The situation today is at least better than it used to be before OBDII. I much prefer using a scanner to get codes then having to count flashing lights. And back then you'd still have to pay a lot for the manufacturer's code reader. The only advantage was the ROM was small enough to disassemble and reflash with new features. I would not want to do that on a car made in 2026.

I wonder if this notion comes from the 80s, when engines with turbos had lower compression ratios for reliability. Today's turbocharged motors have higher compression ratios than in the malaise era, and the turbos have a lot less lag. Turbos no longer mean you have to sacrifice fuel economy for performance (unless you have a lead foot).

Nope, just engineering to do not much more for warranty. Turbo engines arent inherently unreliable (tho you might need to replace the turbo itself every 100-200k so still more expensive to maintain), just need to build extra strong block and components if you want it to run for a long time.

And why would company do that if that would put it far over warranty period?

>Turbos no longer mean you have to sacrifice fuel economy for performance (unless you have a lead foot).

That's incorrect. Virtually every turbo'd gas car runs slightly richer than stoich to use the unburnt fuel to manage temp/knock. Diesels, you actually get more efficiency out of with a turbo for free. With gas you're practically guaranteed to be throwing fuel out the pipe.

That isn't some turbo specialty, the effect is the same in both NA and turbo engines. And AFAIK it isn't really feasible anymore. I don't know about other manufacturers, but for example Volkswagen Group's EA211 EVO2 engines run pinned at lambda 1 no matter what.

All I know is my last turbo'd vehicle was always running at 13.8, and that was a 2013 Nissan with a turbo'd L4, and it annoyed the piss out of me. Pretty much guaranteed only getting 26 MPG at highway speeds. This was despite claims in the manual saying the AFR was fuel octane dependent & would automatically vary (which I found out through experimentation was full of shit). It just stayed pinned to 13.8 whether you ran 87 or 91.

Compare the number of tractors to the number of gas-powered lawnmowers. Which do you think gets better emissions?

I'd imagine it depends what kind of emissions you're measuring? Are we talking air quality or climate change?

Two stroke engines are pretty terrible in terms of unburned hydrocarbons and are disgusting for local air quality, which is why I'm glad they're being phased out in many areas.

I'd expect these tractors with I6 diesel engines to run pretty efficiently. I'd bet that the CO2 emissions from tractors are tiny in comparison from the emissions from trucks, fertiliser, and transporting the food.

Lawnmowers are usually four-stroke, with two-stroke engines reserved for lighter tools like string trimmers and chainsaws.

I would still guess that lawnmowers produce more emissions overall, given that there are so many more mowers than tractors. But they get used less often than tractors, so who knows? Either way, I agree with your thinking process, that the most economical way to reduce overall emissions is to focus on what are actually producing the bulk of emissions.

I don't know how much better cars and trucks can get, and for mowers maybe electric is the answer. Mine is gas-powered, and I know it runs rich. I would love to come inside after mowing and not smell like fuel, so I'm in favor of better emissions controls on mowers.

For tools electric is the answer. To take a chainsaw, the battery needs to be replaced just as often as with refilling the fuel tank. And with newer batteries you might recharge the depleted one as fast as discharging a fresh one. Not sure, just an assumption.

The future for tools is electric 100%.

my brother in Christ, electric chainsaws are garbage, have you ever used one? I tried one out to clear a huge 3 foot wide tree that fell on my property and yeah those things cannot hang with gas powered chainsaws in any way, shape, or form. No one is using electric chainsaws for cutting anything significant.

they may have a place in the distant future but in 2026, aint no way.

I haven't used a chainsaw in a few years, but the last time I did, electric ones with a cord were great. I switched from a proper Stihl chainsaw to a budget electric one with a cord, and despite it being smaller and sort of flimsy, it did cut like crazy, comparable to the gas chainsaw. And it didn't require ear protection, didn't annoy the neighbors and didn't make you smell like a chainsaw for two days.

Which electric chainsaw did you use?

I haven't used one, but I saw a youtube review from Project Farm. You can check it yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6FM_08066I

The DeWalt chainsaw was similar or better than Stihl, in a different series of tests, including cutting trough 10 inch logs.

There were other brands which would stall or be worse, so it depends on the brand.

I like the electric saw for limbing and felling small stuff because it's light and quiet but yeah for anything bigger than like 9" or extended work it's not the tool for the job.

How do you define "electronics" and "computers"? Is a general-purpose computer running Java in the same category as a microcontroller running a tight loop with lookup tables for fuel and spark?

The problem: Once you have a microcontroller running a tight loop with lookup tables for fuel and spark, it's very tempting to make it run a tight loop with lookup tables for fuel, spark, and time since license renewal - and there's no outward difference between the two microcontrollers until one of them stops working. This is where regulations can help: if a manufacturer is afraid of a zillion dollar fine, they won't do that, even if the chance of getting caught is low.

While I agree in principle, we went two or more decades with cars powered by microcontrollers, and I don't recall any manufacturers trying to charge for licenses until more recently. There is something fundamentally different about the economy we are now in, I suspect.

I think the difference is that in the past, companies expected to be punished for obviously evil behavior, but now, they know they can go very far. Toyota got punished for stuck accelerators. Would they get punished for the same thing today? Tesla had stuck accelerators and we all forgot about it.

They're still pushing the boundary today. The Ring Superbowl ad where they announced they're watching you (but they said "your dog") 24/7 apparently got a lot of people to quit Ring, and you know they're crunching the numbers to see if the retention rate is worth the extra surveillance collection.

They charge for the diagnostic systems. Bigly. For example, Mercedes-Benz's Star Diagnostic System (SDS) is necessary for a variety of repairs and diagnostic procedures. There are varying degrees of workarounds and alternatives but none of them work quite right, or for every model/year/variant. It's not just the embedded system, it's also the interface to it. That's where the really ugly rent seeking crops up. And that's precisely why a tractor with no computers is attractive--not because the embedded software might try to ransom itself (although that's a reasonable fear) but because some horrible rent seeking corporate functionary will do their utmost to cheat you (or your mechanic) out of as much money as possible when it comes time to do any maintenance or diagnostic testing. No computers means that little bastard can fuck right off.

I still don't understand what was downvotable about this comment.

I think it's great that projects like this exist where people are building middleware in different ways than others. Still, as someone who routinely uses shared memory queues, the idea of considering a queue built inside a database to be "zero bloat" leaves me scratching my head a bit. I can see why someone would want that, but once person's feature is bloat to someone else.

In Postgres land bloat refers to dead tuples that are left in place during certain operations and need to be vacuumed later.

It’s challenging to write a queue that doesn’t create bloat, hence why this project is citing it as a feature.

Can’t you just partition the table by time (or whatever) and drop old partitions and not worry about vacuuming? Why do you need to keep around completed jobs forever?

If you're looking for kafka-like semantics, you might want to keep messages around.

Your temporal partition idea is spot on. But instead of dropping old partitions, you can instead archive them.

What about old failed jobs? You might wanna keep them around? And maybe you have retries that have a backoff.

In theory that is part of what was supposed to have been solved by CAT.

What is CAT?

Or GIMP.

I think 5x86 had more to do with marketing than anything else, because the Pentium had already been on the market for a while when the Am5x86 came out.

I think it’s a bit of both. It absolutely tried very hard to pretend that it was a ”586” (Pentium class) but also ”5x” is right there and implies that if the DX4 is 4, this is 5.

The full name on the chip on some of them is ”Am5x86-P75 DX5-133” which implies a lot of things, some of which are flat out misleading (it does not get very close to ”P75” performance)

I had one of these back on the day. A very fine 486

What was buggy about DOS 4? I ran it for years until I switched to DR DOS 5.

There were two entirely separate DOS 4s

The multi-tasking DOS 4 that had its next release be branded as OS/2

and the other one, a conventional DOS stopgap product

I used dosshell on IBM PC DOS 4.0. I don't remember that feature. Was it added in 5?