There’s a few luxury cars that use the same or larger engines for the hybrid. Lexus did it with the LS, hybrid 600h had a larger engine (5L) than the gas 460 (4.6L).
Yeah and it prevents issues if the subject line changes in an unexpected way that confuses the email client, or issues where an email chain goes on for a long period of time but retention policies delete old emails. Etc…
The PCB is easy to screw up, so are the cables. And scopes that go that high are expensive but customers expect USB3 even on low volume low cost products so there’s definitely advantages.
There can even just be manufacturing defects the FR4 weave that mess up SI that you might want to check for as a QA step on the assembly line. For hi volume that gets slow or expensive
Yeah, this is a well known technique for boosting resolution.
For example: You add a dithering signal which can be processed out. If the signal has the right properties (for example, random but evenly distributed noise bounded to one LSB), you can then average out multiple samples to get more effective resolution than the ADC has. The additional number of bits scales something like 2^n samples, although if you don’t take sufficient samples this mainly just reduces your SNR. It also requires a periodic input.
However you can also pull similar tricks in the time domain or using simultaneous sampling with multiple ADCs. You can also interleave slower ADCs with a phase shift. This produces stitching artifacts unless you average them out though because ADCs generally are not well matched at the limits. You can bin or calibrate this out somewhat if you can characterize the error.
You can do a similar thing in the frequency domain if the ADC sample window is narrow enough but it has arguably the worst artifacts. Lo-pass the first ADC around N/2. The second ADC use a bandpass from N/2 upto N. The third is N upto 3N/2 etc… but the fourier transform will have a bunch of junk at the stitching points.
Or you can take the sampling scope approach using a fast but low sample rate ADC and many triggers.
I’ve seen most of these done on commercial instruments if you dig into the settings. Some of them you can see in normal operation (like the stitching in the frequency domain).
But I think the other poster was suggesting the first case applies - if you think about it there are certain periodic signals you can add instead of a random signal. That has the advantage of limiting SNR degradation and can also be filtered out easier/ detected i n the data.
Did some similar testing with an on-off rocker switch for a project last year.
Traces were highly predictable if you pressed it just gently past the detent. But if you did it too slowly (restricting the detent force) or used too much follow through (adding to the detent force) the result was very chaotic. Sometimes you could get the bounce period to extend by 10x if you took enough samples.
And if there’s too much current or other problems i saw decent ground and supply bounce too. That definitely makes it toucher to measure the behavior- in some respects a diff or current probe gave even more interesting results.
This is true for basically any AD windows login. If you log in with an account on a machine on your domain, then take that machine offline and change the password elsewhere- you can login with the old password.
If you instead restore network access after it’s been offline long enough - depending on the exact process it will still accept the old password. Entering the old password isn’t enough to trigger domain check in. However, if I recall correctly entering an incorrect password will cause the login window to hang for 30+ seconds while it attempts to perform such a check in to see if your password changed in the interim. This will usually fail - but not always.
It’s probably bad behavior but it’s probably configurable in the domain settings. But it makes the user experience terrible because logging in gets super slow, because domain syncs in azure/ Active Directory are super slow.
Offline can mean anything from "not able to connect to the internet" to "no networking active whatsoever" depending on the context. In this case, "not able to connect to AD for some reason".
I'm not necessarily arguing it should be one way or another, just clarifying what photon_rancher was saying about the offline behavior extending past just RDP login.
As for the article's stance: keep in mind RDP to any user account isn't necessarily automatically required to fix it. In general even, it's a tradeoff one makes when deciding between fail open and secure. There likely isn't a "right" and "wrong" answer here, neither approach is going to make everyone happy. Unsurprisingly, the security researcher is unhappy the needle doesn't lean more in the direction of security.
No, unplugging works because cables are antennas. Power cables being disconnected dramatically reduces the ability for the lightning to couple into the device
The device itself usually has shielding, capacitors, transient suppressors, etc… as well as usually designed to make a poor antenna so on it’s own it will be affected much less than when charging
Surge protectors do work, mind you - but only for weaker storms or pulses coming in from the outside power lines. Just by physically being separated from the final device they are limited in how much they can protect from direct coupling
A lot of CVTs have virtual gears for that even, although others like the prius only have B mode.