Solidworks is not even close to the least intuitive CAD program out there. My preference is Autodesk Inventor, which I find to be far easier for beginners to pick up. Fusion 360 is supposedly excellent these days as well. For a real nightmare, try Siemens NX.
as someone who made their living on f360 for many years I urge newcomers to avoid it. Vendor lock-in as much as possible, along with constant rug-pulls and price-increases. DLC-ification of once-included features, and just shit corporate maneuvers abound.
If your work allows for it, go for freecad or better yet openscad if you're pursuing this new concept of LLM design. onshape is nice feature-wise but then you're just trusting a different group that has an even tighter grip around your unmentionables due to the saas nature.
To be fair : the constant betrayal of tech companies in my life has just pushed me a bit further towards local-only than most; I don't really condemn the -as-a-service industry, they've just been the first to pull rugs and then shrug their shoulders when their (usually already dwindling) customer base is screwed.
Given the context (CCC) I would find it far less interesting if they did NOT use OpenPNP. It is also, coincidentally, able to assemble PCBs, even if it's perhaps not the best software out there.
Far more things rely on reliable and accurate time-keeping than just being on time to work. Timekeeping is vitally important (even if it's not readily visible) to lots of critical infrastructure worldwide.
Actually, it's really important to me to have a network of atomic clocks available to verify the times I clock in and out, I want to make sure I get paid for an accurate duration of time down to the nanosecond
The alternative to the OSA is not "being totally incapable of regulating the internet". There's a wide, wide gap between complete lack of regulation and what the UK has done.
I'd have to say that full hardware documentation, even under NDA, is prerequisite to claim equal effort. The expectation on a desktop platform (that is, explicitly not mobile, like phones or tablets) is that development is mostly open for those who want to, and Qualcomm's business is sort of fundamentally counter to that. So either they're going to have to change those expectations (which I would prefer not to happen), provide more to manufacturers, or expect that their market performance will be poor.
I don't see the linked issue as a valid reason to stop using Ventoy, especially since the repo you linked is for a different piece of software made by the same people. Do we have any evidence of Ventoy itself being in any way malicious?
I think it's a valid reason unless you view "this person can't be trusted follow safe practices on Project A so it makes sense to assume they also won't follow safe practices on Project B" as invalid logic.
"I have updated a new 1.0.21 release and removed the unused sig driver file.
And I also add a README document about the httpdisk driver https://github.com/ventoy/PXE/tree/master"
As in the author responded and removed this and explained why it was in there in the first place.
So Ventoy has all it's code audited and documents every case of a binary blob with the source code and instructions to build the binary blob. iVentoy above did have an issue which was promptly resolved.
It seems to be an extremely trustworthy project. If you want to blacklist them because they once had an issue since corrected fine but it seems waaaaaay over the top to me.
My concern is that they grabbed some random driver signed by a random person and just assumed it was trustworthy enough to be included in a project. That's not the behavior I associate with how "extremely trustworthy" projects should be run. I understand others may not agree, though. I also understand that this is a different project, but that behavior kinda makes me feel like any project with those people involved shouldn't be viewed as extremely trustworthy. Are they also running randomly grabbed code on the build machines and assuming it's safe to do so?
Tough luck, if you don't like it, then you (or your government) should block those websites. It's not job of the US businesses nor US government to enforce another country's laws.
Let me put this very simply to you: if I go to a country where the age of consent is 14 and start a business streaming child porn to America, I should be stopped from doing that. This is the same principle with a lesser offence.
You will stopped from doing that by American law. The difference between this and that is that Ofcom believes it can regulate conduct that never touches British soil. Ofcom notably is not setting up a "great firewall," but instead sending takedown notices to websites about content that is already blocked from British IPs.
> You will stopped from doing that by American law. The difference between this and that is that Ofcom believes it can regulate conduct that never touches British soil.
You're showing yourself to believe that America can regulate conduct that never touches American soil.
America won't go after you. America will go after Americans who access your site and American ISPs will block your site. That's not America regulating your behavior. You're still free to do whatever you want.
If you enter America, there may also be consequences, but you don't need to enter America.
America may well go after you and we have a large military to do it with. most often a simple diplomatic message will shut you down - most countries have their own child porn laws, and the exceptions (if any) are going to face problems as this is something the us takes seriously.
You picked a bad example -
there are many US crimes that you could get away with if done elsewhere within the local laws, it generally isn't seen as worth bothering with when done elsewhere if the other country doesn't care.
> If you enter America, there may also be consequences
That isn't much different. Say an adult American drinks alcohol in America; then they travel to a country where alcohol is illegal. Should they be prosecuted in that country for having drank in America?
There's a world of difference here. Ofcom is claiming to be able to shut down an American website for content generated in America, stored in America, and shown only to Americans. There are no UK citizens in this chain at all. This sets up Ofcom as having global censorship authority even over content seen elsewhere.
> Should they be prosecuted in that country for having drank in America?
In my opinion, no, but some countries are hardasses about this. If you want to do things that are illegal in certain places, you should not plan on traveling to those places. Usually, they will just refuse you entry but you kind of do put yourself at their mercy if you touch their soil. This is how the world works.
Singapore does exactly that, and they explicitly warn outbound Singaporean travelers that any drug use outside Singapore will be prosecuted as if it has happened in Singapore.
They're warning everybody, not just Singaporeans. It's just that Singaporeans are the most likely to go travel abroad, have some fun, and then come back like nothing has happened. But if somebody inbound gets caught in a random drug test at the airport (they do that), he's going to be prosecuted just the same no matter their citizenship. There were several (in-)famous examples of this happening.
Yeah, extradition treaties are a thing, and I believe he wasn't a citizen of New Zealand so the US actually could make the request. The hypothetical above can be narrowed to "you are doing something completely legal in your country of citizenship or some other non-extradition country but illegal in the US" if you want to get more precise about it.
We are America. We can do whatever we damn well please because we have the biggest guns and most money. Welcome to the how the world really works. Not saying it’s right.
