People are so dumb! But, Apple has to make up for producing trash products and having to pay Google a cool billion a year cause their "Intelligence" is as dumb as their customers.
People can either immaturely complain fruitlessly or deal with the human condition and accept fashion is important to some, perhaps by profiting from the creation of fashionable novelty the market desires.
In the old days people didn’t check them and they’d run around on underinflated tires on the highway until they had a front end blowout and took out a family minivan in the neighboring lane.
That’s why it’s a FMVSS requirement now.
There are secure TPMS implementations, e.g. ABS sensor based systems.
>In the old days people didn’t check them and they’d run around on underinflated tires on the highway until they had a front end blowout and took out a family minivan in the neighboring lane.
This is revisionist history through the lens of screeching people on Reddit.
Back in the old days you didn't need to "check your tires" because it's flagrantly obvious visually and in terms of handling when a tire with a 65 or 75 aspect ratio is low.
The reason we have a bunch more requirements on tires is because of all the finger pointing that ensued as a result of the Firestone Explorer debacle suddenly made formerly irrelevant few-psi differences in pressure very important. TPMS is there because you can't get a good visual read on lower profile tires until they're quit low. If you're not oblivious it won't matter you'll feel the vehicle handling funny long before they actually get low enough to cause problems though.
What "solved" blowouts was changes in construction. They started putting a couple extra belts into passenger car tires in the mid 00s. It mostly has to do with cap improvements that help prevent the sidewall from opening up at the shoulder.
Back in "the day" (so like 80s on down) everyone ran their tires to failure (usually bald, but often blowout as well) as a matter of normal practice, bought used tires left and right and blowouts were pretty common, even more common back in the really old days of tubes. It didn't reliably cause an accident unless you behaved hysterically in response, hence why everyone felt fine doing it. But that was so long ago ago, nobody much remembers it, nobody wrote about it on the internet and therefore it doesn't exist for the purposes of online discussion.
100% this. I'm happy someone else remembers too. It's really odd how in the past decade or two of mass internet adoption the world changed and it feels "dumber" in terms of all these lost experiences.
Time for me to stop internetting, enternal summer, etc.
While you or I, or anyone else who's arguing about tire inflation on the Internet, might be the type of person who can tell just by looking at a 65 series tire whether or not it's inflated correctly -- I don't really think that's the reality of the least-common-denominator driver in the 80s or 90s. Given the number of obviously under inflated tires that I did see back in the 90s, I think it's pretty clear that many drivers either were unable to tell, or didn't bother to look.
> Back in "the day" (so like 80s on down) everyone ran their tires to failure (usually bald, but often blowout as well) as a matter of normal practice, bought used tires left and right and blowouts were pretty common, even more common back in the really old days of tubes. It didn't reliably cause an accident unless you behaved hysterically in response, hence why everyone felt fine doing it.
Yeah, tire technology wasn't great then. And yes, there were people that ran bald tires. But there are still people today that don't care about bald tires. Depends on which side of town you're on. The common way people were measuring tire tread in the 80s, if they cared, was with Lincoln's head on a penny. But also people didn't drive as aggressively as they do now, because 80s cars were slow as shit compared to what people are driving today or even in the 2000s.
Back in the old days you didn't need to "check your tires" because it's flagrantly obvious visually and in terms of handling when a tire with a 65 or 75 aspect ratio is low.
On bias-ply tires from ‘60s, sure. You’re not going to visually check tire pressure on radials, at least not with any accuracy.
Back in "the day" (so like 80s on down) everyone ran their tires to failure (usually bald, but often blowout as well) as a matter of normal practice,
That’s just old man “kids today!” bullshit. I was an auto mechanic in the ‘80s, and the only people that did that were very poor or very stupid.
I don't consider myself oblivious, and it really scared me how little the handling changed with a flat rear tire. It also didn't make any extra noise.
I have always wondered if it is the lack of sidewall on a 225/45R17.
I did notice in time though, somehow. The tire shop also couldn't find a reason for the flat, so they simply remounted it, filled it, and sent me on my way.
> The tire shop also couldn't find a reason for the flat,
I've had a valve core get stuck open in a way that was released by poking at it. And the little plastic cap is amazingly good at holding the tire pressure in too. Sometimes rebooting the computer is the right fix.
My VW Golf has ABS based tire pressure monitoring and for the most part it works. The disadvantage is that it can only tell you if one tire is flat. If they all get slowly flat over time there won't be a significant discrepancy between tires and they will not trigger any warning.
I consider that a worthy tradeoff though, I can just check the pressure once in a while and I get to save money on my winter wheel set.
Did it have something to do with the Ford Explorer?
But anecdotally, we were driving through Chicago in the family Subaru Forester, and got a huge gash in one tire. The Soob has so much automation in its drivetrain, that it still handled OK enough and we didn't notice there was a problem until the TPMS light came on. We had to cross a couple lanes of very heavy, fast traffic, to get off the road.
It has its own shortcomings, but in my opinion they're all relatively minor and it does the job of warning the driver of potential pressure problems without wireless or in-tire sensors that require replacement.
EDIT, never mind, I wasn't seeing "indirect" in the comments but now that I look I do see "ABS", which is what iTPMS depends on for determining wheel speed.
"Learn GPG" is neither a useful nor a correct recommendation for people concerned about security; if you believe the device is backdoored, GPG will not save you, nor will anything else.
I've read up on this in the context of potentially backdoored CPUs and there is fundamentally no way. You don't need to trust the router (as you say: a device that just relays data can have all the backdoors you want, thanks to asymmetric cryptography enabling E2EE), but the scenario is that your own device has software from law enforcement on it
In which case, the best you can do is use an obscure method that the attacker is unprepared for. If they've hijacked the AES CPU operation to store the key and include it in the output for a later syscall like when writing the output file, but you unexpectedly use some funky experimental cipher, you'd be lucky until they push an update. The device has a mandatory backdoor after all, so govt can also decide what new code it needs to run now, perhaps under the guise of detecting more situations of terroristic content or whatnot. There's no winning that game except through obscurity, and I presume everyone has heard about how reliable security through obscurity is
He's referring to doing something like using a compromised device to take a photograph of the ciphertext made on a different device or something like that.
You must assume it is backdoored. Cell [smart] phones are the greatest surveillance network the government has ever created.
But, you can use that against them. Your phone doesn't have to always be with you. You can be where you are, and you phone's location can be hundres of miles away.
Current smartphones are already more careful about cell modems than they used to be. And in an ideal world, cell modems would have even less information than they do, and could be (and should be) powered off by the phone until needed.
Imagine an architecture in which you had a pervasive cellular data connection that was intentionally uncorrelated with any identifying information, the way wifi is.
Right now, the only legitimate reason cell networks have to identify specific devices to users is for billing, and for PSTN. The latter could be made utterly irrelevant with VoIP. The former could be solved in various ways, either by making it a public good, or by integrating anonymous payment mechanisms for a "session". Then, we could just have pervasive data connections.
To some extent I agree, but if the modem is off how long latency is acceptable for inbound messages? I suppose a low bandwidth broadcast "user 0x76abc937* has a new message" could work. Devices would filter out broadcasts that don't concern them.
* Ideally the user id should be used only once and derived from some pre-shared secret.
First, in a case closer to the current world, I'm just suggesting that disabling the cell modem should power it off so it can't do any kind of location or tracking.
Second, in a more ideal world, the concept of "data connection" would be entirely separate from any identity attached to a phone or text message, and you could handle the latter via whatever connection you have, whether a cell data connection or wifi or something else.
That's what's so great about LoRA. Decentralized txt msgs, ultra cheap radios people run at home or wherever. $10-35USD ON AMAZON. Least txts get through.
FT8 has such a small payload that you couldn't fit an emoji, much less an average English sentence.
There's no authentication so anyone can pretend to be you. Traditional methods of verifying the sender (HMAC) would take so many hours to transmit that the physical propagation paths you're communicating through will probably collapse before you deliver the smallest verified message.
If you need to communicate information, FT-8 is not for you.
Agreed but if you're trapped in a war zone, time is one thing you have. And equipment for FT8 is simple to build yourself. It's also very difficult to trace. And you can take up some fields used for other stuff and convert them to data (like the sender). This would be illegal on amateur bands since it's required to identify oneself but again in a war situation this is less relevant since any covert communication will probably be forbidden anyway.
You do need a time source though. GPS is generally used for that but it doesn't need to be extremely accurate with FT-8 like with some other protocols.
I would imagine using it for a regular "I'm ok" message for the home front in such a situation using pre-arranged contents.
Local police already equipped with signal jammer cars. Usually only used in college entrance exam period. They also appeared in recent protest in Jiangyou city.
Look up Meshtastic. It’s kinda fun. Can chat with random people around you. But I don’t think it’s really that useful unless you have a really good spot like an antenna on your roof with no trees or buildings in the way.
It's not that finicky in practice. I live in a heavily wooded area and I can still see plenty of nodes, some pretty far away. Trees are actually somewhat helpful there because you can easily rig up a node up high by throwing a line over a branch.
I live in the suburbs, not really any high rises around be but some townhouses, I can “see” 180 nodes, but I can’t reliably message my friend 1km away. I get a lot of messages on the public chat but if I send one it’s a 50/50 if it will be acknowledged by any nodes.
I tried it while staying in a high rise hotel and the experience was great. Instant acknowledgement and super reliable communication
