Resistance is a simplification of characteristic curves, which themselves are simplifications. You can easily get a voltage drop across battery terminals, you just have to put the battery in series with another battery. This is dangerous. You could also hook up an active current sink. Again, dangerous. There is nothing preventing the internal battery resistance from causing the terminals to go negative except for the simple fact that most equipment we connect to batteries will stop working before that point is reached (unless you hook batteries in series—which is why batteries in series must be close to identical, so they run out at the same time).
I just want to point out that batteries are often connected in series in regular devices.
Many devices where there are two AA batteries (TV remotes, etc...) usually have the batteries wired in series. They need to do it to get the voltage high enough for some of the components.
Additionally, many batteries are actually made from multiple smaller batteries wired in series internally. For example, some 9V batteries are actually just 6 regular 1.5V batteries wired in series.
Of course, in these configurations, they generally discharge at a similar rate.
I believe the resistance is sort of constant (for most normal usage cases) for passive circuits and in solid state electronic it would be a function of how many parts of the chip are engaged.
This being said anything short-circuiting the loop, can create a new pathway with less resistance (think molten metal, sparks etc).
But modern batteries can send a lot more current then, magnifying the effect.
Lithium ion batteries can supply a lot of power, especially relative to what a cell phone uses. I would be very surprised if the batteries were failing because of too much power draw, rather than a combination of faulty manufacturing and overheating.
Little wording issue there if this is the case it probably drew too much current causing a massive voltage drop overheating and causing a runaway condition.
I don't feel like typing much because it's nap time but IRCv3 is an almost closed group of friends, mostly znc core developers, who have decided they can choose what the future of IRC looks like.
They have put lots of pressure on and harassed other developers of clients and networks, sending them patches and infiltrating their devs if necessary, so their ideas are actually implemented.
If you complain about those ideas and specs, they'll tell you to refer to their github issue tracker, but they mostly ignore those who are not part of that core group I mentioned.
While a number of people in the group are friends, I definitely wouldn't call it a closed group of friends. These are people that have been developing different IRC projects for many years, all discussing the protocol and making sure clients + servers actually work together. Friendships will come from this over years.
A lot of the core group all work on different competing projects, servers and clients, and do frequently discuss any proposal made by anyone if it makes sense.
Historically the IRCv3 project originated at Atheme as a project to bring some extensions to IRC in order to make it more modernized, such as the SASL binding (IRC Authentication Layer). ZNC guys and Atheme guys did not get along because political reasons, so they threatened to fork the project. Atheme decided to spin off the IRCv3 project at that time as it was no longer really interesting to Atheme anyway (IAL was adopted in basically every IRCd and most mainstream clients).
While I cannot really comment on the current managerial processes of the project (as I do not know what internal discussions the technical board has anymore, if any), the technical board allows people to submit things that they know will never ever be ratified, without saying what the outcome will be when it is already known to them, in order to give the appearance that they are an open project. In fact, advising people to not work on specifications that mainstream vendors will not adopt is actively discouraged by the working group, as the image of being open and the appearance of being non-offensive is more important than discouraging people from wasting their time.
As for charybdis (a widely deployed IRC server): we keep an eye on the IRCv3 group and implement things that we find interesting. There is no commitment from us to implement future IRCv3 work just because it is an IRCv3 specification.
As for IRC itself: IRC is a wonderful thing, but honestly in 2016 we can do much better. The backwards compatibility requirement of IRCv3 (which exists because they do not feel they have enough influence yet) is a serious crutch that prevents a lot of potential work for fixing design problems with IRC. The lack of unique identifiers at the client level (other than nickname) makes a lot of things like nickname ownership painful. The overall concept of IRC is a powerful one, but the technical foundation is crap. This is why Slack, gitter.im, etc are kicking IRC's ass right now, and IRCv3 is honestly too little too late for that fight. These services offer easy integration with any type of website and the IRCv3 group is too busy talking about bringing HSTS to IRC. This is a total and complete inversion of priorities verses where they should be.
>ZNC guys and Atheme guys did not get along because political reasons, so they threatened to fork the project.
I do not wish to start an argument over things which are long dead. However, I think it is important to note that the "political reasons" were that you were constantly derailing discussions and threatening people.
I can publish all of my IRC logs if anyone wants evidence of this.
Almost everything you have said is false. Please cease this defamation.
>IRCv3 is an almost closed group of friends, mostly znc core developers
There is only one ZNC developer actively involved with IRCv3 (DarthGandalf) and even they have not been particularly active in the last few months.
>who have decided they can choose what the future of IRC looks like.
We accept any reasonable proposals providing you are willing to provide a strong rationale for it.
>They have put lots of pressure on and harassed other developers of clients and networks, sending them patches and infiltrating their devs if necessary, so their ideas are actually implemented.
No IRCv3 technical board member has ever forced a developer to accept patches. Some people have contributed patches to various IRC implementations in order to improve IRCv3 compliance but those patches have been accepted out of the free will of the maintainer.
>If you complain about those ideas and specs, they'll tell you to refer to their github issue tracker,
We prefer that discussions happen on the tracker rather than IRC as it is persistent and can be referred to in the future.
>they mostly ignore those who are not part of that core group I mentioned.
This is completely false. Please provide evidence of this happening.
A few of the people in that group (but none on the technical board) have been contributing to projects and then disappear once the IRCv3 bits are included. Thusly it appears from a broad glance that they had no interest in the project itself as much as getting another client onboarded with IRCv3 support.
This in combination with the marketing efforts of the IRCv3 group places large amounts of pressure to just accept and maintain the patch in order to ensure that you wind up on their list of recommended software to use, instead of their advocacy of using a different software which has added the patches.
I fail to see the issue. They fixed your project to stay compatible with the spec. They didn't stay, but isn't this the behavior of anyone who just fixes an issue they had in a project?
> I don't feel like typing much because it's nap time but IRCv3 is an almost closed group of friends, mostly znc core developers, who have decided they can choose what the future of IRC looks like.
This is how standards get built now. See also: systemd, R6RS.
Yes, I know. I just also don't really have any illusions that the "4chanish" population have any right to a subsidized forum for, well, being 4chanish. Deep down, it's a business run for profit by a private individual, not a piece of public property maintained with tax money.
So much money they are making and they can't hire anybody who can write English properly or write a PDF that is not composed of a handful of font faces and sizes.
I also find it funny they have fired the CEO (the PDF does not say he stepped down voluntarily) but he's the one sending that link to the mailing list. I call bs.
There are a lot of reasons to criticize Wosign. Lack of English skills isn't one of them.
I didn't realize this until I first visited China, but there are parts of the world where it's really hard to find people fluent in English. If you require people to be fluent in English in order to participate in running the Internet you're locking a large number of world regions out.
I wouldn't hold it against a Chinese company for not having a native English speaker. But I would hold it against them for not at least having a native speaker on retainer to proofread a document that they're about to send out to an international community. It just looks unprofessional.
And that's all it is, really. Stuff that just screams, "Did no one proofread this thing before sending it out?" Probably not. Because whoever wrote it was probably the most fluent person at the company.
---
FWIW, I have native-English speaking programmer friends who ask me to proofread their stuff. I don't mind. One is an amazing programmer, but his writing ability is somewhere around 9th-grade proficiency. The fact remains that being able to write correctly is considered a "bare minimum" quality in the professional world, and it doesn't matter if you wrote your own virtual machine in Assembly in your spare time--if you sound like a college dropout in your resume, they'll skip over you.
It is similarly difficult to inspire confidence in a CA when their "transparency report" sounds unprofessionally cobbled together.
This wasn't about reading knowledge, it was about writing knowledge. The original poster was complaining about grammar errors in their own publications.
And even learning reading knowledge of a language that is totally different from your own isn't so easy. I spent quite some time trying to learn Mandarin.
Also out of curiosity: How many languages that are not related to your native language can you fluently read?
> So much money they are making and they can't hire anybody who can write English properly
If you're going to make fun of someone's English then you should probably write better English yourself. At the end of the day English isn't their first language and they'll probably very rarely have to use English. I think some slack should be given on this front.
> and they'll probably very rarely have to use English.
The CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements and the mailing list discussions all happen in English. The major root programs all use English as their language of communication, to the best of my knowledge. The SSL/TLS and X.509 specifications are in English. The major browsers and TLS stacks have technical documentation, code comments, and code review in English. mozilla.dev.security.policy is in English. The international language of scientific research (including cryptographic research) is in English. The CVE program is in English. All of these are reasons not only to have people who are fluent in technical English, but to make hiring such people a priority.
In particular, the inability to communicate precise, subtle technical concepts was very relevant to some of the problems here, like "You may not issue SHA-1 certs after this date" meaning the actual, calendar date of issuance and not the recorded validity period in the certificate. (There was also an element of malice, but it could have gotten sorted faster if communication were easier.) Even if all the others were in some other language, the CA/Browser Forum alone would be enough to make anyone who wants to be a CA (or an HTTPS client implementor) must make fluency in technical English a priority.
It is, of course, highly unfortunate that people from non-Anglophone countries are at a disadvantage here. In an ideal world we wouldn't have that disadvantage. But there doesn't seem to be a way around picking a language to be the scientific lingua franca.
I am not bothered by their English or using a proof reader. I just think it's hypocritical to throw stones at people for not having good English when they don't operate in an English speaking market when yours isn't perfect either.
Also do you honestly think that was written by the business team, do you think the business team would have been able to properly edit a technical document in another language?
He's not throwing stones at people, he's throwing them at the company, WoSign. FWIW, I agree. They should have gotten (i.e. paid) someone to write a coherent document for this important communication.
> FWIW, I agree. They should have gotten (i.e. paid) someone to write a coherent document for this important communication.
Seriously you'll be hard press to find a paid translator that can translate technical documents.
Also the document is actually reasonable coherent. Picking on the language level of the document over the technical content of the document seems kind petty.
I'm capable of reading and writing a number of languages, but I'm not proficient at it. This also means that I probably have the writing level of a lower grade school child in those languages, and if I was to try and speak, I'd sound like I was mentally disabled since my vocabulary and general knowledge of the language is lacking.
Japanese is one. I've many times read comments written in Japanese in the Ruby language source code and understood their meaning, but there is absolutely zero ability for me to visit that country and be able to interact with anyone.
The author of this incident report is leagues more capable than I am in writing a report in a foreign language. They didn't insult my mother, or my dog, or call me names by accident. I don't see the justification in insulting their English.
WoSign owns Israel-based CA StartCom (from the shady event where WoSign bought Startcom, didn't disclose it, and started issuing invalid certificates through StartCom). Both operate in multiple English language markets.
I don't speak English natively, and any corrections are welcome. On the other hand I don't run a multi-million business based on writing comments on Hacker News so currently hiring a PR person to proofread these comments is not within the boundaries of my budget.
WoSign runs a business that is basically based on trust, and Nigerian scammers have sent me PDFs that looked far more convincing and trustable than that one WoSign posted.
I think in general, as a society, we are. Although as other posters have pointed out, our "future" has shrunk from trying to predict the next 100 years to predicting the next 10.
Its better to live with a solid grasp and understanding of the past and evaluate things on that basis, than to exist with a short term memory and perpetual fantasy of the future...
But the latter helps to exploit you more...So I guess that is where the big shot entrepreneurs/corporations/governments want you..
>You can easily see it in the map of how the people voted and you’ll notice that those territories where the war was actually fought got the big majority of the votes supporting the peace treaty.
Or maybe because people in those territories support the guerrillas?
No, I'm taking about territories that were attacked by the guerrilla. Like Toribio Cauca, that got more than 600 guerrilla attacks since the 80s. 81% of them voted yes to peace treaty.
I'm Colombian and this is not about peace or war, many victims lost family members and they don't know where they are, this treaty wanted to compensate those victims by having the guerrillas give total information about crimes to those victims. the only way to get amnesty was by giving 100% of that information to the victims.
The treaty was voted down because some political movements lied to the people in the cities (not the victims), telling them that Colombia would become Venezuela, that their income will suffer by new taxes, and that the treaty had Gender equality points (which is true).
The people who vote against claim they are not in favor of the war but in favor of another agreement. There's very few people in everyday life that want "the same". However, through many lies popular believe is that we can close the conflict making things even, like there's a better amazing deal we are missing altogether and need to stop and rethink it all. There's no full justice we can achieve as a country as there will never be anyone who can repair all the WWII deaths, destruction and suffering. That didn't mean that Europe couldn't recover and that Jews, as the most clearly affected group by size, where not able to cope and forgive in many cases. That's the point that voter against don't see and think they can easily get through another agreement.
Wasn't this the problem? That the kernel was drawing too much voltage from the battery, or something like that I read.