Full Width [alt+shift+f] Shortcuts [alt+shift+k]
Sign Up [alt+shift+s] Log In [alt+shift+l]
1

2025-04-04

from Freewheeling Apps [alt+shift+b] in technology

Automatically selecting colors with sufficient contrast. Here's a test build of my hypertext browser where every "page load" picks a random background. The foreground and link colors adapt to preserve a minimum contrast (WCAG AAA level). I repeatedly click on links in my app. Each click opens a new page with a random background color but the same spec for foreground colors. Foreground colors adjust intensity to maintain contrast with their background color. Colors in my markup language are no longer rgb. Background colors are strings of the form 'hue:intensity:lightness', e.g. 'red:5:4' (following the perceptually uniform Oklch space). Foreground colors can contain just 'hue' or 'hue:intensity'. Missing fields get filled in to maintain contrast. Intensity and lightness can take 8 levels (0 to 7). Hue can take one of 8 values: red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue, purple, magenta. Hue can also be grey, in which case it can't have an intensity. Just 'grey:lightness'. Here's the key code, 200 lines of Lua.
5th Apr 2025

Stay updated

Get a weekly newsletter with the top 5 articles worth reading every week.

More from Freewheeling Apps

2026-05-24

What is text? This blog post reminds me of the time 10 years ago when I tried to do away with Linux's desktop environment because it seemed overly complex and hard to wrap my head around. I had a lot of trouble running wifi without the desktop environment, and it left me quite bitter. Linux had seemed like a hacker's OS when I first started out. But it was trying so hard to compete with Windows that it was starting to seem like Windows in all the wrong ways, it seemed. That experience contributed to me walking off into the wilderness to build Mu. I've gone back and forth between two tendencies in my life. On the one hand, I used to brag about a minimalist setup living in text mode, only running startx as needed, long after the world had moved to fully graphical desktop environments. On the other hand, I was frustrated early on with the limitation of pure text, creating a little bit of Vimscript to view and edit drawings inside a code fold inside code comments. (I don't remember what format I used for the drawings. Maybe Inkscape? I always liked its format and found it quite easy to hack manually.) And these poles have continued to attract me in turn. I wanted to build Mu with just text mode for a long time, and now in the past couple of years I seem to have tried to minimize my use of terminals, with all their ugly historical and path-dependent hacks, and to do more on a graphical canvas (of a game engine). Trying to look back dispassionately, I seem to operate by: Structured data. Not too much. Mostly text. But then, last year, I had a fascinating and also slightly frustrating conversation with a friend where we realized we had very different associations for the term "text". When I said I wanted to keep something as "just text" I meant "viewable with cat on a vt100." (But with Unicode.) When they said they wanted text they meant, "everything you could do in the tradition of book publishing before the advent of computers." (But maybe not images? Equations and line drawings, certainly. And video is right out.) Another dimension of our disagreement: I was thinking of text in terms of compatibility. What can you do regardless of what device you have on you right now. They were thinking in terms of "what's possible with an extremely low-power reader without regard to compatibility." Also, I imagined authoring text and reading it as happening on the same device. Perhaps they imagined authoring on high-powered devices and reading on low-powered ones. So, 30 years after I started programming, I still don't really understand what I want. I try to clear my mind of the cobwebs created by the hacky, historically path-dependent past. But I'm not there yet.

24th May 2026 • 1 votes
2026-01-28

As I start teaching the kids programming, I’ve been thinking about how to motivate it to them. They do a lot of drawing, so that seemed like a potential hook to show how drawing on the computer may make some things easier (erasing, manipulating, repeating) and other things harder (e.g. drawing well). Demo of a little bare-bones fork of Lua Carousel for a computer with a large screen and a mouse. The large screen is divided up between a code editor and a drawing area. There are a few drawing tools. When you make a stroke the code for it is inserted above the cursor in the code editor. You can also edit the code directly and run it to make changes to the drawing area. There is no support for grabbing points or shapes in the drawing area. All you can do there is emit shapes with coordinates. Everything else you gotta program the old-fashioned way. Download (120KB). Inspired by Ronin and Sketch-n-Sketch.

29th Jan 2026 • 1 votes
2025-10-30

An experiment involving scrollbars Keeping scrollbars easy to acquire even in large files. Demo of an idea for a scrollbar with a shadow or "penumbra" which makes it easier to acquire to drag around, even as the conventional and smaller central object continues to be visible to give an accurate sense of file size and our position in it. Thanks Artyom Bologov and Mary, though I ended up taking their suggestion in a different direction…

31st Oct 2025 • 1 votes
2025-09-02

As an experiment, I've machine-translated the help docs in Lua Carousel into 7 languages: Spanish (Peninsular and Latin American) German French Japanese Chinese Portuguese Hopefully it is helpful for someone to no longer have to put up with English. I put each language in a separate download to reduce the amount of data you need to download. Other languages are machine-translated from the English version. I've had friends spot-check it for obvious issues, but there are likely to be problems I missed. Please report any issues you spot. If you want to manually translate pages to improve wording and tone for your culture, contributions would be most welcome. No support yet for right-to-left languages, or languages with combining characters. Lua Carousel still assumes every character on screen is atomic. For example, I can support Chinese and Japanese but not Korean, Arabic or Indian languages. I don't know what I'm doing when it comes to multilingual keyboard support. My rough sense is that that's something to configure for your device. But if there's something I can change in Lua Carousel to make your life easier, please let me know. I've included different fonts for Chinese and Japanese, which blow up the download size for these languages. The source code inside each zip file download is exactly the same, only the font files are different. The larger font files also seem to take up to 10 seconds to load.

2nd Sep 2025 • 1 votes
2025-06-01

I've been reading The Nature of Order by Christopher Alexander, and it's inspired me to experiment with this representation to communicate the global structure of the source code of the Game of Snake: The whole program is arranged on a 2D surface within a series of nested boxes. You can hit ‘run’, and it extracts the code from the surface and runs it and you get to play a game of Snake. (Only on a computer; even though the app runs on a phone, you can't play this particular game of Snake without arrow keys.) So it can be viewed as a sort of Literate Program, even though the representation I'm tangling from has a richer UI than is typical, a surface you can pan and zoom around with a mouse wheel or touchscreen. (It doesn't support editing yet. This is a purely reading experience for now.) I wasn't trying to build yet another Literate Programming experience, though. What was on my mind was Christopher Alexander. Christopher Alexander (CA) was an architect, and he indirectly inspired Design Patterns in the software world. His magnum opus was The Nature of Order, (NoO) a book I'm not sure I'll ever finish. Not because it's long (it's true that it's 4 volumes, but it has a lot of pictures) but because I often need to put it down to think about the chapter I just read for a day. And then the day turns into a week or a month or a year. The first thing to know about The Nature of Order is it defeats attempts at summarization. With that out of the way, here's a summary of the fragments I've read: People build tools, and then the tools change people. In unanticipated ways, for better and for worse. Tools and buildings (remember, CA is an architect) that contribute to more functional societies have certain objective properties. The properties are hard to state or quantify, but have an objective reality analogous to the fundamental forces in Physics. In his earlier books, CA called this property "the quality without a name." In NoO, he calls this property "wholeness" or "life". The degree of life of an arrangement of matter is visible in its geometric form. Function matters, but CA rejects the cartesian separation between form and function. If something has good consequences, it's going to also look good. This sense of "looking good" is not subjective. People often have greater or lesser sensitivity to it, but we all inherently have the capacity to see that one arrangement has more life than another. The degree of life in an arrangement is a holistic property. You don't compute the life of all the parts and add them up. One poor property can destroy the life of the whole. As a best guess, life stems from approximately 15 properties. These properties establish a field of centers that integrate object with environment, foreground with background, inside with outside, form with function, matter with emptiness. Centers are made of centers, recursively, ad infinitum. Any attempt to create life by assembling homogeneous centers is doomed to fail. Instead, nature and the universe creates wholeness and life by starting with a seed and successively unfolding it, differentiating parts of it into centers, each step of the process intensifying existing centers, bringing new centers into being, and increasing the life of the whole. I'm not sure I buy it to the hilt, but it feels actionable even so. I don't need to believe in the objective reality of the vector field of centers to consider the possibility that it might point us in the direction of better quality as perceived by a lot of people. The image above is a very preliminary step at creating a more wholesome arrangement of the source code for the game of Snake, though CA would likely find it sophomoric. I'm trying to use some well-known ideas in software design. There's a top-down decomposition here. The game of Snake consists of two screens, one where you play the game and one when the player dies. The screen for the game itself (where the player spends the bulk of time) decomposes into 3 concepts: space, snake and food. At this point, however, things get muddy from a classic CS perspective. These concepts are not completely separate. There are places in the program where they coil into each other. For example, I can't entirely explain how a snake grows without reference to food, and I can't explain food without reference to its purpose: growing the snake. In response, I'm duplicating this code in multiple places on the surface, with slightly different emphasis: To me this evokes CA's property of interlock/ambiguity. The centers of space, snake and food don't have clear boundaries here, the boundary is ambiguous and the centers kinda intertwine. Another case of interlock/ambiguity: the screens for game and game over that I mentioned earlier are not completely separate. When the game ends, there's a great human need for some sort of conclusion to be derived from it, often in the form of a score. Did I do well or poorly? Set a personal best? Defeat my friend's score? Here the score takes into account the number of times the snake turned. You can imagine alternatives, but no matter how you calculate the score, it must make reference to the game that was just played. The two screens must share data. Here I am experimenting with indicating this permeable boundary by creating a gap in multiple levels of centers, close to uses of Nsteps, to show that the centers aren't crisply isolated from their surroundings. I spent some time on other touches. Rather than arrange code in a vertical rectangle as we usually do, I chose to break it up horizontally to make the boundaries between definitions more easily apparent. Viewed charitably, this might be seen as an example of what CA calls "alternating repetition", an attempt at a rhythm that resonates with the reader. Interspersing prose with code is another repetition, as are the columns. However, I tried to not make the columns or interspersed prose too monotonously regular. I tried to keep it "rough", and to hand-craft the spacing at each point rather than try to enforce some global policies for spacing and positioning. If you'd like to read a little more about Christopher Alexander and The Nature of Order, here are a couple more summaries: Beautiful Software is perhaps the most comprehensive archive of CA lore. In particular, see this early article about the fifteen properties. Dorian Taylor's obituary. A worked out example of the fifteen properties. Beware, you may get sucked into the full 4-volume opus.

1st Jun 2025 • 1 votes

More in technology

iPhone Duo early review

By a mile, the iPhone Duo has garnered more questions about what I think about it than any other phone I’ve ever had. It’s clearly a phone that has people intrigued, so I thought I’d jot down some loose, unorganized thoughts about what I think about it after about ten days. If I could sum all my thoughts up into one word, it’d simply be “fun”. I think for the vast majority of people, myself included, the iPhone 18 Pro is a more practical phone that through scientific analysis you’d likely even find a better phone. Even if they were priced the same, its package is more traditionally comfortable and ergonomic, with a better quality main camera, a helpful telephoto camera, a screen that’s more practical to use more of the time, a better biometric system (Face ID versus Touch ID) and a more established software experience. But damn if the iPhone Duo isn’t fun. Phones have been downright boring for so long. Incredible technology, lovely apps, but the hardware has been a bit slow moving since the iPhone X. Maybe that’s why I jumped onto the iPhone Air so readily. Even that slight departure from “black slab of glass” to “a dramatically thinner black slab of glass” was exciting versus what we’ve grown accustomed to. So I pick up the Duo, and it’s kinda just exciting to hold a phone for the first time in ages. Maybe that’s a honeymoon period and after a few months I’ll be over it. Maybe everyone who tries a folding phone for the first time experiences this. And to be clear, it’s not just all raw novelty. The fun aspect is fueled by having an absolutely incredible inner screen that fundamentally transforms what a phone is and can be. In addition, support the Apple Pencil has turned out to be phenomenally handy for me to be able to jot down quick thoughts and notes. For downsides, Touch ID is objectively worse than Face ID, but honestly, I don’t mind it as much as I expected I would. The smaller camera sensor than the Pro series phones is still decidedly great (rumors were it was a 17e size which was not correct, it’s the size of the normal 17’s). Software support gets better by the day, though iOS on the Duo is still decidedly a bit buggy at times. Other random thoughts Touch ID is objectively worse than Face ID, but honestly, I don’t mind it as much as I expected I would, previewing notifications is where I miss it the most After getting used to having a single speaker in the iPhone Air for a year, having stereo (not to mention great sounding) speakers is amazing The FaceTime camera on the inside is indeed not great for selfies/photography but honestly perfectly acceptable for FaceTime, and I’d definitely prefer this solution over a cutout on the inside so I’m happy! It definitely has a heavy feel to it, but it’s nothing honestly that bothersome A lot of the reviews said something to the effect of “the crease is practically invisible” and while I don’t really mind it or anything I definitely would disagree with that statement, you can see it a fair bit even with light content The hinge is a bit harder to open than I expected, I’ve found the secret is don’t pry from the middle of the side, instead put a thumb near the top and bottom (also helps prevent pressing Camera Control instead which I was doing all the time). I imagine this is necessary to have it be able to stop at arbitrary angles once open (which I do like) and hopefully it loosens up a bit with more use, but playing with Android foldables at Best Buy I did find their hinge easier to open I am really split on the inner, nano texture screen. It definitely helps reflections, has a neat look to it, and is super nice to draw on with the pencil, but it’s significantly less vibrant than the outer display which to my eyes looks a fair bit nicer. I think they made the right decision ultimately but it’s definitely not a zero-compromise solution. I was considering nano texture on my next MacBook but after this I think I’ll stick with glossy. My glass half full take with the Duo for now though is that we get two really cool screens to play with The outer screen is awesome for taking photos, unlike taller iPhones, your viewfinder fills the screen completely so it’s the largest feeling viewfinder I’ve used on a phone I miss the action button, nice little launcher for ChatGPT/Claude depending on which month it is Battery life is downright phenomenal versus my iPhone Air and 15 Pro (two devices admittedly not known for having great battery life) So, I don’t think the Duo is for most people who either don’t care much about phones, or care a lot about having the perfect phone, but for a decent amount of people in the middle I think the Duo represents a fundamentally different experience, that’s a ton of fun, and I’m excited to be excited about a phone again. (But, Apple, please figure out a way to add a telephoto lens.)

14 hours ago • 1 votes
Reverse engineering a vintage diode-transistor logic chip

Going through a collection of old parts, CuriousMarc encountered some ICs that he couldn't identify. He opened up one of these ICs, and I studied it under the microscope. After some reverse engineering, I determined that it was a logic chip that implemented four NAND gates using old-fashioned diode-transistor logic (DTL).1 The chip turned out to be the ST680A, a member of the Signetics 600 series of chips from 1965. In this article, I discuss the circuitry in this chip and how diode-transistor logic works. The die of the ST680A under the microscope. Integrated circuits can be packaged in many ways. One of the most popular is the plastic DIP (Dual In-line Package), a black rectangle of epoxy with two rows of metal pins. This type of package was invented by Signetics: "Introduced in late 1965, the 600 series was the first integrated circuit family to be offered in a solid, plastic, dual in-line package (DIP)." Earlier integrated circuits were packaged in round metal cans or in small flat-packs. In 1965, engineers at Fairchild invented the DIP, which had two rows of pins on 0.1" spacing. Unlike the surface-mounted flat-pack, the DIP had pins that were inserted into holes, making manual or automated assembly quick and easy. Because the pins of a DIP were on a regular grid, rather than the circular pattern of a metal can, circuit board design and manufacturing were also easier (details). The first DIP chips had ceramic packages. The plastic DIP, introduced by Signetics, was much cheaper and became very popular. An advertisement for the Signetics 600 series. From Electronics, March 21, 1966. The plastic DIP is less popular with me, however, because it is harder to open. With a ceramic package, I can simply tap it with a chisel and pop it open, but that doesn't work with epoxy packages. An epoxy package can be dissolved with nitric or sulfuric acid, but I try to avoid dangerous acids. Instead, CuriousMarc used Antoine's hot air decapping method. Unfortunately, the hot air technique doesn't always work. In this case, tiny bits of epoxy were stuck to the die, obscuring the circuitry. I used a few drops of boiling sulfuric acid to clean the die. (I'm okay with sulfuric acid in tiny quantities.) The die on its metal frame. The photo above shows the silicon die on its metal frame, the lead frame. The golden blobs are where the bond wires were attached to the die. You can see the doped silicon regions that form diodes and bipolar NPN transistors, as well as 16 resistors in the center, forming serpentine paths. Most chips have a passivation layer—a thin layer of silicon dioxide—over the chip. Inconveniently, this old chip didn't have a passivation layer, so the acid also stripped off the metal layer. (A few remnants are visible in the upper left.) Without the metal layer, I had to guess at how the components were connected to form logic gates. The die has very faint color differences where the silicon was protected by the metal, so that helped. Eventually, I came up with the diagram below, showing how the metal layer was probably configured. This wiring reveals that the chip implements four DTL NAND gates, which I'll describe in more detail below. One puzzle was that the chip has two unused diodes, indicated with question marks below. The metal layer for a quad NAND chip. I desaturated the image to make the labels clearer. Transistors, diodes, and resistors In this section, I'll explain how the patterns in the image correspond to components of the circuit. The silicon die is doped with various impurities to form regions with different electrical characteristics. These regions appear red or green under the microscope due to thin-film effects. As a result, the chip's transistors, diodes, and resistors are visible. The chip is made from bipolar NPN transistors, which have a completely different construction from the MOS transistors in modern ICs. In an NPN transistor, the current from the collector to the emitter is controlled by the current through the base. The collector is a large region of N-type silicon, silicon that is doped with atoms such as phosphorus or arsenic. Since these elements have one more valence electron than silicon, they give the silicon more negative charge carriers, so it is called N for negative. The N-type silicon happens to appear reddish. On top of the collector, the base is a thin region of P-type silicon, which appears green. This silicon has been doped with atoms such as boron or gallium, which have one fewer valence electron than silicon. The missing electrons form "holes", which act as positive charge carriers. Finally, the emitter is N-type silicon, on top of the base layer. These layers work together through semiconductor magic, amplifying the base current. Two NPN transistors on the chip. The second transistor is a larger output transistor. The chip's output transistors are slightly larger so they can sink more current. In the transistor on the right above, note that the collector contact wraps around three sides of the transistor. The emitter is also larger, with an L-shaped contact. According to the datasheet, each output transistor can sink 2.5 mA of current. The chip uses many diodes since it is diode-transistor logic. The structure of a diode is similar to a transistor, but without the emitter. In a diode, current flows from the cathode (P-type silicon) to the anode (N-type). A diode and a resistor on the chip. The chip uses 16 resistors, located in the middle of the die. A resistor is constructed from a long, thin region of doped silicon. Since silicon has moderately high resistance, a long strip of silicon acts as a resistor. Most of the resistors have a serpentine layout to fit a long resistor into a smaller area. These resistors consist of P-type silicon (green) in a "tub" of N-type silicon (red). The tub is connected to the positive voltage supply; since current doesn't flow from N-type silicon to P-type silicon, this isolates the resistors from each other. Operation of a DTL gate Logic gates can be created in many ways. The earliest integrated circuits (such as the ones in the Apollo Guidance Computer) used Resistor-Transistor Logic (RTL), where logic gates were constructed from resistors and transistors. In March 1962, Signetics announced the first family of commercial Diode-Transistor Logic (DTL) integrated circuits (details). By using diodes on the inputs instead of resistors, DTL provided better performance than RTL. However, DTL soon became overshadowed by TTL (Transistor-Transistor Logic), which was faster and used less power. (If you built digital circuits a few decades ago, you're probably familiar with the popular 7400 series of TTL chips.) The diagram below shows how the DTL NAND gate works. If both inputs are high, the current from the first resistor flows through the base of the first transistor, turning it on. The transistor amplifies this current, passing a much larger current from the transistor's collector to the transistor's emitter. This current goes through the base of the second transistor, which turns on the second transistor. The second transistor passes an even larger current from the output pin to ground, pulling the output pin low. The DTL NAND gate with both inputs high. The schematic is from the datasheet. This circuit is considerably more complicated than the DTL gate on Wikipedia. But if one of the input pins is pulled low, the current from the resistor goes through the diode instead of the transistor. The first transistor turns off, and without a base current, the second transistor turns off. The third resistor pulls the output high. Thus, the output is low only if both inputs are high: a NAND gate. The DTL NAND gate with an input low. I'll point out a few features of this circuit. The diodes on the inputs ensure that one input doesn't affect the other input. The diode in the middle raises the voltage on the first transistor's emitter, so it requires more voltage to turn on, reducing the sensitivity to noise. The output uses a resistor to pull the output high; more advanced circuits use another transistor. When the output is low, the third resistor is still "trying" to pull the output high, which is wasting power. Moreover, the resistor limits the output current, so the high output is fairly weak. In some DTL families, you can get gates with different values for the output resistor, so you can select the tradeoff between wasting power and having an output that is too weak. If you've used TTL integrated circuits from the 1970s, you know that chips usually have power and ground on diagonal pins: ground on pin 7 and power on pin 14. (Putting power and ground diagonally opposite both helps die layout and circuit board layout.) Much to my surprise, I found that the Signetics chips predate this standard and have ground on pin 1 and power on pin 8: still diagonal, but the wrong diagonal! The diagram below shows how the four NAND gates are wired in the chip. Pinout of the 680A quad NAND gate. From the databook. Three chips from one die When I examined the die under the microscope, I figured out the circuit, but I was puzzled by two extra diodes, as if two NAND gates had a third input that wasn't used. The explanation is that Signetics used the same silicon layout for at least three different chips, applying a different metal layer for different functionality. This saved money since it's much cheaper to produce a single optical mask for the metal layer than a complete set of new masks. Signetics sold semi-custom ICs to customers, using an approach called variFEBS (Variable Functional Electronics Blocks). This approach used a custom metal layer on top of fixed silicon, providing custom circuits without the cost of a full mask set. These circuits didn't sell well, but Signetics used the same approach for standard ICs. Pinout of the 670A triple NAND gate and the 616A quad NAND gate. All three chips have some similarities, such as using pins 2 and 14 as outputs. From the databook. One IC with the same silicon as the quad NAND gate is the 670A chip, which has three NAND gates, each with three inputs (above left). The diagram below shows how the silicon can be wired to provide this functionality. The hypothesized metal layer for the 670A triple-NAND gate. The layout for the triple chip above is a bit tricky because the top gate has inputs on both sides of the power (Vcc) pin. This creates a layout problem because the power and ground metal runs vertically to the resistors, blocking metal wiring from one side to the other. The solution is a "crossunder", a region of silicon that allows a signal to pass under the metal layer, connecting the inputs on the left to the rest of the circuitry on the right. This crossunder is visible near the top of the chip. Another chip with the same layout is the 616A dual NAND gate, with five inputs on each gate. Since this chip has 10 inputs in total (compared to 8 on the quad gate), this chip uses the two "extra" diodes that I spotted. If that isn't enough inputs, each NAND gate has an expansion input; by connecting external diodes to the expansion input, the gate can be made as large as desired. The hypothesized metal layer for the 616A dual-NAND chip. Some history The history of Signetics is closely tied to Fairchild. The story of Fairchild's founding is well known: in 1957, eight engineers—the Traitorous Eight—left Shockley Semiconductor and created Fairchild Semiconductor. Hundreds of companies (the "Fairchildren") were started by engineers who left Fairchild. Signetics was one of those companies, formed in 1961 and said to be the first company to exclusively design and manufacture integrated circuits.2 Signetics announced its first product in 1962, a NAND gate that cost $125 (over $1000 in current dollars).3 Not surprisingly, sales were weak. Signetics soon ran short of money, so in 1962, Corning Glass invested $1.7 million for 51% ownership of Signetics. Corning Glass may seem like a strange investor, but Corning was more of a high-tech company than you'd expect, making components such as resistors and glass capacitors, and later creating fiber optics. Moreover, in the early 1960s, integrated circuits were the hot area (much like AI now), and everyone wanted to get involved. In 1963, the Department of Defense pushed for contractors to use integrated circuits in new products. Riding this wave, Signetics became the leading producer of integrated circuits.4 However, Fairchild soon introduced a series of DTL chips that competed with Signetics. The Fairchild 930 series was faster than the Signetics chips and less than half the price, so Fairchild took much of the market from Signetics and dominated the IC market. Signetics also produced analog integrated circuits. Signetics is probably best known for creating the 555 timer chip in 1970, said to be the world's most popular IC, with billions sold.5 Signetics was acquired by Philips in 1975, and then Philips Semiconductors was spun off as NXP (Next exPerience) in 2006. NXP is currently the #10 semiconductor manufacturer worldwide, so the heritage of Signetics lives on. For more, follow me on Bluesky (@righto.com), Mastodon (@[email protected]), or RSS. Thanks to CuriousMarc for providing the IC and thanks to TubeTime for finding the databook. AI statement: Despite the presence of the em dash, no AI was used in the writing of this article (details). Notes and references After I had reverse-engineered the chip, TubeTime found datasheets for it, making my reverse engineering unnecessary. (See the Signetics Condensed Catalog 1969, Utilogic II Databook 1971, and Utilogic 2 Databook 1972.) We must have been unlucky with our original web searches since we didn't find anything. But this way you get to see what's inside the chip :-) The Signetics ST680A IC in its package. The large circular depression marks pin 1. From the date code, this chip is from 1971.  ↩ For more Signetics history, see Signetics Founding History, written by Lionel Kattner, a co-founder of Signetics. He states that the company name was inspired by the words "signals" and "networks", as well as the high-tech suffix "-netics". ↩ See History of Semiconductor Engineering, page 156. ↩ The book Making Silicon Valley describes the history of Signetics. It has a negative view of the Corning investment, saying that Signetics executives "Van Poppelen and Kattner dissented on the grounds that Corning was not a good fit for an integrated circuit company. In their view, Corning was a staid Eastern firm, ignorant about semiconductors and antithetic to the ways and culture of the electronics industry on the West Coast. Their view later proved to be correct." ↩ The 555 timer was created by analog IC wizard Hans Camenzind. If you're interested in analog circuits, you should read his book Designing Analog Chips, which you can download for free. ↩

18 hours ago • 1 votes
How Do Building Codes Affect the Price of Housing?

A great deal of effort has gone into understanding the regulatory burden on housing construction, and the extent to which it contributes to high housing prices.

3 days ago • 1 votes
Barracuda Networks is your new best friend (Barracuda Email Security Gateway Pre-Auth Remote Root RCE CVE-2026-116606 / CVE-2026-111560)

Yes, that's right! Today we're at the aquarium. Welcome back to yet another watchTowr Labs blog post. You can begin preparing your comments now. What Is A Barracuda, And Why? Must We? Barracuda’s Email Security Gateway solution (ESG) is no stranger to love, for

4 days ago • 1 votes
📚 BoredReading

You seem to be enjoying this.

Join free to unlock everything.

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in