Great project! Kudos for figuring out all that stuff on your own. Assuming you are actually reading these comments, a few suggestions:
* C compilers that can target 16 bit x86 usually have support for "far pointers", which are 32 bit wide pointers consisting of both a 16 bit segment and a 16 bit offset. You should be able to use that instead of your assembly wrappers. This allows you to directly access screen memory in C, i.e. letting the compiler do the job of setting up the segment registers, which also has the great benefit of not having to push, write, and pop ES for every byte (if you copy a block into screen memory for example, the compiler only needs to set up the destination register once).
* The IVT is correspondingly also a list of FAR pointers. It's a common 16 bit x86 concept. The CPU knows about them, they are also more generally used for far jumps and far calls.
* As others have said, just pick one of the many, many available text mode font ROMs.
* I'm curious how compatible that AMD Elan is to actual PCs. Probably a lot, since by that time PCs were kind of the x86 standard, though not necessarily. The earlier 80186 with its integrated peripherals (interrupt controller etc.) was very incompatible, for example. Shouldn't impede your project, just dictates how easily you can run DOS programs overall.
I did not mean it’s a trick users applied, I meant that the developers of the 1541 DOS implemented this very trick. You load a textual representation of the directory into memory as a BAISC program, that’s pretty funky.
And it was precisely done because the straightforward way, which would have been something like opening a sequential channel with a dedicated directory listing command and reading out from it, would have been immensely awkward under BASIC 2.0. Hence the magic “$” program.
No, that was BASIC 2.0, and using any DOS commands was extremely awkward.
With the notable exception of listing the directory, which was pretty easy through a trick from the disk drive’s DOS which meant you could load the disk directory “as a program” with a special name, “$”, and then just LIST it. But you see, the drive’s DOS had to sort of go out of its way to make that simple.
Yeah, but you can still talk to other hosts on the same link, not just the router, at any layer protocol. Link local addresses are not routable, but if you want to talk on the same network segment, that's fine.
Impressive, but I always wonder how much stability testing goes into these overclocks.
With just the stock tools, I can push my GeForce pretty far (relatively spoken, absolutely nowhere near what "professional" overclockers can achieve, of course), and it may appear stable for many hours, until suddenly it crashes anyway.
So what's the qualification of a "successful" overclock? Is it just passing a benchmark, and after that for all we care it can go up in flames?
Why don't you just use the IPv6 address directly then? Phrased differently, what's better about IPv4 in your particular case that makes it worthwhile to only use IPv6 for "bootstrapping" IPv4?
I must say, I rather enjoy both IPv6s autoconfiguration, and the fact that my non-link-local addresses are actually unique (and if I want to, routable).
Absolutely it is. But still, the colons and brackets often make things awkward, leading not only to such compatibility bugs, but to general usability issues. Colons and brackets are just too overloaded within both destination specifiers (e.g. for ports, paths...) and shell syntax, and probably other things, where as the dot '.' rarely is.
I'm an avid user of IPv6 by the way, I don't share a lot of the criticism. For me personally it's a net positive. But this is a wart where I wish they went a different direction.
Yeah. I think that's actually my one, biggest gripe about IPv6, those damn colons. And those damn brackets that were made to mitigate the colons, that just cause more problems:
Just yesterday I tried to use rsync (like I do all the time, in my mind there's no reason to use scp when rsync does everything better), but this time I needed to specify an IPv6 address. On the (admittedly ancient) rsync version that comes with macOS, this doesn't work:
rsync foo 'user@[fe80::4]:/tmp'
Note already, how I had to put the second argument in quotes, because otherwise the shell tries to expand the square brackets as filename expansion.
But even then rsync just complains, because rsync itself separates host from path through colon. I think the only workaround is to do something like `rsync -e 'ssh user@[fe80::4] ...'`... but I just used an updated rsync from homebrew, which is of course the saner method. Still, just another colon/bracket-caused issue.
I hear that a lot, but I familiarized myself with it once and ever since it makes a lot of sense to me.
Source ending in “/“: You want what’s inside. Source not ending in “/“: You want the thing (i.e. directory itself). For the destination, it does not matter whether it ends in “/“ or not, but for consistency I like adding a “/“ anyway (I want to put thing inside the directory).
You know better, as you have all the information and we merely have a shadow of it, but that in itself still sounds like “standard boilerplate” to me.
I remember from my friends who worked at Google at the time, that everyone’s always been told that “every new hire’s contract lands on Larry Page’s desk, he has to sign off on it”, and you can probably bet your bottom dollar that Larry Page didn’t spend a lot of time on each hiring package, if any.
Good points. My hypothetical had the implicit assumption that the interviewer was acting in good faith when asking the weekend question. But that doesn't mean that interviewers necessarily are, of course.
Well, I have no idea what they actually specifically asked or didn't ask, because the article is light on details. So I just elaborated on what I consider crossing into unacceptable (which I believe is based on commonly shared conventions), and everyone can draw their own conclusions for any particular situation.
We weren't there, and the article is light on details, so we can only speculate. I see two options here:
a) The potential employer vastly overstepped commonly accepted boundaries.
b) It was totally implied that the questions were to be answered in the context of work. "What was the hardest challenge you had to overcome?" in that context relates to e.g. debugging a hard concurrency problem, not your divorce.
What stood out to me is that whatever interpretation is the correct one, the candidate was willing to give (apparently) deeply personal answers. That's just something to adjust for in upcoming interviews, we live and learn.
And even if, for the sake of argument, they legitimately did ask about your personal life instead of your work life... you normally wouldn't answer any of that. (In fact, it could very well mean the end of the interview, from the interviewee's side.)
That's vastly overstepping commonly accepted boundaries. Sure, some surface level smalltalk is normal and expected: "Any hobbies? Ah, you like hiking? Nice. Where do you like to hike? Oh, I did that, too. Might I suggest hiking there and there? I bet you'd like it. Anyway, moving on!" Common ground helps conversations flow.
But an employer asking about your personal relationships? Your needs, fears, and desires outside of any technical context? (My needs, fears, and desires from compiler toolchains are totally within scope.) Your traumata? That's a level of intrusiveness crossing into "rude" territory. They have no business of asking.
I don't know your particular situation, so it might be totally different, but I think this is commonly just a formality and a friendly chat.
It's a chance for you to meet the actual CEO (or VP or whatever in a larger company), and also for them to get to meet you in advance, instead of effectively getting "blindsided" by a new person (to exaggerate a bit).
Usually, by the time you've gotten to that point, the decision to hire you has well and truly been made. I don't know what then would need to happen for the actually rather secondary function of giving the CEO the opportunity to veto to become relevant. I'd be curious hearing about anyone who's ever experienced it (on whatever side). I guess it can be a safeguard against vastly unaligned values, but I suspect it's very rare.
But primarily, and effectively, it's usually just a meet-and-greet. And it's hard for me to blame a CEO (or VP etc.) for at least getting to anyone who's going to enter a mutual contract to effectively become part of their company.