Maybe in your particular industry, but I reckon most people using imperial units aren’t using measuring devices with decimal inches or needing the precision of .0001"

1 1/8 inches + 5 27/32 inches + 7 3/16 inches

1/8 = 4/32
3/16 = 6/32
4 + 6 + 27 = 37
37/32 = 1 5/32
1 + 5 + 7 + 1 = 14
Total: 14 5/32

I wouldn’t call it chaos, it’s a straightforward algorithm:

1. Identify the largest denominator
2. Multiply each other fraction by [largest denominator divided by current fraction’s denominator] (e.g. 32/8 = 4, so 1/8 * 4/4 = 4/32)
3. Determine the sum of every numerator
4. Divide and simplify the number if necessary
5. Determine the sum of the integers, including any integers added in the previous step

This works for every measurement because the denominator is always a power of 2.

With that said I absolutely prefer metric.

(512) 382-5968 = (512) FUC-KYOU

Why waste time doing any matching if wantarray == false? Just do:

if(!wantarray) { return 1; }

Before any matching happens, or if you only want one return statement set the value of a variable in if(!wantarray)/elsif(regex) and return that variable at the end.

Why waste time doing any matching if wantarray == false? Just do:

if(!wantarray) { return 1; }

Before any matching happens, or if you only want one return statement set the value of a variable in if(!wantarray)/elsif(regex) and return that variable at the end.

Income or debt?

Oof, as someone who has legitimately struggled with that deeply dark place and thankfully survived multiple attempts, I have a hard time understanding why that subject matter is joke worthy. That’s almost certainly a personal problem though.

So is it

(7-6)(9-6)
(7-11)(9-11)

Or

(6-7)(6-9)
(11-7)(11-9)

Or maybe

(7-6)(9-6)
(11-7)(11-9)

For the record, I am 100% taking the piss.

Also not defending Gates, but realistically it wouldn’t have made any sense for him or anyone at Microsoft to say such a thing. The 640K barrier was not chosen by Microsoft or caused by DOS, it was a limitation of the 8088/8086 CPU that IBM used in the original PC.

It wasn’t until the 80286 that the issue was partially solved, and then the 80386 and on where it was completely solved (though still required a lot of fiddling and manual configuration which was the fault of DOS’ design).

I was serious, but I was clearly mistaken. I still don’t understand the connection to Alan Watts, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the connection is obvious and over my head.

Thank you for sharing the original. I was clearly mistaken.

Seeing the image uncropped and in full resolution makes a big difference.

I’m not sure what the “it” is supposed to be, and I don’t understand how this has anything to do with Alan Watts, but this image has so many oddities that I think this entire post might be AI generated.

Top to bottom:

• White oval with two black inner ovals. Different colors from the surroundings.
• Odd creasing and curvature of what appears to be the rear of a vehicle.
• Head position relative to the rest of the body makes no sense. The neck is conveniently hidden by the hair to try to hide this oddity.
• Some sort of rat tail or spiral on the (stage) left shoulder and below.
• A cat that appears to be under the skirt (presumably intended to be a reference to AFAB genetalia).
• Overall odd proportions, apparently different sized thighs and legs.

This Victor Borge skit immediately came to my mind at the question.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n4MhcWImGkM

HTTP is like a conversation with someone wearing a “Hello my name is X” sticker at a public party, HTTPS is like a conversation with someone proving their identity with a government issued passport in a private room. Anyone can write anything they want on the former, and anyone happening to listen to the conversation can overhear everything. On the other hand, the latter requires basic identity verification and can’t be easily overheard.

With that being said, anyone can also obtain a passport. That means you can be sure that you are interacting with a John Doe, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are interacting with the John Doe you were expecting. For example, John A Doe (e.g. Google.com) is different, but maybe difficult to notice from John E Doe (e.g. Goggle.com), especially at a glance.

I hope that helps.

I’m sorry to say it but now I’m even more confused.

“You’re the vulnerability”

I don’t understand how this can still happen with a well known brand in 2026. Personally the microphone is the least concerning aspect of this finding, since a Bluetooth connection would still be required. With more dedicated research, the BadUSB aspect is far more concerning in my book. Plug the speaker into a computer, even once and only to charge, and the computer is pwned? Preventing any future patching? I don’t know how I could ever trust one of these devices going forward.

I suppose that depends on your definition of a cybersecurity risk. Unfortunately it likely won’t matter to them unless it starts affecting their bottom line.

I don’t understand the purpose of your comment. That word exclusively appears twice in the twelfth paragraph, and makes complete sense in context. I think the write up is incredibly detailed but also easy to understand.

Awesome write up.

Allowing arbitrary firmware updates without any signature validation, over Bluetooth, even unpaired and in sleep mode, and without any authentication is absolutely wild and should be criminal negligence.

It took Creative nearly two months to respond to SingCERT. Unfortunately, their response was that “they do not consider this to be a vulnerability, as it does not present a cybersecurity risk”

What a foolish response. The guy wasn’t asking for money and gave them everything they would need to make a patched firmware.