All the stores I can get to within a reasonable time period stock ISO keyboards instead of ANSI, and I've never really warmed up to those. So I'm stuck with next-day even for macs.
As an aside, I have never seen a decent license for user generated content. Either they expose the platform to serious liability, or they come across as incredibly predatory.
In this context, the license is for using the Arduino Studio application. This is hosted by Arduino, and therefore needs to take user input, save it and work with it. As I understand it, this puts them in a complex situation: they don't own the code you've written (obviously), but they do need to do things with it like compile it and run it (when you press the button in the IDE). They're also hosting the code and therefore partly legally responsible for it.
At the very least, you need some sort of user agreement to specify the things you can do with their content, otherwise you can't really do it because it's their content and you're not allowed to mess with it by default. (Like you said, code is copyrighted by default.) You also need to specify the things that are necessary by law because you are hosting that code and therefore in part responsible for it. You also don't want to make the user sign a new agreement every other week if you add some new feature that they need to agree to use, because the cost of all those legal documents is prohibitive, and it's also very bad UX.
Added to this the fact that lawyers are naturally very conservative as a profession (generally only doing things that have been proven successful, rather than avoiding things that have been proven unsuccessful), and it's easy to see why these sorts of agreements tend to be more expansive than they perhaps need to be, in order to ensure the company is fully protected.
Is this actually true? Doesn't the action of directing someone to compile this code, mean they are allowed to compile this code? Of course they are not allowed to do anything else, but this is what I want as a user. I think it is more, that the vendors want to push the user to grant them more rights than what would be strictly necessary for them to do they job they "sell".
This is what's been explained to me before. The problem is that lawyers don't necessarily work on the basis of "if it seems reasonable that the user allowed this, then this is allowed". Their goal is to make a contract that, if they need to go to court, will make their job as easy as possible. So it's not enough to say "obviously the user pressed the 'compile' button and we needed to do all this stuff to make that happen, here's all my technical experts who agree", instead they would rather say "paragraph 3 subsection 12 clearly allows this behaviour and the user has agreed to it".
It's also, as I understand it, the reason why law has so much of an emphasis on seemingly magic phrases that you copy and repeat in all sorts of different places. These are phrases that have already been tested and have a meaning that has been made clear in a court of law, so if you need to go to court to defend them, you can pull up the existing case law on the subject and rely on that, rather than having to analyse exactly what the new wording means. Hence why these T&C documents tend to have a lot of fairly standard phrases that don't obviously mean what you expect them to mean.
Allow the user to license the content that they generate. I can write a novel with Microsoft Word, and Microsoft has no claim over it -- why should any IDE tools be different?
Yeah, I was surprised by the lack of search results when I was double-checking my post too, but apparently I wasn’t surprised enough, because I was wrong. I mixed up two pieces of Showstopper!: chapter 5 mentions the Win32 spec being initially written in two weeks by Lucovsky and Wood
> Lucovsky was more fastidious than Wood, but otherwise they had much in common: tremendous concentration, the ability to produce a lot of code fast, a distaste for excessive documentation and self-confidence bordering on megalomania. Within two weeks, they wrote an eighty-page paper describing proposed NT versions of hundreds of Windows APIs.
and chapter 6 mentions the NTFS spec being initially written in two weeks by Miller and one other person on Miller’s sailboat.
> Maritz decided that Miller could write a spec for NTFS, but he reserved the right to kill the file system before the actual coding of it began.
> Miller gathered some pens and pads, two weeks’ worth of provisions and prepared for a lengthy trip on his twenty-eight-foot sailboat. Miller felt that spec writing benefited from solitude, and the ocean offered plenty of it. [...] Rather than sail alone, Miller arranged with Perazzoli, who officially took care of the file team, to fly in a programmer Miller knew well. He lived in Switzerland.
> In August, Miller and his sidekick set sail for two weeks. The routine was easy: Work in the morning, talking and scratching out notes on a pad, then sail somewhere, then talk and scratch out more notes, then anchor by evening and relax.
(I’m still relatively confident that the Win32 spec was written in 1990; at the very least, Showstopper! mentions it being shown to a group of app writers on December 17 of that year.)
My understanding is the earliest application of identity politics comes from thinkers like Fanon and Wollstonecraft, would you categorize them as being conservatives?
Not to downplay the dilemmas we face today, it seems to me that the main problem is that the machine is too expensive, too complicated and too large to serve as a permanent heart/lung replacement.
We have an excellent record of making machines smaller, cheaper and simpler to operate. This machine will be the pacemaker of the future.
It has very little to do with the size and expense of the machine itself. ECMO requires 24/7 human maintenance because humans are messy dynamic meatbags, and tubes clog with clots, blood changes pH, people have an annoying tendency to move, etc. Every hospital with ECMO literally has "an ECMO team" to support the thing. It's mind-bogglingly expensive in terms of human capital.
Other people on this thread are trying to imply that these things are like artificial hearts. That is true only in that the heart is one of the things that an ECMO machine attempts to replace. We don't have anything like an implantable artificial lung.
I used to deliver food in a hospital. I got to know a guy who had emphysema or something like that I served him food off and on for about two years. One day I saw that he disappeared and I thought he was dead, but he popped up a few days later with some gnarly staples on his chest and a much less hoarse voice.
After a few false promises over the years he finally got a new set of lungs, they gave him a new heart too because his was fucked from the strain that his damage lungs had put on it.
IIRC, he got a new set of lungs and a heart on Wednesday, was sitting up by Friday and was eating the pureed food that I served him by Saturday. I had no idea the recovery time was so fast for a procedure that involves splitting your chest open, ripping your heart and lungs out and sticking new ones in there and sewing it back up.
The unfortunate part of this all is that he probably isn't still alive today as I understand it because lung transplants still have poor prognosis, unlike something like a heart transplant. I believe it's due to increased infection inherent in the nature of the organ -- it makes direct contact with outside air and has an insane surface area, couple that with immunosuppressive drugs and the risk of infection you're looking at an increased chance of death.
But if we had some way to grow perfect stem cell organs for situations like this or ECMO that can keep a baby alive it changes everything. The US spends 1% of the GDP on dialysis alone, it's mind boggling.
We've found these treatments like ECMO that 'work' in a very tenuous sense that they can sometimes if you squint hard enough produce desirable results but it's in no way sustainable or scaleable.
Any technology that pushes us towards a future where we can grow and store organs will change the face of humanity in so many ways. It'll free up so many resources that we can then focus on other game-changing medical innovations, which I think will lead to a snowball effect of the eradication of so many maladies and a fundamental shift in the human condition.
We had the first artificial hearts 60 years ago, and were convinced they were a decade away from mass adoption then.
As another commenter posted, the human body is complicated.
We now take knowledge for granted that we didn't even know we didn't know when I started working on these things.
In order to solve the problem we have to just build hardware and put in in people, see how it goes and then iterate on it. This cycle takes years because it takes 2-10 years to get each device through design, regulatory, release. Sometimes once we get deep into it we realize that what we set out to do isn't even possible for reasons we didn't even know when we started. It's like you are having to make up new Greek letters for all the factors in the new equations you discover. It's hard to predict.
Source - I've designed many medical devices including several blood pumps and LVADs.
TFA says that they're currently working on a portable (external) lung replacement[0]. I see no reason that it couldn't be installed in the chest cavity with a port for the O2 bottle connection.
Even if "they're currently working on" meant "it's available now or practical in the near future" (it doesn't), that doesn't affect what I said about the immense costs involved.
The portability of the device is not the core issue here. It's a bit like arguing that you can build a quantum computer today, so therefore we'll all have one on our desktop soon.
Extracorporeal livers were being explored in the 1960s. It was advanced enough that it was included in a contemporary Time-Life book. Unfortunately, experimental success was not observed and the idea was shelved.
Exactly. This is progress. There is no ethical dilemma here, whatsoever. This is a technology that is keeping people alive. It's bulky, expensive, dangerous, etc, etc. But those things are not set in stone. In time it will become small, affordable, safe, etc. Until then, every little step should be celebrated.
Yes. The first recipient of an artificial heart was tethered to a sizable amount of hardware and confined to an ICU. Now, implanted artificial hearts are regularly used.
But that isn't the problem from the article--the ethical issue of how to deal with a ton of people who are being kept alive on a "bridge to nowhere" when the machines might could be used in the interim to save many more people--as if you have an intracranial hemorrhage you are going to start down the road to actually dying. (And the article also talks about attempts to improve the bleeding problem anyway.)
To me it sounded like part of the problem is that people on ECMO cannot leave the ICU because at any moment they might have a complication that requires immediate emergency care.
So it's not enough to make them smaller and cheaper, they also have to be made much less prone to these complications. I am sure that will happen in time, but I am also sure we'll be able to grow people new lungs in time
Critical care paramedic: that's very much the bigger issue. Some life flight helicopters are being fitted for ECMO and there is NOT much space in a helicopter, once you fit in two providers, a patient on a gurney and care equipment (most HEMS units are Bell 429s and EC/H-135s - MSP uses much larger AW-139s).
Still, to be clear, we are not really at the 'portable' stage either. There's about 65lb of equipment needed for an ECMO patient just for the ECMO itself, beyond other things like Lifepaks for monitoring.
You generally enroll a passkey for a single device or connected group of devices. My icloud-syncing devices has a passkey. My windows laptop has another. My desktop has yet another. I have also enrolled my yubikey.
I could stop using my idevices tomorrow and not be negatively influenced.
