That (chinook-style solution) only works if both rotors are the same size and speed.
Perhaps Sikorsky's tethers to the ground worked around the problem for that photo anyway. Not sure.
That (chinook-style solution) only works if both rotors are the same size and speed.
Perhaps Sikorsky's tethers to the ground worked around the problem for that photo anyway. Not sure.
Really, Penfold.
Every news website is covering it. I think I've spotted most of 10 articles around the place.
The law of well-marketed unreleased goods dictates that this vehicle is not going to meet any of the promises mentioned in the articles. I hope to be proven wrong, but just like video games: don't pre-order, wait for it to come out and be reviewed.
That's a CH340G, it has an in-built 3.3V regulator. But there is no external regulator on the board.
Maybe the chip is running off its internal 3.3V, but the board designers put a tie-up resistor on one of its pins to 5V, which results in the weird 3.9V. Dunno. Try attaching a 1K resistor between that pin a GND, see if that makes the problem disappear.
The 5.3V is from your computer, that's not the fault of the USB UART.
3.2V is perfectly acceptable for a 3.3V rail.
The 3.9V is a bit weird. Can you post a photo of your USB UART board? Maybe the main chip has an inbuilt 3.3V regulator separate to the external one.
I swear that I read that white lead oxide is water soluble, thus happily sticks to your fingers and then gets on your food. I must be misremembering.
Maybe it was something about the solid lead object turning into an (oxide) powder that can then be easily ported as tiny particles on greasy hands? Hearsay science and safety information from me today :)
~~The fun thing about Pb is it's relatively safe in pure form. Unfortunately the oxides that appear on its surface are water soluble and love entering our bodies.~~
Just looked this up, apparently I'm completely wrong. Maybe I was thinking about lipid compatibility? Not sure now.
Welcome to security news theatre :(
I don't think espressif would bother suing, these kind of misshapen claims get constantly made against popular projects all of the time. It's just unusual to see so much coverage about this particular one.
Not so say that externally attackable vulnerabilities in an ESP32 don't exist, they might. Bluetooth devices have an awful track record. But making them up doesn't help the world.
I happily ran THUGPRO under wine, so I assume rethawed would be the same. Dunno.
Where am I even supposed to buy it if I wanted to, which I don’t really,
Looks like it's abandonware. Yeah, publisher dropped the ball.
Bleepingcomputer's title and article are very misleading, the presentation did NOT reveal a backdoor into an ESP32. It looks like Bleepingcomputer completely misunderstood what was presented (EDIT: and tarlogic isn't helping with the first sentence on their site).
Instead the presentation was about using an ESP32 as a tool to attack other devices. Additionally they discovered some undocumented commands that you can send from the ESP32 processor to the ESP32 radio peripheral that let you take control of it and potentially send some extra forms of traffic that could be useful. They did NOT present anything about the ESP32 bluetooth radio being externally attackable.
Another perspective that might help: imagine you have a cheap bluetooth chipset that is open source and well documented. That would give you more than what the presentation just found. Would Bleepingcomputer then be reporting it's a backdoor threatening millions of devices?
Changing virtual desktops works for me, no patches needed. I have to use it often because of how many games don't understand multiple monitors.
Yes it looks like it's adjusting the port length. (In plain english: some speaker boxes have an intentional hole in them, if you adjust the length of the pathway that sound takes to exit the box through this hole then you adjust how bassy it sounds).
To add a hollow cavity into the plastic part would immensely complicate the design of the moulds (assuming you try and implement the cavity in the same style & orientation of what gluing that bit of wood in achieves). The plastic shells of this speaker look like they've been designed for two-part moulds, which is the cheapest and simplest way of designing a mould. Any internal cavities of the part would require bits of steel mould to be in the cavity during injection, those pieces then have to be removed somehow and that would be a nightmare. Two part moulds can just be clamped & separated over and over again without snagging on anything.
For the walls of a speaker to reflect sound they need to have a density that is very different to the air inside the chamber. As it turns out basically anything fulfills this criteria, even cardboard makes fine speakers (just don't get it wet or poke holes in it). Plastic vs MDF wouldn't matter here acoustically, both are fine.
Bits of particle board can easily be cut and glued by unskilled workers. For business reasons the injection moulding might be getting done at a different place to the final assembly, and the product manager who wants the speakers properly ported might only be in charge of the latter. IDK.
I suspect this would be all human assembly. They'll probably have motorised torque-limited screwdrivers and jigs to hold the parts on during assembly, but still human arms doing the work.
In particular: stuffing the white polyester wadding in would be a PITA for an automated assembly machine. Humans are tolerant of variation and bits of wadding blowing away, pre-programmed movement robots are not.