With current LCD controllers but new drivers/firmware you could selectively refresh horizontal stripes of the screen at different rates if you wanted to.
I don't think you could divide vertically though.
Don't think anyone has done this yet. You could be the first.
I believe E-ink displays do this for faster updates for touch interactivity. Updatimg the whole display as the user writes on the touch screen would otherwise be too slow for Eink.
Anyone who has accidentally snapped the controller off a working LCD can tell you that the pixel capacitance keeps the colours approximately correct for about 10 seconds before it all becomes a murky shadowy mess...
So it makes sense you could cut the refresh time down to a second to save power...
Although one wonders if it's worth it when the backlight uses far more power than the control electronics...
> A 1Hz panel is almost, but not quite, on the level of an e-ink panel, which isn’t the prettiest to look at. LG’s panel also uses LED technology, the mainstream panel technology that’s being overtaken at the high end by OLED panels with essentially perfect contrast.
> Whilst cranking, an ICE car will drop to around 6 volts (then maximum power is extracted according to thevenim's theorem).
> That means all computers etc will work at 6v.
Not necessarily all of them. Plenty of stuff will drop out while cranking; hopefully not the computers that run the fuel injection and ignition, though.
Not a car engineer, but those motors can be pretty high A, so this could also just be a feature that helps the starter get as much power as it can while cranking.
The specs say no less than 6volts. In the real world when the temperature drops down to -70F or colder and batteries get old the voltage goes well below that: deal with it.
Manufacturers are now encrypting Canbus traffic, voluntarily on current and future models.
Buying or selling tools designed to break the law is already illegal - trivial or not. If a driver gets a DUI and possess a NOOP interlock, they are getting an additional charge, and get to help am investigation into the illicit device supply chain.
> Buying or selling tools designed to break the law is already illegal - trivial or not.
I'm curious how this will play out. The "John Deer" exemption from the DMCA comes to mind, not sure if it's strictly for farm equipment or still in effect.
You might be a functioning alcoholic, but when alcohol intoxication is so prevalent in your life it interferes with day to day routines activities, it absolutely meets the psychosocial definition of addiction, and likely points to a deeper one.
Every rural area I've ever worked in had a non trivial number of folks who would have 2-3 drinks at the bar/whatever on a Friday or a Saturday and drive home. It was not alcoholism, it was "I'm totally fine to drive, the law doesn't know my limits" etc.
On some level that's just the price of wanting to go out and not wanting to drop a bunch of cash on a taxi (assuming you can get one to come).
2-3 drinks on a Friday night when you're supposed to drive home is different. I'd also say "I can drink because the law is wrong" is also not exactly a neutral take.
- I believe the law is overly proscriptive / strict / wrong.
- I believe I won't get caught
It's no different to someone speeding because "It's clear conditions and I consider myself to be perfectly safe at this speed". Or skipping a stop sign "I can clearly see nothing is coming".
The LEA-vs-shift thread here kind of proves the point. Compilers are insanely good at that stuff now. Where they completely fall short is data layout. I had a message parser using `std::map<int, std::string>` for field lookup and the fix was just... a flat array indexed by tag number. No compiler is ever going to suggest that. Same deal with allocation. I spent a while messing with SIMD scanning and consteval tricks chasing latency, and the single biggest win turned out to be boring. Switched from per-message heap allocs to a pre-allocated buffer with `std::span` views into the original data. ~12 allocations per message down to zero. Compiler will optimize the hell out of your allocator code, it just won't tell you to stop calling it.
Agreed. It really requires an understanding of not just the software and computer it's running on, but the goal the combined system was meant to accomplish. Maybe some of us are starting to feed that sort of information into LLMs as part of spec-driven development, and maybe an LLM of tomorrow will be capable of noticing and exploiting such optimizations.
If you think compilers can't punch through abstractions, you haven't seen what whole-program optimization does to an overengineered stack when the programer gives it enough visibility. They still miss intent, so the game-specific hack can win.
AML tech is so primitive, it almost looks like it's designed that anyone 'in the know' will know how to not be detected.
Eg. Most AML checks are done because someone wrote some triggering keyword in the payment reference field. Do we honestly think a criminal mastermind won't manage to come up with something else to write there?
The AML you are thinking of is designed to catch small time crooks and drug mules (and maybe also dumb terrorist supporters). They are not really designed (or more specifically deliberately obtuse towards) Slavic oligarch money. Not all "corruption" and money laundering are treated equally. Places like London (not to mention Jersey), Switzerland, and Singapore are more for good old fashioned siphoning-of-national-assets type of corruption where there's almost always a "clean" paper trail to back things up. Also, don't get tax dodging mixed with money laundering. There are plenty of processes required by OECD and similar orgs, e.g. the concepts of a LEI number, that are not really useful against real oligarch/state level money launderers.
Here's a simple example: You lived in a former USSR/iron curtain state. During the chaos of '89 you managed to "acquire" lots of assets or finagle yourself into owning former public companies/real estate/factories. The paper trail is clean as far as your typical London banks are concerned because you are merely liquidating assets you own in your own country where there's a full paper trail (regardless of whether it was attained through illegitimate means). Alternatively, in a different narrative, you a rich international student from similar types of countries and you just happened to have "rich parents" who have plenty of money to throw around. It's a very different threat model than for example trying to prevent grassroots terrorism financing.
Money laundering vs tax evasion have a lot of overlap but don't get them confused. They are very different threat models from the perspective of the service provider (and it's also why many smaller foreign banks refuse to accept Americans as customers, partially because of the paperwork required to stay compliant with Uncle Sam).
If you want an actual no-questions-asked romp of organized crime type of money I believe the current main contenders are the middle eastern states like Dubai (pre Iranian conflict at least).
Rumor through the financial grapevine is that ironically there are many GCC middle eastern royalty/pseudo-royalty currently under house arrest who are trying to do the opposite i.e. get their assets out of the country because their main bank accounts are frozen domestically. So basically real life Nigerian princes.
(As for why they are under house arrest, it's kinda out of scope for HN but mostly because of domestic political purges, especially in Saudi Arabia from what I heard)
The rich international student pipeline has always stood out to me – we've seen dozens of 30, 40 or even 50 storey skyscrapers built for students, enjoying lifestyles usually reserved for those in high finance.
Well, I assure you most London bankers won't lose any sleep given that the money is often from Gulf states/places like China/ex Soviet oligarchies/various forms of corruption in the global south. The countries where the money flow out from often lack the means to actually pursue and prosecute overseas, especially for what boils down to "white collar" offences/corruption. It's only when anything like terrorism/organized crime/anything involving Uncle Sam's tax revenue occurs then the banks AML processes might become useful for more than just check-the-box compliance.
You will often find that entrepreneurs and digital nomads get caught in this sort of of AML debanking web because the paltry 6-7 figs of business/personal transactions across countries often resemble mules/illegitimate businesses and the banks are not allowed to talk about it. (Just go to the subreddit for wise or PayPal and search for the keyword "frozen")
Meanwhile international students can easily bring in 8 figs to buy houses and that's perfectly fine because it's "clean" as far as the compliance department is concerned. It's also a cultural issue, fintech platforms and neobanks try very hard to use heuristics to automate compliance. This is why I recommend digital nomads to use a proper cross border bank like HSBC Premier. You pay a lot more but you get a lot less of the "account frozen" bullshit.
Countries that are caught in between corruption and terrorist threats and Uncle Sam are the worst generally. E.g. transfering money both into and from Turkey are a pain in the ass.
I don't think you could divide vertically though.
Don't think anyone has done this yet. You could be the first.
reply