Expandability, or the lack thereof, was far and away the most controversial aspect of the original Macintosh hardware design. Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak was a strong believer in hardware expandability, and he endowed the Apple II with luxurious expandability in the form of seven built-in slots for peripheral cards, configured in a clever architecture that allowed each card to incorporate built-in software on its own ROM chip. This flexibility allowed the Apple II to be adapted to a wider range of applications, and quickly spawned a thriving third-party hardware industry.
But Jef Raskin had a very different point of view. He thought that slots were inherently complex, and were one of the obstacles holding back personal computers from reaching a wider audience. He thought that hardware expandability made it more difficult for third party software writers since they couldn't rely on the consistency of the underlying hardware. His Macintosh vision had Apple cranking out millions of identical, easy to use, low cost appliance computers and since hardware expandability would add significant cost and complexity it was therefore avoided.
Apple's other co-founder, Steve Jobs, didn't agree with Jef about many things, but they both felt the same way about hardware expandability: it was a bug instead of a feature. Steve was reportedly against having slots in the Apple II back in the days of yore, and felt even stronger about slots for the Mac. He decreed that the Macintosh would remain perpetually bereft of slots, enclosed in a tightly sealed case, with only the limited expandability of the two serial ports.
Mac hardware designer Burrell Smith and his assistant Brian Howard understood Steve's rationale, but they felt differently about the proper course of action. Burrell had already watched the Macintosh's hopelessly optimistic schedule start to slip indefinitely, and he was unable to predict when the Mac's pioneering software would be finished, if ever. He was afraid that Moore's Law would make his delayed hardware obsolete before it ever came to market. He thought it was prudent to build in as much flexibility as possible, as long as it didn't cost too much.
Burrell decided to add a single, simple slot to his Macintosh design, which made the processor's bus accessible to peripherals, that wouldn't cost very much, especially if it wasn't used. He worked out the details and proposed it at the weekly staff meeting, but Steve immediately nixed his proposal, stating that there was no way that the Mac would even have a single slot.
But Burrell was not that easily thwarted. He realized that the Mac was never going to have something called a slot, but perhaps the same functionality could be called something else. After talking it over with Brian, they decided to start calling it the "diagnostic port" instead of a slot, arguing that it would save money during manufacturing if testing devices could access the processor bus to diagnose manufacturing errors. They didn't mention that the same port would also provide the functionality of a slot.
This was received positively at first, but after a couple weeks, engineering manager Rod Holt caught on to what was happening, probably aided by occasional giggles when the diagnostic port was mentioned. "That things really a slot, right? You're trying to sneak in a slot!", Rod finally accused us at the next engineering meeting. "Well, that's not going to happen!"
Even though the diagnostic port was scuttled, it wasn't the last attempt at surreptitious hardware expandability. When the Mac digital board was redesigned for the last time in August 1982, the next generation of RAM chips was already on the horizon. The Mac used 16 64Kbit RAM chips, giving it 128K of memory. The next generation chip was 256Kbits, giving us 512K bytes instead, which made a huge difference.
Burrell was afraid the 128Kbyte Mac would seem inadequate soon after launch, and there were no slots for the user to add RAM. He realized that he could support 256Kbit RAM chips simply by routing a few extra lines on the PC board, allowing adventurous people who knew how to wield a soldering gun to replace their RAM chips with the newer generation. The extra lines would only cost pennies to add.
But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. But this time Burrell prevailed, because the change was so minimal. He just left it in there and no one bothered to mention it to Steve, much to the eventual benefit of customers, who didn't have to buy a whole new Mac to expand their memory.
Posting from a kbin.social account to avoid the lemmy.today issues -- on lemmy.today, the current behavior looks like the messages in the queue go out when the instance is restarted, but not until then. It's running 0.19.1.
I am not the admin there, but wanted to make that available in case other instances are affected and trying to diagnose similar behavior; federation problems themselves can cause communication problems in trying to understand the issue.
The Navy also had a recording of Taps on YouTube, but what with the ad-blocker changes happening at YouTube right now, figured that the Navy site would be a preferable source.
I asked someone who wrote a huge reddit post about it, and they responded with "idk, I just looked at it and didn't get it."
UI labs record a person trying to use something for the first time so they can see what they get stuck on. Like, mouse movements, clicks, even eye-tracking.
Not saying that the Lemmy or kbin devs should be doing that right now, as they've got full plates. Or that Reddit did this. But understanding where and why people get stuck is a big part of working on UIs.
Whilst I was trying to get a grip on how Lemmy & kbin interact, Lemmy seems to have blocked kbin access.
That was lemmy.ml, not all of Lemmy. Lemmy.ml is an important instance -- one of the larger Lemmy instances, and it is run by the Lemmy devs -- but it's still but one instance among many.
I think that "magazine" is fine. As is "sublemmy". But I kind of am not enthusiastic about having two different words for them, unless there are future plans for them to act very differently.
From a user standpoint, unless he's talking about the internals of the server involved, there isn't really a difference. Saying "sublemmy/magazine" is just verbose and annoying. I'm on Kevin, but I want to be able to refer to magazines/sublemmies in a way approachable to all the people reading the content.
WD40 is great for dealing with things that are rusted in place, which is what it's supposed to be used for. It's just that it's not a great lubricating oil, and people often recommend it for use as that. Too thin and leaves a waxy residue to repel more water from rusting the surface, which you often don't want in things that you're lubricating.
I don't smoke, but I absolutely adore the sound that a Zippo makes when flicked open and struck, and wanted to get one a while back. I was kind of appalled at the fluid pricing -- the Zippo-brand fluid is even pricier, and I've seen the Ronsonol fluid itself recommended as a lower-priced alternative.
There are a lot of other things that people can burn in the refillable lighters, but I went through various testing that other people did and tried some myself, and none other than naphtha are really satisfactory. Some -- like white spirits -- aren't volatile enough, and won't maintain a consistent flame. Some, like gasoline, or low-water-content isopropyl alcohol, are too volatile and evaporate even more quickly than the regular fluid does or risk making an out-of-control fire.
Also works for the hand-warmers, which use the same fuel (and go through a great deal more of it than the lighters, so it's more-important there).
On an side note, I really wish that lighters of that sort would introduce some type of gasket that isn't dissolved by the fuel to help reduce the fuel vapor leaking out of the device when closed, or maybe some sort of other mechanism that seals the fuel reservoir off when the lighters are closed. As it stands, for a regular smoker, the fuel loss isn't a huge deal, but for someone who infrequently uses a lighter of the sort, the fuel loss is much more obnoxious -- it only takes several weeks for the reservoir to empty itself, in my experience.