maybe it's just leftover urges from being a toddler putting round pegs in square holes but every time I see a video card like this on ebay I want to buy it and also some RAM chips to fill it with
I think because it's a dual-output card... I think they made it dual-output by basically putting two cards on one card
as jesus said, in the red text, blessed are those who add more RAM to their supervga cards
so I bet you can upgrade this, you just need some stupid proprietary daughterboard
design it for upgrading to more RAM
yeah, the MDA only has 4K of ram and can only use 4K of ram, but what if... it had more?
it reserves 32k of address space anyway, so you could have 8 pages of text screens
big brain: double buffering
cosmic brain: triple buffering
multiversal infinite brain: four milluple buffering
More from foone
More from Tech
I think about this a lot, both in IT and civil infrastructure. It looks so trivial to “fix” from the outside. In fact, it is incredibly draining to do the entirely crushing work of real policy changes internally. It’s harder than drafting a blank page of how the world should be.
I’m at a sort of career crisis point. In my job before, three people could contain the entire complexity of a nation-wide company’s IT infrastructure in their head.
Once you move above that mark, it becomes exponentially, far and away beyond anything I dreamed, more difficult.
And I look at candidates and know-everything’s who think it’s all so easy. Or, people who think we could burn it down with no losses and start over.
God I wish I lived in that world of triviality. In moments, I find myself regretting leaving that place of self-directed autonomy.
For ten years I knew I could build something and see results that same day. Now I’m adjusting to building something in my mind in one day, and it taking a year to do the due-diligence and edge cases and documentation and familiarization and roll-out.
That’s the hard work. It’s not technical. It’s not becoming a rockstar to peers.
These people look at me and just see another self-important idiot in Security who thinks they understand the system others live. Who thinks “bad” designs were made for no reason.
Who wasn’t there.
The tragedy of revolutionaries is they design a utopia by a river but discover the impure city they razed was on stilts for a reason.
— SwiftOnSecurity (@SwiftOnSecurity) June 19, 2016
I’m at a sort of career crisis point. In my job before, three people could contain the entire complexity of a nation-wide company’s IT infrastructure in their head.
Once you move above that mark, it becomes exponentially, far and away beyond anything I dreamed, more difficult.
And I look at candidates and know-everything’s who think it’s all so easy. Or, people who think we could burn it down with no losses and start over.
God I wish I lived in that world of triviality. In moments, I find myself regretting leaving that place of self-directed autonomy.
For ten years I knew I could build something and see results that same day. Now I’m adjusting to building something in my mind in one day, and it taking a year to do the due-diligence and edge cases and documentation and familiarization and roll-out.
That’s the hard work. It’s not technical. It’s not becoming a rockstar to peers.
These people look at me and just see another self-important idiot in Security who thinks they understand the system others live. Who thinks “bad” designs were made for no reason.
Who wasn’t there.
A common misunderstanding about Agile and “Big Design Up Front”:
There’s nothing in the Agile Manifesto or Principles that states you should never have any idea what you’re trying to build.
You’re allowed to think about a desired outcome from the beginning.
It’s not Big Design Up Front if you do in-depth research to understand the user’s problem.
It’s not BDUF if you spend detailed time learning who needs this thing and why they need it.
It’s not BDUF if you help every team member know what success looks like.
Agile is about reducing risk.
It’s not Agile if you increase risk by starting your sprints with complete ignorance.
It’s not Agile if you don’t research.
Don’t make the mistake of shutting down critical understanding by labeling it Bg Design Up Front.
It would be a mistake to assume this research should only be done by designers and researchers.
Product management and developers also need to be out with the team, conducting the research.
Shared Understanding is the key objective
Big Design Up Front is a thing to avoid.
Defining all the functionality before coding is BDUF.
Drawing every screen and every pixel is BDUF.
Promising functionality (or delivery dates) to customers before development starts is BDUF.
These things shouldn’t happen in Agile.
There’s nothing in the Agile Manifesto or Principles that states you should never have any idea what you’re trying to build.
You’re allowed to think about a desired outcome from the beginning.
It’s not Big Design Up Front if you do in-depth research to understand the user’s problem.
It’s not BDUF if you spend detailed time learning who needs this thing and why they need it.
It’s not BDUF if you help every team member know what success looks like.
Agile is about reducing risk.
It’s not Agile if you increase risk by starting your sprints with complete ignorance.
It’s not Agile if you don’t research.
Don’t make the mistake of shutting down critical understanding by labeling it Bg Design Up Front.
It would be a mistake to assume this research should only be done by designers and researchers.
Product management and developers also need to be out with the team, conducting the research.
Shared Understanding is the key objective
I\u2019d recommend that the devs participate directly in the research.
— Jared Spool (@jmspool) November 18, 2018
If the devs go into the first sprint with a thorough understanding of the user\u2019s problems, they are far more likely to solve it well.
Big Design Up Front is a thing to avoid.
Defining all the functionality before coding is BDUF.
Drawing every screen and every pixel is BDUF.
Promising functionality (or delivery dates) to customers before development starts is BDUF.
These things shouldn’t happen in Agile.
There has been a lot of discussion about negative emissions technologies (NETs) lately. While we need to be skeptical of assumed planetary-scale engineering and wary of moral hazard, we also need much greater RD&D funding to keep our options open. A quick thread: 1/10
Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential. https://t.co/M3ACyD4cv7 2/10
In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10
This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10
Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10
Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential. https://t.co/M3ACyD4cv7 2/10
There is a lot of confusion about carbon budgets and how quickly emissions need to fall to zero to meet various warming targets. To cut through some of this morass, we can use some very simple emission pathways to explore what various targets would entail. 1/11 pic.twitter.com/Kriedtf0Ec
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) September 24, 2020
In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10
This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10
Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10
You May Also Like
![Peter McCormack [Jan/3\u279e\u20bf \U0001f511\u220e]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1524287442307723265/_59ITDbJ_normal.jpg)
The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.
This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/
A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/
https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/
https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/
Flat Earth conference attendees explain how they have been brainwashed by YouTube and Infowarshttps://t.co/gqZwGXPOoc
— Raw Story (@RawStory) November 18, 2018
This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/
A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/
https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/
https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/