286 doesnt want anything, CPU is ram agnostic. Project author didnt want to mess with implementing DRAM controller, not that its difficult. Here a simple 16 bit controller realized with ten 74xx chips https://amigaprj.blogspot.com/2013/05/amiga-fast-ram-expande...
Oh right, I didn’t read far enough to see there’s no DRAM support - very unusual for a 286 system (at least a PC-compatible one). That’s a big tradeoff, indeed. Thanks!
I wouldnt call it a tradeoff. Author didnt want to design memory controller, and SRAM gets him effortless 0 wait state access.
Personally Im also a fan of keeping ram oldschool. I even reverse engineered a ram card for a 386 board just last week https://github.com/raszpl/386RC-16
Note the “all” in the example binds to “across”, not “McD’s”.
“All McD’s” - quite precise; literally all the McD’s.
“McD’s all across the country” - a much looser group, implies various McD’s spanning roughly coast to coast (hence “all across the country”), but not necessarily including the westernmost and easternmost McD’s - just a decent distribution of west-to-east, perhaps with no giant gaps (like missing the whole Midwest).
You’re technically correct, given a literal reading of the post you quoted, but the use of “could” there was idiomatic - let me explain:
There’s a (fairly dated) idiom, “it’s the least I can do”, used when you are offering to do something to make up for a mistake or offense, but the person you hurt says your offer of compensation is unnecessary. For example:
Situation: Person A bumps into Person B in the cafe, causing B to drop their coffee cup.
A: I’m so sorry! Let me buy you another coffee.
B: That’s not necessary - it was an accident, and I had almost finished my drink anyway.
A: It’s the least I can do!
B: Oh, thank you so much!
Buying B a new coffee is not _literally_ the least A could have done - the least A could have done is nothing - but that’s the English idiom. “Can” is acting more like “should” here. You could read it as “It’s the least I can do (if I’m a good person, which I am)”.
Thank you for the explanation -- when I'm speaking foreign languages I appreciate this sort of explanation. But in this case, as a native English speaker, I was well aware of the idiom, and was trying to subvert it. :-)
The original idiom is said in the first person, and as you say means essentially, "Justice and equity compel me to do this; I don't find myself able to do less".
GGP was actually using a derivative of the idiom in the second person. What the derivative literally says is, "Justice and equity compel them to do this; they don't find themselves able to do less". But idiomatically, what it actually means is, "Justice and equity ought to compel them to do this; they ought not to find themselves able to do any less".
Which is true; but it's still the case that the vast majority of companies find themselves very much able to do far less. Justice and equity should compel companies to do this bare minimum, but in the vast majority of cases it doesn't. And so we should still commend those who do find themselves so compelled, and hold them up as an example.
Thanks for sharing this! I've been using vscode-amiga-debug for a while but have often wished it had a stdlib, if only for quick prototyping & debugging side quests.
> To address these issues, we design ShakeNet: a framework to study the impacts of earthquake-induced shaking on the Internet infrastructure.
Appears to be distinct from existing[0] seismic sensing-related things[1] called ShakeNet. (Cool paper, kinda wish they had Googled that name before deciding on it!)
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, 'Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.'"
A lot of monitors* in that era (1994ish) that could handle 640x480 or 800x600 at an acceptable-ish refresh rate of 60, 72, or 75Hz, could only do 1024x768 as an interlaced mode - meaning odd and even lines were drawn on alternate frames, so the overall refresh rate was effectively halved. The lack of phosphor persistence over such long "frames" manifested as visible flicker. IIRC, 1024x768 @ 43Hz interlaced was a common (supported, if rarely used) standard. It hurt.
* Graphics card RAMDAC bandwidth was a limiting factor for higher resolutions x higher refresh rates, too. And video memory limited higher desktop resolutions x higher color depths for years - really until 3D accelerators were coming of age.
GP is (quite reasonably) using a deliberately slightly silly example as a rhetorical flourish. I would do the same. Think of it of a stand-in or totem for all of the possibilities (from silly to very real) that leap into horrifying life in an engineer's brain when they learn that a critical system has a single point of failure.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-sram-and-dr...