant nagging afterwards. From a user perspective it completely defeats the point of the setting.

I think I'm allowed to hate on a company that doesn't separate itself from Nazis.

I'll only respond to this but I do see a lot of people share your viewpoint. I think I agree with you partially. There are ways to rot the brain on YouTube. I noticed it maybe 8-9 years ago for me. I unsubscribed from all the gaming channels and only watched tech/EE/CS videos. It got to the point where in college I had weeks of 40+ hours of YouTube (does it adjust for 2x speed? Unsure) but it was mostly on STEM content. I believe that's what let me ace my classes in my later years. I just learned better from them than reading textbooks.

So, please don't give up on trying to only block the brainrot. Also, kids are crafty and usually have more time than adults so be prepared to fight an uphill battle once they figure out VPNs, DNS, and other ways.

Windows Server (not the capitalization of Server) is an operating system, not just installing desktop Windows on a server. From the first few paragraphs it says the license cost for that OS is a fraction of the retail price if you're on Azure. I would assume this extends to every VM, or if you can rent an entire machine and it's run bare metal, or any configuration I don't know about (I'm not an experienced cloud person).

Thank you for the response. The part I don't under is what is different about Azure and AWS in this case?

Is Azure providing discounting pricing on Windows Server licenses? Or is it that Azure directly provides Windows Server machines where the license cost is amortized in some way, whereas AWS doesn't have permission to do the same and the license cost is pushed to the client?

That's the extent of my understanding of the article but keep in mind Microsoft, maker and direct distributor of Windows Server, also fully owns and operates Azure. So, I believe it's the first option, it's a direct discount. They could even give it away for free. Or pay you to use it. It's their product, they can charge whatever they want. AWS is Amazon (Web Services) and is a competitor to Azure. Microsoft has no incentive to have people who pay Amazon for servers instead of Microsoft to get cheaper software.

Your second option is actually a continuation in a way of the first. Likely the marketers did the math on what they need to charge to keep Server afloat. Then, when Azure came in, they did more math to work out the minimum amount they could tolerate where the hosting fees can make up the difference. It's actually a very smart move and makes perfect sense. Like cheap printers expensive ink. Make the upfront (OS license) low, recurring (server hosting) high. Seen across all industries since the dawn of time.

My guess is that people aren't willingly choosing to run Windows and complaining it's expensive on AWS, but rather are needing to support software that can only run in Windows Server (I think outlook exchange servers are like this?), and feel like they'd rather be on AWS instead of Azure if not for the cost.

This is weird. It's someone praising themself in the third person for their journalistic integrity and free thinking. Loses all credibility in my opinion.