Symbol Sourcebook would’ve been my first guess, too, but I just glanced through my copy (7th printing, 1977) and didn’t see the ⌘ symbol. The closest thing in the Graphic Form Section is a symbol for “Atomic d orbital,” but it’s clearly not the same one that inspired Susan Kare.
Interesting. The left side of the slide at 15:43 in the video is definitely from page 27 of Symbol Sourcebook, but the detail of the ⌘ symbol doesn’t seem to be: not only could I not find the symbol, but also its caption (“FEATURE”) is set in Helvetica rather than Univers as used in the book.
I have a suspicion that she may no longer possess or even remember the book in question. Heaven knows I wouldn’t were I her, but my memory is atrocious.
The treaty returning sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, disestablishing the British Indian Ocean Territory, seems to be on track for ratification:
The consequences for the .IO ccTLD are still unclear and ultimately will depend on how the United Nations, the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency, and ICANN respond. I’m not aware of anything more definitive than ICANN’s blog posting from November 2024, which emphasizes that “much of the discussion about .io is simply speculation” but also acknowledges the possibility that “a five-year time window will commence during which time usage of the domain will need to be phased out.”
My two biggest clients are exclusively running on .io domains and have hundreds of subdomains each - I really hope they don't end up doing something dumb here, I know two companies that don't want to deal with this.
I’ve always thought of Kerberos as a centralized authentication system, to establish users’ identities.
Authorization, in the sense of deciding to allow or deny a requested action by a known user on a specific object, remains distributed, even with Kerberos. For example, a Windows file server, having received a Kerberos ticket showing a user’s identity and security group memberships, consults its own access control lists to determine what operations to allow on files and directories.
The article here argues that those authorization decisions should also be centralized, presumably using the sponsor’s “cloud-native authorization platform,” instead of being made within each service or application.
I agree with the advice to ask a lawyer, but it’s sensible to be concerned with license agreements even in early-stage ventures that couldn’t enforce them.
By establishing the company as licensor, an agreement might help the founders avoid personal liability if a customer sues. Later on, it may be desirable to show potential acquirers that, from the company’s inception, its customer contracts included terms to confirm ownership of intellectual property, limit liability, satisfy privacy laws, and so on.
A fictitious person (e.g. an LLC or corporation) is how founders avoid personal liability. Your lawyer can explain this. They will also explain that anyone can sue anyone (at least in the US).
If you can’t afford a lawyer, don’t do business that requires one.
Yes. “Freight collect” means the recipient pays the carrier for transportation; it implies nothing about payment for the goods.
“COD” (collect on delivery) means the carrier collects a specified amount of money—typically, the price of the goods plus transportation—from the recipient, on behalf of the seller, as a condition of delivery.
I have the now-discontinued Sony DPT-RP1, which I use with Jan-Gerd Tenberge’s software (https://github.com/janten/dpt-rp1-py). It works well for reading PDF documents without the need for frequent zooming or scaling.
If I had to replace it today, I’d buy a Fujitsu Quaderno A4 (FMVDP41), which I understand has a design very similar to that of the Sony product.
> It is not legal to operate a remote transmitter site without [...]
47 CFR § 73.1400(b) permits operation with “a self-monitoring or ATS-monitored and controlled transmission system that, in lieu of contacting a person designated by the licensee, automatically takes the station off the air within three hours of any technical malfunction which is capable of causing interference” (emphasis added).
This doesn’t change the licensee’s basic responsibility “for assuring that at all times the station operates [...] in accordance with the terms of the station authorization,” of course.
> in what ways were they operating noncompliantly?
If the station was off the air and the licensee didn’t notify the FCC within 10 days and seek a silent STA within 30 days, that would violate 47 CFR § 73.1740(a)(4).
Ah, thank you. There is also the "dead mans switch" monitoring option, which is probably in use at some very understaffed stations.
So this licensee's best claim is that they had some kind of major equipment failure, their dead mans switch worked and took them off-air, and someone jumped on the opportunity to take down a non-energized radiator tower and steal their equipment.
It is still unbelievable of course! The best time to find someone at a remote transmitter site is when the tower has recently gone dark. And it does not address the gap between failure and awareness/reporting.
Thanks also for the cite to the notification requirement timelines.
The website claims “Design, Construction and Operation according to US SUBSAFE.” I’d want that for my submarine, of course, but I wonder if it’s realistic.
I’d understood that SUBSAFE was a comprehensive program applied to U.S. Navy submarines by the Naval Sea Systems Command, not merely a published standard with which one could comply without extensive, ongoing involvement by NAVSEA, which presumably has no mandate to support foreign yacht builders.
