Someone's panties are all in a bunch, wouldn'tchaknow. Seriously, nobody's accusing you of anything; but, if it acts as a deterrent, or they happen to catch a thief, it keeps prices lower for you (or profits higher for the shareholders, which could also include you), and if the anti-cheating software happens to catch a cheat, that added proof that you actually did the work makes your degree that much more valuable.
Best Buy checks receipts? Since when? I have to ask because they weren't doing that at any of my local stores last time I shopped there. then again, it's been a couple years so that may have changed.
The average adult, globally, has much more buying/trading power than an American with $10 in their pocket and no debt, yet simply having $10 in your pocket and no debt makes you wealthier than 25% of Americans. While I'm doing quite well for myself, I couldn't afford to go buy a goat right now, but people living in mud huts do so routinely. Yes, collectively, we have more currency than most of the world, but per-capita, we have less buying/trading power than most 3rd world nations. It gets worse when you remove the 0.1% of Americans who control 22% of household wealth from the equation; worse still when you remove the 10% who control 80% of the wealth. Remove the outliers (and with weighting like that, there's nothing to remove from the low end) and calculate the buying/trading power of the average American, the compare that with the buying/trading power of the average person in, say, Ghana, then tell me who can afford more. Keep in mind that debt is *negative* buying/trading power, it's literally money already spent. If someone has $10,000.00 in liquid assets but $10,000.01 in debt, they legitimately have ($0.01) buying/trading power. That's negative one cent.
We only appear to have buying power in the US because we are extended much more credit than we can afford. Consider:
The average US salary is $51,000 per year, the average home price in the US is $188,900 per year (at 4% for 30 years), the average US car price is $32,086 (at 5% for 5 years), and the average American has $16,000 in revolving credit (at 14.9% in perpetuity). That means, right out of the gate, the average American is going to have $236,986 in debt which would take nearly 5 years to pay off with no interest, assuming they could throw their entire salary at the debt. Now, consider that the average American spends $151/wk on food (and doesn't necessarily eat much better than people in agriculturally-capable 3rd world countries), for a family of 3, that's $23,556 per year, leaving only $27,444 per year to pay down that debt, which would take almost 9 years if not for interest. Except that we also need clothing, which costs the average American family of 3 $174/mo, or $2,088 per year, leaving only $25,356. At that rate, it will take over 9 years to pay down that debt, with no interest. We've covered food, shelter, clothing, and transportation, so we'll ignore other expenses since the average American could forgo those if necessary.
Since I'm not writing a text book, I'm going to simplify the interest for the first year; I'll go with a set of estimates based on 6mo of payments toward each debt (e.g. I'll estimate the year's compound interest by calculating interest based on the mid-year principal balance), which won't be perfectly accurate. Some balances will be higher, some will be lower, in the end it should be fairly accurate; the interest calculated will likely be a bit low, but accurate enough to highlight my point. The average American's housing cost accounts for 79.71% of their debt, while transportation accounts for 13.53%, leaving the remaining 6.76% to revolving debt, so that is how I will distribute excess (e.g. over the minimum) payments for this example. The minimum payment for a $188,900 30 year home loan @ 4% is $902/mo, or $5,412 every 6mo; the minimum payment on a $32,086 5 year car loan @ 5% is $606/mo, or $3,636 every 6mo; and, the minimum payment on $16,000 of revolving debt @ 14.9% is $640/mo, or $3,840 every 6mo. Remember, the average American has $25,356 available each year to pay debts, half of that (to get 6mo of payments) is $12,678, so that is the number I'll be basing 6mo of payments on. Well, there's already a problem, given that the minimum payments total up to $12,888, over 6 months, which is $210 more than the average American will be able to pay in that time.
So, which payments get cut? Remember the percentages I calculated for excess payments? We'll cut everyone according to their share of that $210 deficit, based on those percentages. So, we'll cut the housing payment by $167,
Yes, of course a host needs a CPU in order to emulate another CPU, but it needn't be the same (or even similar) architecture (e.g. it doesn't need an x86 class CPU to emulate an x86 class CPU, though it *does* help speed things up a bit). As for the RTC, or any other hardware, well, all you need is the CPU and some clever software to emulate pretty much anything.
We're not talking about realtime emulation where 1 second of emulated time equals 1 second of actual time, we're talking perfect (from the perspective of the application, not the user) emulation, where X emulated clock ticks equals 1 second of real time. For that, all you need to do is count clock ticks and advance the counter on your emulated RTC accordingly. You can do that on a system with no hardware RTC at all. For extra realism, emulate jitter by advancing it a handful of ticks early or late. It doesn't matter if 1 second of emulated time equals 1 year of real time (e.g. emulating a 1GHz CPU on a 33MHz CPU sharing the same instruction set and architecture, assuming ideal conditions). From inside that simulation, the application would think 1 second had passed, regardless of how much time had passed in reality.
That's actually, by definition, how an insulated VM works. An insulated VM is in no way efficient, it's intended to be secure above all else. That means no instructions from the VM ever get passed to any physical hardware; CPU instructions run on a software virtualized CPU (no VT-x or similar technologies) or through a software translation layer and calls to any other hardware run through software that emulates said hardware; no physical hardware need exist beyond the CPU, some RAM, and the minimal hardware required to support those. How do you think an NES emulator works on a PC (or phone)? You don't honestly think that every bit of hardware that exists in an NES console also exists within every PC and phone, do you? No, they're emulated in software. All of it, right down to the CPU.
What marcello_dl was saying, and said quite effectively for those of us who understand how emulation works, is that it is impossible, from inside an insulated system, to tell that you are in an insulated system. The biggest clue you could possibly have is timing, and when your timing device is emulated to match the speed of your processor, adding some jitter for effect, that clue doesn't exist. From there, the best you can do is find some piece of hardware that doesn't work as expected; but that's not conclusive, either, as you can't prove whether the unexpected behavior is the result of poor emulation or faulty/failing hardware. To marcello_dl's point, when you pull the trigger of a loaded gun with all safeties off, you expect a loud bang and at least one new hole in someone or something; when you don't get that, you can't prove that it was a failure of the gun or bullet and not an emulation error. That's why there are people out there who genuinely believe we live in a simulation, and I'll grant them that it's possible (though not very likely), given some things I've experienced that really don't have any explanation other than "I was really high despite not having taken any drugs" or that. It would explain why the universe appears to be growing and we appear to be able to use the same techniques we've had access to for centuries to find smaller and smaller particles (e.g. the simulation's available storage is growing, allowing it to render and present finer detail) but, then, so would a handful of other, much more likely, scenarios (e.g. the big bang).
Having worked at Home Depot in my lesser years, no, the cashier was doing their job and making sure they scanned all of your items. About 20% of the theft in my store was sliding small items under the garden center gate, 10% was walkouts, and 70% was people shoving shit in shop vacs, so yeah, not blaming anyone for checking those.
When you've got a couple dozen small items, it's not hard to miss something. On top of that, some of us value our time such that the once every couple years something might be left out of the bag costs less than the time it takes to check every bag, every time. I happen to be one of those people so, while I do watch things being rung up, and bagged, that doesn't mean something small might not get dropped or miss the bag without me seeing it. It also doesn't help that the local Fry's doesn't have bagging stations, so everything is moved from one side of the counter to the other as it is scanned, then bagged after the transaction has completed; by then it's close to the inner edge of the counter where it is more likely to fall without being noticed by the customer. There really isn't room for them to have 32 registers in any other configuration, so I don't fault them for it; especially as they've implemented a secondary bag check as you exit. Fry's is really the only place I don't mind letting them check, as well, because the checkers are always courteous and if they're not busy and you've got time, they're typically quite happy to chat for a while.
Well, since I know they're gonna check the bag on the way out anyway, why am I gonna take 2 minutes of my own time to sort through a couple dozen small items in my bag? Honestly, if you're double checking your bags with more than a handful of items, you're just pissing off everyone in line behind you.
You are right though, I should probably put some clothes on.
Ever since the checker at Fry's caught that one of my items (the smallest yet most expensive item on my ticket) was not in my bag, I'm more than happy to let them check. It's not always a loss-prevention, treat you like a criminal, measure. In fact, having talked to the checkers quite a bit when the store is slow, I've learned that they catch people leaving without what they paid for much more often than the other way round. At least at Fry's, it truly is a customer service initiative. And yes, cashiers do face consequences for not making sure the customer leaves their register with all of their purchases.
Not so. In fact, you can tap the unlocked lock icon on the lock screen to re-lock the phone, even if you're in a trusted location or connected to a trusted device. Leaving, then returning to that location does, in fact, not automatically unlock the phone; you still have to unlock it once, and you can still re-lock it if you so choose. I don't use trusted devices (the only one I'd use is my smartwatch, which someone can just steal along with my phone), so I can't speak for whether those auto-unlock or not, but I'd imagine them to be the same.
I honestly think these women are the product of broken homes. Daddy didn't treat sister as well as brother; since he'd have been her template for a man, her view of all men is skewed by this, and confirmed the first time she picks up a random douchebag at a bar. Case in point, I have an ex who was so broken from the way her father and her first boyfriend (thankfully, not one in the same) mistreated her that she was so convinced I was cheating on her (mind you, I was faithful) that she felt the affair she had was justified. I didn't learn of the affair until several years later when I put two and two together (I was naive and young, didn't see what was right in front of me); the reason I actually left her is that she was also physically abusive (and thought herself justified in that, as well). Her physical attacks always ended in me defending myself, her hurting herself instead, and then telling everyone I attacked her. That was a hell of a situation that I'm glad I got out of; but I don't blame her nearly as much as I blame her father.
That said, it is impossible to sympathize with someone who insists that every action you take is a display of weakness or inferiority. It's sad, really, as these women truly just need help, they need to be shown that chauvinistic, abusive, asshole pig men are the minority, but, just like any minority, they're also much easier to spot in the crowd, making it seem as though there are many more of them than there are. The battles being waged are imaginary battles against all men, rather than targeted battles against the few who are actually the problem. It's to the point where the faux feminism (fauxminism?) these women display can probably be diagnosed as a form of PTSD. True feminists are only interested in advancing their gender (e.g. equality) and, in general, have no interest in knocking men down in the process; in my experience, they also have no problem calling out fauxminists for what they are.
... which this project, apparently, does not violate, since it's still up. Huh. Go figure. Now, if someone takes offense to such things, they're free to simply not read them; it's not like he's standing outside everyone's window with a bullhorn and screaming the jokes at them.
And people are not automatically right simply because you cry "opression!" about a current hot button topic.
Damn, before you said that, we could just cry "oppression" to people crying "oppression", then we'd be right and they'd STFU. Keep doing what you're doing, by the way; I'm glad to see there are more like me in the world.
Indeed, they are. And, as of yet, they haven't decided they don't want to host this one. I think what MrBigInThePants was hinting at is that everyone else should sit down, shut up, and let GitHub make that decision for itself, like the big boy it is. You even just said as much yourself.
Huh, well, it seems that, thus far, GitHub hasn't weighed in on the matter. If anyone has the right to be offended (as they didn't have the opportunity to avoid it), it's them. If GitHub agrees with you, they'll pull the project; if they don't, then it would seem you're just spouting nonsense for attention. Not really that hard of a concept to grasp, really.
Personally, I think they should change the first name in his profile to Mike. I know I'm gonna take some flack for this, but hey, it wasn't a dick joke.
I'll bite. Because that's really one of the things I come here to do: feed the trolls.
Do you not see the rift between looking up someone's posting history to gauge what kind of personality you're up against and stalking? It's not like a doxxed you, your email address is right there above every one of your posts. I typed it into Google and clicked the first result; if that's stalking, well, my email address is at the top of every one of my posts, as well; go ahead, file a report and have me arrested. Stalking is a felony, after all.
You're really missing an opportunity to make an excellent point, though, so I'll make it for you: everything you post online is there for the world to see, and it's trivial to link your past posts with your identity. That reason, alone, should be enough to stop people from posting immature drivel (like dick jokes) others may find offensive in public forums.
For the record, although I do find the occasional dick joke amusing, no, I have not read through the DICSS repo. I did take a peek to find out what DICSS was an acronym for, and it's a legitimate name; or, at least, it would be if the code wasn't rife with dick jokes.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone's panties are all in a bunch, wouldn'tchaknow. Seriously, nobody's accusing you of anything; but, if it acts as a deterrent, or they happen to catch a thief, it keeps prices lower for you (or profits higher for the shareholders, which could also include you), and if the anti-cheating software happens to catch a cheat, that added proof that you actually did the work makes your degree that much more valuable.
So, where's the problem?
Damnit, that was <750GB.
This. We already have >1TB SSDs, so clearly they're already using $alot of the current 750GB packages to do that.
Best Buy checks receipts? Since when? I have to ask because they weren't doing that at any of my local stores last time I shopped there. then again, it's been a couple years so that may have changed.
The average adult, globally, has much more buying/trading power than an American with $10 in their pocket and no debt, yet simply having $10 in your pocket and no debt makes you wealthier than 25% of Americans. While I'm doing quite well for myself, I couldn't afford to go buy a goat right now, but people living in mud huts do so routinely. Yes, collectively, we have more currency than most of the world, but per-capita, we have less buying/trading power than most 3rd world nations. It gets worse when you remove the 0.1% of Americans who control 22% of household wealth from the equation; worse still when you remove the 10% who control 80% of the wealth. Remove the outliers (and with weighting like that, there's nothing to remove from the low end) and calculate the buying/trading power of the average American, the compare that with the buying/trading power of the average person in, say, Ghana, then tell me who can afford more. Keep in mind that debt is *negative* buying/trading power, it's literally money already spent. If someone has $10,000.00 in liquid assets but $10,000.01 in debt, they legitimately have ($0.01) buying/trading power. That's negative one cent.
We only appear to have buying power in the US because we are extended much more credit than we can afford. Consider:
The average US salary is $51,000 per year, the average home price in the US is $188,900 per year (at 4% for 30 years), the average US car price is $32,086 (at 5% for 5 years), and the average American has $16,000 in revolving credit (at 14.9% in perpetuity). That means, right out of the gate, the average American is going to have $236,986 in debt which would take nearly 5 years to pay off with no interest, assuming they could throw their entire salary at the debt. Now, consider that the average American spends $151/wk on food (and doesn't necessarily eat much better than people in agriculturally-capable 3rd world countries), for a family of 3, that's $23,556 per year, leaving only $27,444 per year to pay down that debt, which would take almost 9 years if not for interest. Except that we also need clothing, which costs the average American family of 3 $174/mo, or $2,088 per year, leaving only $25,356. At that rate, it will take over 9 years to pay down that debt, with no interest. We've covered food, shelter, clothing, and transportation, so we'll ignore other expenses since the average American could forgo those if necessary.
Since I'm not writing a text book, I'm going to simplify the interest for the first year; I'll go with a set of estimates based on 6mo of payments toward each debt (e.g. I'll estimate the year's compound interest by calculating interest based on the mid-year principal balance), which won't be perfectly accurate. Some balances will be higher, some will be lower, in the end it should be fairly accurate; the interest calculated will likely be a bit low, but accurate enough to highlight my point. The average American's housing cost accounts for 79.71% of their debt, while transportation accounts for 13.53%, leaving the remaining 6.76% to revolving debt, so that is how I will distribute excess (e.g. over the minimum) payments for this example. The minimum payment for a $188,900 30 year home loan @ 4% is $902/mo, or $5,412 every 6mo; the minimum payment on a $32,086 5 year car loan @ 5% is $606/mo, or $3,636 every 6mo; and, the minimum payment on $16,000 of revolving debt @ 14.9% is $640/mo, or $3,840 every 6mo. Remember, the average American has $25,356 available each year to pay debts, half of that (to get 6mo of payments) is $12,678, so that is the number I'll be basing 6mo of payments on. Well, there's already a problem, given that the minimum payments total up to $12,888, over 6 months, which is $210 more than the average American will be able to pay in that time.
So, which payments get cut? Remember the percentages I calculated for excess payments? We'll cut everyone according to their share of that $210 deficit, based on those percentages. So, we'll cut the housing payment by $167,
Yes, of course a host needs a CPU in order to emulate another CPU, but it needn't be the same (or even similar) architecture (e.g. it doesn't need an x86 class CPU to emulate an x86 class CPU, though it *does* help speed things up a bit). As for the RTC, or any other hardware, well, all you need is the CPU and some clever software to emulate pretty much anything.
We're not talking about realtime emulation where 1 second of emulated time equals 1 second of actual time, we're talking perfect (from the perspective of the application, not the user) emulation, where X emulated clock ticks equals 1 second of real time. For that, all you need to do is count clock ticks and advance the counter on your emulated RTC accordingly. You can do that on a system with no hardware RTC at all. For extra realism, emulate jitter by advancing it a handful of ticks early or late. It doesn't matter if 1 second of emulated time equals 1 year of real time (e.g. emulating a 1GHz CPU on a 33MHz CPU sharing the same instruction set and architecture, assuming ideal conditions). From inside that simulation, the application would think 1 second had passed, regardless of how much time had passed in reality.
That's actually, by definition, how an insulated VM works. An insulated VM is in no way efficient, it's intended to be secure above all else. That means no instructions from the VM ever get passed to any physical hardware; CPU instructions run on a software virtualized CPU (no VT-x or similar technologies) or through a software translation layer and calls to any other hardware run through software that emulates said hardware; no physical hardware need exist beyond the CPU, some RAM, and the minimal hardware required to support those. How do you think an NES emulator works on a PC (or phone)? You don't honestly think that every bit of hardware that exists in an NES console also exists within every PC and phone, do you? No, they're emulated in software. All of it, right down to the CPU.
What marcello_dl was saying, and said quite effectively for those of us who understand how emulation works, is that it is impossible, from inside an insulated system, to tell that you are in an insulated system. The biggest clue you could possibly have is timing, and when your timing device is emulated to match the speed of your processor, adding some jitter for effect, that clue doesn't exist. From there, the best you can do is find some piece of hardware that doesn't work as expected; but that's not conclusive, either, as you can't prove whether the unexpected behavior is the result of poor emulation or faulty/failing hardware. To marcello_dl's point, when you pull the trigger of a loaded gun with all safeties off, you expect a loud bang and at least one new hole in someone or something; when you don't get that, you can't prove that it was a failure of the gun or bullet and not an emulation error. That's why there are people out there who genuinely believe we live in a simulation, and I'll grant them that it's possible (though not very likely), given some things I've experienced that really don't have any explanation other than "I was really high despite not having taken any drugs" or that. It would explain why the universe appears to be growing and we appear to be able to use the same techniques we've had access to for centuries to find smaller and smaller particles (e.g. the simulation's available storage is growing, allowing it to render and present finer detail) but, then, so would a handful of other, much more likely, scenarios (e.g. the big bang).
Having worked at Home Depot in my lesser years, no, the cashier was doing their job and making sure they scanned all of your items. About 20% of the theft in my store was sliding small items under the garden center gate, 10% was walkouts, and 70% was people shoving shit in shop vacs, so yeah, not blaming anyone for checking those.
When you've got a couple dozen small items, it's not hard to miss something. On top of that, some of us value our time such that the once every couple years something might be left out of the bag costs less than the time it takes to check every bag, every time. I happen to be one of those people so, while I do watch things being rung up, and bagged, that doesn't mean something small might not get dropped or miss the bag without me seeing it. It also doesn't help that the local Fry's doesn't have bagging stations, so everything is moved from one side of the counter to the other as it is scanned, then bagged after the transaction has completed; by then it's close to the inner edge of the counter where it is more likely to fall without being noticed by the customer. There really isn't room for them to have 32 registers in any other configuration, so I don't fault them for it; especially as they've implemented a secondary bag check as you exit. Fry's is really the only place I don't mind letting them check, as well, because the checkers are always courteous and if they're not busy and you've got time, they're typically quite happy to chat for a while.
Well, since I know they're gonna check the bag on the way out anyway, why am I gonna take 2 minutes of my own time to sort through a couple dozen small items in my bag? Honestly, if you're double checking your bags with more than a handful of items, you're just pissing off everyone in line behind you.
You are right though, I should probably put some clothes on.
An insulated VM, which is what marcello_dl was talking about, wouldn't rely on a hardware RTC; if it did, it wouldn't be insulated, would it?
Ever since the checker at Fry's caught that one of my items (the smallest yet most expensive item on my ticket) was not in my bag, I'm more than happy to let them check. It's not always a loss-prevention, treat you like a criminal, measure. In fact, having talked to the checkers quite a bit when the store is slow, I've learned that they catch people leaving without what they paid for much more often than the other way round. At least at Fry's, it truly is a customer service initiative. And yes, cashiers do face consequences for not making sure the customer leaves their register with all of their purchases.
Pretty sure that with a bit of timing measurement, you could tell apart a C64 from recent Intel.
Assuming the RTC isn't also emulated (and based on emulated CPU clock ticks).
Hang a crowbar on the wall to use as a towel rack. Patent pending.
Not so. In fact, you can tap the unlocked lock icon on the lock screen to re-lock the phone, even if you're in a trusted location or connected to a trusted device. Leaving, then returning to that location does, in fact, not automatically unlock the phone; you still have to unlock it once, and you can still re-lock it if you so choose. I don't use trusted devices (the only one I'd use is my smartwatch, which someone can just steal along with my phone), so I can't speak for whether those auto-unlock or not, but I'd imagine them to be the same.
Methinks someone is making shit up.
Don't install the flashlight that needs access to your SD card and the internet and you'll be alright.
I honestly think these women are the product of broken homes. Daddy didn't treat sister as well as brother; since he'd have been her template for a man, her view of all men is skewed by this, and confirmed the first time she picks up a random douchebag at a bar. Case in point, I have an ex who was so broken from the way her father and her first boyfriend (thankfully, not one in the same) mistreated her that she was so convinced I was cheating on her (mind you, I was faithful) that she felt the affair she had was justified. I didn't learn of the affair until several years later when I put two and two together (I was naive and young, didn't see what was right in front of me); the reason I actually left her is that she was also physically abusive (and thought herself justified in that, as well). Her physical attacks always ended in me defending myself, her hurting herself instead, and then telling everyone I attacked her. That was a hell of a situation that I'm glad I got out of; but I don't blame her nearly as much as I blame her father.
That said, it is impossible to sympathize with someone who insists that every action you take is a display of weakness or inferiority. It's sad, really, as these women truly just need help, they need to be shown that chauvinistic, abusive, asshole pig men are the minority, but, just like any minority, they're also much easier to spot in the crowd, making it seem as though there are many more of them than there are. The battles being waged are imaginary battles against all men, rather than targeted battles against the few who are actually the problem. It's to the point where the faux feminism (fauxminism?) these women display can probably be diagnosed as a form of PTSD. True feminists are only interested in advancing their gender (e.g. equality) and, in general, have no interest in knocking men down in the process; in my experience, they also have no problem calling out fauxminists for what they are.
Of course they were! To claim otherwise would destroy F.Ultra's argument, entirely, and the risk of cognitive dissonance prevents that.
bulimic
That's too close to bull, a male cow. Bovinimic. Much better.
GitHub set a private standard.
... which this project, apparently, does not violate, since it's still up. Huh. Go figure. Now, if someone takes offense to such things, they're free to simply not read them; it's not like he's standing outside everyone's window with a bullhorn and screaming the jokes at them.
And people are not automatically right simply because you cry "opression!" about a current hot button topic.
Damn, before you said that, we could just cry "oppression" to people crying "oppression", then we'd be right and they'd STFU. Keep doing what you're doing, by the way; I'm glad to see there are more like me in the world.
I was running out of troll food, anyway. Peace be with you.
Indeed, they are. And, as of yet, they haven't decided they don't want to host this one. I think what MrBigInThePants was hinting at is that everyone else should sit down, shut up, and let GitHub make that decision for itself, like the big boy it is. You even just said as much yourself.
Huh, well, it seems that, thus far, GitHub hasn't weighed in on the matter. If anyone has the right to be offended (as they didn't have the opportunity to avoid it), it's them. If GitHub agrees with you, they'll pull the project; if they don't, then it would seem you're just spouting nonsense for attention. Not really that hard of a concept to grasp, really.
Personally, I think they should change the first name in his profile to Mike. I know I'm gonna take some flack for this, but hey, it wasn't a dick joke.
I'll bite. Because that's really one of the things I come here to do: feed the trolls.
Do you not see the rift between looking up someone's posting history to gauge what kind of personality you're up against and stalking? It's not like a doxxed you, your email address is right there above every one of your posts. I typed it into Google and clicked the first result; if that's stalking, well, my email address is at the top of every one of my posts, as well; go ahead, file a report and have me arrested. Stalking is a felony, after all.
You're really missing an opportunity to make an excellent point, though, so I'll make it for you: everything you post online is there for the world to see, and it's trivial to link your past posts with your identity. That reason, alone, should be enough to stop people from posting immature drivel (like dick jokes) others may find offensive in public forums.
For the record, although I do find the occasional dick joke amusing, no, I have not read through the DICSS repo. I did take a peek to find out what DICSS was an acronym for, and it's a legitimate name; or, at least, it would be if the code wasn't rife with dick jokes.