I know that's the standard but for all private projects I always write little endian so I can sleep soundly at night knowing I've saved precious picoseconds not flipping to cpu order.
Most CPUs suitable to implement such a protocol can do endian swapping for free e.g. a load+bswap instruction, a microarchitecture that fuses load+bswap. Don't worry about byte swapping fixed sized int across the network. Just keep in mind that for some applications it maters e.g. most bignum operations favour little endian, but databases profit from big endian (memcmp sorts in numerical order).
Huh, good to know. I guess the only other downside is actually making the compiler do the bswap depending on the language. Eg C has some weird compiler specific builtin keywords vs zig has a nice packed struct that does it for you.
I had a partner that was a translation coordinator and they would play me this VM from one of the Vietnamese translators, every time he called he would say, “Hi this Phuc, ha ha that is funny to you, anyway …”
Technically. I'm saying there's a huge difference between what a layman might read "large org conspires to spy" and a possible dull reality of "some engineer neglects to remove convenience feature".
Practically it is convenient I think if your ground is third little round prong on the power cord.
I wonder if this is why they suggested a negative voltage. Even though voltages are secretly relative under the hood, it seems like it could simplify things to have two directionally different voltages.
Many reasons. For example, using negative voltage will reduce DC component in the wires, that will improve reliability over long lines, as now all you need is to sense the polarity of the signal, not the level. You'd also need high power reference voltage (for "1") wire going all over the board, which will be nasty polluted with uncorrelated switching noise, will sag in uncorellated way with respect to the "2" (Vcc wire) etc.
