Hacker, artist, maker that works for the Museum of Science in Boston.
563 stories

Read Jerry Nadler’s Opening Statement in the Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Hearing

1 Comment

The next phase of the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump kicked off today, as the House Judiciary Committee convened its first public hearing on whether the president’s alleged wrongdoing amounts to impeachable offenses. Representative Jerry Nadler of New York, the committee’s chairman, finds himself back in the impeachment spotlight with the unenviable task of trying to maintain a serious hearing amid Republican attempts to derail it.

Below, the full text of Nadler’s opening statement as delivered.

The facts before us are undisputed. On July 25, President Trump called President Zelensky of Ukraine and in President Trump's words, “asked him for a favor.” That call was part of a concerted effort by the president and his men to solicit a personal advantage in the next election, this time in the form of an investigation of his political adversaries by a foreign government. To obtain that private political advantage, President Trump withheld an official White House meeting from the newly elected president of a fragile democracy, and withheld vital military aid from a vulnerable ally. When Congress found out about this scheme and began to investigate, President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to cover up his efforts and withhold evidence from the investigators, and when witnesses disobeyed him, when career professionals came forward and told us the truth, he attacked them viciously, calling them traitors and liars, promising they will, “Go through some things.”

Of course, this is not the first time President Trump has engaged in this pattern of conduct. In 2016, the Russian government engaged in a sweeping campaign of interference in our elections. In the words of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.” The president welcomed that interference. We saw this in real time when President Trump asked Russia to hack his political opponents. The very next day, the Russian military intelligence unit attempted to hack that political opponent. When his own Justice Department tried to uncover the extent to which a foreign government had broken our laws, President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to obstruct the investigation, including ignoring subpoenas, ordering the creation of false records, and publicly attacking and intimidating witnesses. That is now this administration's level of obstruction is without precedent. No other president has vowed to “fight for all the subpoenas,” as President Trump promised. In the 1974 impeachment proceedings, President Nixon produced dozens of recordings. In 1998, President Clinton physically gave his blood. President Trump by contrast, has refused to produce a single document and directed every witness not to testify. Those are the facts before us.

The impeachment inquiry has moved back to the House Judiciary Committee. And as we begin a review of these facts, the president's pattern of behavior becomes clear. President Trump welcomed foreign interference in the 2016 election. He demanded it for the 2020 election. In both cases, he got caught and in both cases he did everything in his power to prevent the American people from learning the truth about his conduct. On July 24th, the special counsel testified before this committee. He implored us to see the nature of the threat to our country: “Over the course of my career, I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's efforts to interfere in our elections is among the most serious. This deserves the attention of every American.”

Ignoring that warning President Trump called the Ukrainian president the very next day to ask him to investigate the president's political opponent. As we exercise our responsibility to determine whether this pattern of behavior constitutes an impeachable offense, it is important to place President Trump's conduct into historical context. Since the founding of our country, the House of Representatives has impeached only two presidents. A third was on his way to impeachment when he resigned. This committee has voted to impeach two presidents for obstructing justice. We have voted to impeach one president for obstructing a congressional investigation. To the extent that President Trump's conduct fits these categories, there's precedent for recommending impeachment here. But never before in the history of the republic have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who appears to have solicited personal political favors from a foreign government. Never before has a president engaged in the course of conduct, that included all of the acts that most concerned the framers.

The patriots who founded our country were not fearful men. They fought a war. They witnessed terrible violence. They overthrew a king. But as they met to frame our Constitution, those patriots still feared one threat above all: foreign interference in our elections. They had just deposed a tyrant they were deeply worried we would lose our new found liberty, not through a war. If a foreign army were to invade we'd see that coming, but from corruption from within. In the early years of the republic they asked us, each of us to be vigilant to that threat. Washington warned us “to be constantly awake since history had experienced proved foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.” Adams wrote to Jefferson, “as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence recurs.” Hamilton's warning was more specific and more dire. In the Federalist Papers, he wrote that “the most deadly adversaries of republican government,” would certainly attempt to “raise a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the union.”

In short, the founders warned us that we should expect our foreign adversaries to target our elections and that we will find ourselves in grave danger if the president willingly opens the door to their influence. What kind of president would do that? How will we know if the president has betrayed his country in this manner? How will we know if he's betrayed his country in this manner for petty personal gain? Hamilton had a response for that as well. He wrote, “when a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty, when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity, to join the cry of danger, to liberty to take every opportunity of embarrassing the general government, and bringing it under suspicion, it may justly be suspected his object is to throw things into confusion, that he may ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.”

Ladies and gentlemen, the storm in which we find ourselves today was set in motion by President Trump. I do not wish this moment on the country. It is not a pleasant task we undertake today. But we have each taken an oath to protect the Constitution and the facts before us are clear. President Trump did not merely seek to benefit from foreign interference in our elections, he directly and explicitly invited foreign interference in our elections. He used the powers of his office to try to make it happen. He sent his agents to make clear that this is what he wanted and demanded. He was willing to compromise our security and his office for personal political gain. It does not matter that President Trump got caught and ultimately released the funds that Ukraine so desperately needed. It matters that he enlisted a foreign government to intervene in our elections in the first place. It does not matter that President Trump felt that these investigations were unfair to him. It matters that he used this office not merely to defend himself but to obstruct investigators at every turn.

We are all aware that the next election is looming, but we cannot wait for the election to address the present crisis. The integrity of that election is one of the very things at stake. The president has shown us his pattern of conduct. If we do not act to hold him in check now, President Trump will almost certainly try again to solicit interference in the election for his personal political gain. Today we will begin our conversation where we should, with the text of the Constitution. We are empowered to recommend the impeachment of President Trump to the House if we find that he has committed treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Our witness panel will help us to guide that conversation. In a few days, we'll reconvene and hear from the committees that worked to uncover the facts before us. And when we apply the Constitution to those facts, if it is true that President Trump has committed an impeachable offense or multiple impeachable offenses, then we must move swiftly to do our duty and charge him accordingly. I thank the witnesses for being here today.

Read the whole story
6 days ago
This should be read by every single US citizen.
Somerville, MA
Share this story

The 555SE and 741SE surface-mount soldering kits

1 Comment

555SE and 741SE kits

Today we are pleased to announce the release of two new soldering kits: the 555SE discrete 555 timer and the 741SE discrete op-amp.

Both of these new kits are surface mount soldering kits — our first surface mount soldering kits — and we think that you’re going to love them.

555 kits, big and small

You might be familiar with our Three Fives discrete 555 timer and XL741 discrete op-amp kits. Both are easy soldering kits that let you build working transistor-scale replicas of the classic 555 timer chip and the famous µA741 op-amp. Those two are constructed with traditional through-hole soldering techniques and are styled to like “DIP” packaged (through-hole) integrated circuits.

Our new 555SE and 741SE kits implement the same circuits, now with surface mount components, and are styled to look like smaller “SOIC” packaged (surface mount) integrated circuits, complete with a heavy-gauge aluminum leadframe stand. Side by side with their through-hole siblings, the new kits are exactly to scale, with half the lead pitch and a lower profile.

555SE kit for scale

The 555SE and 741SE kits each come with eight (tiny) color-coded thumbscrew binding posts that you can use to hook up wires and other connections.

You can also probe anywhere that you like in these circuits — something that you generally can’t do with the integrated circuit versions.

741SE kit close up

The new 555SE and 741SE circuit boards are black in color, with a gold finish and clear solder mask so that you can see the wiring traces between individual components. There are a few other neat details here and there, such as countersunk holes for mounting the board to the leadframe.

The surface mount components are relatively large, with 1206-sized resistors and SOT-23 sized transistors, and assembly is straightforward with our clear and comprehensive instructions. These kits are designed to be a joy to build, whether you’re an old hand at surface mount soldering, want some practice before tackling a project, or are introducing someone to it for the first time.

Family portrait

And here is the new family: XL741, the Three Fives, along with the new 741SE and 555SE.

You can find the datasheets and assembly instructions for these kits, as well as links to additional documentation, on their respective product pages.

Both new kits are part of our ongoing collaboration with Eric Schlaepfer, who we have worked with on a number of dis-integrated circuit projects including the four kits here and the MOnSter 6502.

Read the whole story
20 days ago
Argh, I already have both of the originals, I don't need another version..... but they're just so cute....
Somerville, MA
Share this story

Why Isn’t a Rape Allegation Worth an Impeachment Inquiry?

1 Comment

To watch the public impeachment hearings of Donald Trump is to experience a very particular form of whiplash. The House inquiry has featured a series of small collisions, between Democrats and Republicans, yes, but also between accountability and its opposite. Here is a proceeding partly led by lawmakers who have, when it comes to the president, repeatedly prioritized fealty over facts. And here is the key question at hand—did Donald Trump extort a U.S. ally for his own political gain?—chafing against all the other questionable matters not being addressed in the hearing: the reported frauds, the well-documented lies, the atmospheric fact of Trump’s bigotries. The procedural precision guiding the House inquiry—bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors—is constitutionally mandated; it is a proportional response. Watching it play out, however, is a little like watching Hannibal Lecter getting tried for tax evasion.

Here is another matter left largely unaccounted for in the proceedings: Donald Trump, currently accused of bribery, has also been accused of rape. He has been accused of other forms of sexual misconduct as well, by more than 20 women, their allegations ranging from kissing to groping and grabbing, all against their will. If you include allegations of nonphysical forms of sexual harassment, the number of accusers grows even larger. The president has, in reply to these claims, issued a blanket denial: Each person making an accusation against him, he has said, is lying. (That list includes, ostensibly, Donald Trump himself, who has made his own claims about assaulting women: “It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait … Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”)

[Read: The real meaning of Trump’s ‘she’s not my type’ defense]

It is easy, in the impeachment hearings’ tumult—the staid testimonies of career diplomats, the history made in real time—to ignore those accusations. They are not, after all, a direct element of the inquiry. They are not the alleged crimes that the House of Representatives has determined to be impeachable. A constellation of reasons, constitutional and political and cultural, explains why the impeachment inquiry is unfolding as it is—at this moment, rooted in this one particular incident of alleged abuse of power. It is nonetheless a sobering thing, to watch the hearings for the one alleged crime play out while the other alleged crimes are, effectively, ignored.

One function of presidential impeachment hearings, my colleague Yoni Appelbaum wrote in a rich and prescient essay earlier this year, is their ability to convene public attention. Americans are constitutionally distractible; the Constitution, it turns out, offers a way to mitigate that. Impeachment, on top of everything else, is a way of cutting through the noise of rumors and conspiracy theories, putting the truths of a president’s actions to the test and determining what, in presidential leadership, ultimately matters. There is a flip side to that power, though. When the question at hand is whether Trump engaged in an abuse of power with Ukraine, his alleged abuse of power with women becomes less relevant. All the other facts of unfitness—the families seeking refuge, torn apart at the American border; Trump’s insistence that the tragedies of Charlottesville, Virginia, featured “very fine people on both sides”; the bigotry; the cruelty; the offenses both casual and sweeping—get consigned to the background.

That is by design. Impeachment is a process of specificity. But the effect it has on the assault allegations in particular is to tidily replicate what has already happened in the American political environment more broadly: They have hovered over Donald Trump without meaningfully affecting the political fortunes of Donald Trump. The sitting president has been insulated by a party that often seems to care more about tribal loyalty than anything else. He has been protected not only by limitations, but also by a culture that still insists that victims of sexual violence bear blame for the crime done to them—by an attitude that insists, still, that boys will be boys and that, as a corollary, Trump will be Trump, and that it is useless to question the inevitable.

[Read: The cruel paradox at the heart of E. Jean Carroll’s allegation against Trump]

This summer, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor in chief, interviewed Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey and a onetime Trump adviser. Goldberg asked Christie about Carroll’s allegation of rape, as one more instance of a woman making an accusation of sexual misconduct against Trump; he asked whether, as a politician, Christie would call for an investigation of the claims. “No,” Christie replied. “Because as a practical matter, the statute of limitations on all of them is gone.” Isn’t the allegation also, Goldberg followed up, a moral matter? Yes, Christie allowed; that doesn’t mean, he continued, that the matter can be satisfactorily adjudicated. “What’s this comprehensive investigation?” Christie asked. “Who’s doing it?” Later, he added something else: When it came to Carroll’s allegation, he said, “I don’t believe we’re ever going to know the truth.”

Christie is a former prosecutor. His point was that the law is narrow, by design—that it is better, in matters of justice, to live in uncertainty than to live in error. But his resignation about Carroll’s claim was making another point as well: The government, thus far, has not meaningfully investigated the assault allegations against Trump. Instead, a sense of apathy has set in. The allegations have been metabolized as a collection of known unknowns, lingering in the American ether. Carroll recently filed a civil suit against Trump—she is suing him for defamation, claiming that he lied about her when he denied her assertion—and that claim, too, was making a point: She said he raped her. The best chance she had to get her allegation heard was to say he had wounded her reputation.

[Read: Why the assault allegations against Trump don’t stick]

It is a familiar compromise. American public life is teeming with stories of women who were heard but not listened to. Justice can be so hard to find that even the illusion of it can seem like progress. When Christine Blasey Ford made her allegation against Brett Kavanaugh, she was met, in part, with a show trial. The FBI promised an investigation into her claims and others’ that barely materialized—nullified, apparently, by the rushed Senate vote that installed Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by a margin of two. But: The Senate Judiciary Committee also conducted hearings, and aired them to the public. It gave Ford the barest measure of respect. For all their perversities, the hearings’ existence alone sent a message: The world is no longer a place in which a claim like Ford’s could be tolerably ignored.

Except, the latest hearings suggest: It is. Still. In spite of it all. The institutional silence that has greeted the assault allegations against Trump has its own cold eloquence. The inquiry, in what it reveals, takes the measure of Donald Trump; in what it ignores, it also takes the measure of the rest of us.

Yesterday, Gordon Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union, gave his much-anticipated testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. “Everyone was in the loop,” Sondland said in his opening statement, regarding Trump’s alleged attempt at state-sanctioned extortion. The claim was widely characterized as a “bombshell” and a “blockbuster”—a moment of plot-twisting, potentially game-changing drama. “Everybody knew.” That fact alone was damning.

Donald Trump has been credibly accused of rape. Many, many women have come forward to say that he harassed and assaulted them. Those allegations are another thing that everybody knows. And yet.

Read the whole story
20 days ago
"The inquiry, in what it reveals, takes the measure of Donald Trump; in what it ignores, it also takes the measure of the rest of us."
Somerville, MA
Share this story

The Electoral College’s Racist Origins

1 Share

Is a color-blind political system possible under our Constitution? If it is, the Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 did little to help matters. While black people in America today are not experiencing 1950s levels of voter suppression, efforts to keep them and other citizens from participating in elections began within 24 hours of the Shelby County v. Holder ruling and have only increased since then.

In Shelby County’s oral argument, Justice Antonin Scalia cautioned, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get them out through the normal political processes.” Ironically enough, there is some truth to an otherwise frighteningly numb claim. American elections have an acute history of racial entitlements—only they don’t privilege black Americans.

For centuries, white votes have gotten undue weight, as a result of innovations such as poll taxes and voter-ID laws and outright violence to discourage racial minorities from voting. (The point was obvious to anyone paying attention: As William F. Buckley argued in his essay “Why the South Must Prevail,” white Americans are “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally,” anywhere they are outnumbered because they are part of “the advanced race.”) But America’s institutions boosted white political power in less obvious ways, too, and the nation’s oldest structural racial entitlement program is one of its most consequential: the Electoral College.

[Read more: The Electoral College was terrible from the start]

Commentators today tend to downplay the extent to which race and slavery contributed to the Framers’ creation of the Electoral College, in effect whitewashing history: Of the considerations that factored into the Framers’ calculus, race and slavery were perhaps the foremost.

Of course, the Framers had a number of other reasons to engineer the Electoral College. Fearful that the president might fall victim to a host of civic vices—that he could become susceptible to corruption or cronyism, sow disunity, or exercise overreach—the men sought to constrain executive power consistent with constitutional principles such as federalism and checks and balances. The delegates to the Philadelphia convention had scant conception of the American presidency—the duties, powers, and limits of the office. But they did have a handful of ideas about the method for selecting the chief executive. When the idea of a popular vote was raised, they griped openly that it could result in too much democracy. With few objections, they quickly dispensed with the notion that the people might choose their leader.

But delegates from the slaveholding South had another rationale for opposing the direct election method, and they had no qualms about articulating it: Doing so would be to their disadvantage. Even James Madison, who professed a theoretical commitment to popular democracy, succumbed to the realities of the situation. The future president acknowledged that “the people at large was in his opinion the fittest” to select the chief executive. And yet, in the same breath, he captured the sentiment of the South in the most “diplomatic” terms:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

Behind Madison’s statement were the stark facts: The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bondage. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president, one that could leverage the three-fifths compromise, the Faustian bargain they’d already made to determine how congressional seats would be apportioned. With about 93 percent of the country’s slaves toiling in just five southern states, that region was the undoubted beneficiary of the compromise, increasing the size of the South’s congressional delegation by 42 percent. When the time came to agree on a system for choosing the president, it was all too easy for the delegates to resort to the three-fifths compromise as the foundation. The peculiar system that emerged was the Electoral College.

Right from the get-go, the Electoral College has produced no shortage of lessons about the impact of racial entitlement in selecting the president. History buffs and Hamilton fans are aware that in its first major failure, the Electoral College produced a tie between Thomas Jefferson and his putative running mate, Aaron Burr. What’s less known about the election of 1800 is the way the Electoral College succeeded, which is to say that it operated as one might have expected, based on its embrace of the three-fifths compromise. The South’s baked-in advantages—the bonus electoral votes it received for maintaining slaves, all while not allowing those slaves to vote—made the difference in the election outcome. It gave the slaveholder Jefferson an edge over his opponent, the incumbent president and abolitionist John Adams. To quote Yale Law’s Akhil Reed Amar, the third president “metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.” That election continued an almost uninterrupted trend of southern slaveholders and their doughfaced sympathizers winning the White House that lasted until Abraham Lincoln’s victory in 1860.

In 1803, the Twelfth Amendment modified the Electoral College to prevent another Jefferson-Burr–type debacle. Six decades later, the Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery, thus ridding the South of its windfall electors. Nevertheless, the shoddy system continued to cleave the American democratic ideal along racial lines. In the 1876 presidential election, the Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but some electoral votes were in dispute, including those in—wait for it—Florida. An ad hoc commission of lawmakers and Supreme Court justices was empaneled to resolve the matter. Ultimately, they awarded the contested electoral votes to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who had lost the popular vote. As a part of the agreement, known as the Compromise of 1877, the federal government removed the troops that were stationed in the South after the Civil War to maintain order and protect black voters.

The deal at once marked the end of the brief Reconstruction era, the redemption of the old South, and the birth of the Jim Crow regime. The decision to remove soldiers from the South led to the restoration of white supremacy in voting through the systematic disenfranchisement of black people, virtually accomplishing over the next eight decades what slavery had accomplished in the country’s first eight decades. And so the Electoral College’s misfire in 1876 helped ensure that Reconstruction would not remove the original stain of slavery so much as smear it onto the other parts of the Constitution’s fabric, and countenance the racialized patchwork democracy that endured until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

What’s clear is that, more than two centuries after it was designed to empower southern whites, the Electoral College continues to do just that. The current system has a distinct, adverse impact on black voters, diluting their political power. Because the concentration of black people is highest in the South, their preferred presidential candidate is virtually assured to lose their home states’ electoral votes. Despite black voting patterns to the contrary, five of the six states whose populations are 25 percent or more black have been reliably red in recent presidential elections. Three of those states have not voted for a Democrat in more than four decades. Under the Electoral College, black votes are submerged. It’s the precise reason for the success of the southern strategy. It’s precisely how, as Buckley might say, the South has prevailed.

Among the Electoral College’s supporters, the favorite rationalization is that without the advantage, politicians might disregard a large swath of the country’s voters, particularly those in small or geographically inconvenient states. Even if the claim were true, it’s hardly conceivable that switching to a popular-vote system would lead candidates to ignore more voters than they do under the current one. Three-quarters of Americans live in states where most of the major parties’ presidential candidates do not campaign.

[Read more: The Electoral College conundrum]

More important, this “voters will be ignored” rationale is morally indefensible. Awarding a numerical few voting “enhancements” to decide for the many amounts to a tyranny of the minority. Under any other circumstances, we would call an electoral system that weights some votes more than others a farce—which the Supreme Court, more or less, did in a series of landmark cases. Can you imagine a world in which the votes of black people were weighted more heavily because presidential candidates would otherwise ignore them, or, for that matter, any other reason? No. That would be a racial entitlement. What’s easier to imagine is the racial burdens the Electoral College continues to wreak on them.

Critics of the Electoral College are right to denounce it for handing victory to the loser of the popular vote twice in the past two decades. They are also correct to point out that it distorts our politics, including by encouraging presidential campaigns to concentrate their efforts in a few states that are not representative of the country at large. But the disempowerment of black voters needs to be added to that list of concerns, because it is core to what the Electoral College is and what it always has been.

The race-consciousness establishment—and retention—of the Electoral College has supported an entitlement program that our 21st-century democracy cannot justify. If people truly want ours to be a race-blind politics, they can start by plucking that strange, low-hanging fruit from the Constitution.

Read the whole story
24 days ago
Somerville, MA
Share this story

Google buys Fitbit for $2.1 billion

1 Comment

It's official: Google is buying Fitbit. The company announced the move in a blog post this morning, and reports say the deal is worth $2.1 billion.

Google's SVP of hardware, Rick Osterloh, posted an announcement of the acquisition on Google's blog, saying the move was "an opportunity to invest even more in Wear OS as well as introduce Made by Google wearable devices into the market."

This is the second time this year Google has made an acquisition aimed at bolstering Wear OS, having previously purchased an unknown technology from Fossil Group for $40 million.

"Fitbit has been a true pioneer in the industry and has created engaging products, experiences and a vibrant community of users." Osterloh continued. "By working closely with Fitbit’s team of experts, and bringing together the best AI, software and hardware, we can help spur innovation in wearables and build products to benefit even more people around the world."

As we wrote earlier in the week, Google is dead last in the smartwatch market thanks primarily to a failure of its supply chain. Its primary competitors, Apple and Samsung, both have their own system-on-a-chip (SoC) design divisions that are able to produce a custom chip design aimed solely at smartwatches. Designing an SoC for these ultra-compact form factors gives these companies a huge advantage in device performance, battery life, and compactness, which are all critical aspects of a smartwatch.

Google does not have its own chip-design division and instead must rely on Qualcomm, the mobile market's biggest chip maker. So far, Qualcomm has not shown significant interest in the wearables market and has only put out repackaged smartphone chips using aging technology. They have not been the slightest bit competitive with what Apple and Samsung are able to produce, so Wear OS devices are usually slow, large, and have poor battery life. Fitbit has just been using off-the-shelf ARM designs for its products, so this acquisition doesn't seem like it will fix Google's core wearables problem.

In terms of cost, Fitbit's $2.1 billion price tag is Google's fifth largest acquisition ever, after Motorola ($12.5 billion), Nest ($3.2 billion), Adsense ($3.1 billion), and Looker ($2.6 billion). The deal is expected to close sometime in 2020.

Read Comments

Read the whole story
40 days ago
Really looking forward to Google dropping support for my 2 year old fitbit, and then presenting shittier (but more expensive) hardware that does fewer things as the alternative.
Somerville, MA
40 days ago
Maybe they’ll even take features away from your existing equip, like they just did for my nest cam
Share this story

Arduino Pro IDE (alpha preview) with advanced features

1 Comment

Live from Maker Faire Rome on Saturday, October 19th at 16.00 CET, Massimo Banzi and Luca Cipriani will push the button to release the new Arduino Pro IDE (alpha) — watch this space.

The simplicity of the Arduino IDE has made it one of the most popular in the world — it’s easy enough for beginners and fast for advanced users. Millions of you have used it as your everyday tool to program projects and applications. We’ve listened to your feedback though, and it’s time for a new enhanced version with features to appeal to the more advanced developers amongst you — while retaining continuity with the simple, classic Arduino IDE that so many of you are familiar with.

We are very excited to announce the release of an alpha version of a completely new development environment for Arduino — the Arduino Pro IDE. 

The main features in this initial alpha release of the new Arduino Pro IDE are:

  • Modern, fully featured development environment 
  • Dual Mode, Classic Mode (identical to the Classic Arduino IDE) and Pro Mode (File System view)
  • New Board Manager 
  • New Library Manager
  • Board List
  • Basic Auto Completion (Arm targets only)
  • Git Integration
  • Serial Monitor
  • Dark Mode

But the new architecture opens the door to features that the Arduino community have been requesting like these that will be following on soon:

  • Sketch synchronisation with Arduino Create Editor
  • Debugger
  • Fully open to third party plug-ins 
  • Support for additional languages other than C++

The new Arduino Pro IDE is based on the latest technologies: 

Available in Windows, Mac OS X and Linux64 versions; we need your help in improving the product. Before releasing the source code to move out of the alpha, we would greatly appreciate your feedback. Like all things in the Arduino community, we grow and develop together through your valued contributions. Please test the Arduino Pro IDE to it’s breaking point, we want to hear all the good and bad things you find. We’re open to recommendations for additional features, as well as hearing about any bugs you may find — there’s bound to be a few as it is an alpha version after all!

Versions (released on Saturday, October 19th at 16.00 CET)

Arduino Pro IDE Windows v0.0.1-alpha.preview

Arduino Pro IDE OSX v0.0.1-alpha.preview

Arduino Pro IDE Linux v0.0.1-alpha.preview

So give it a go and let us know of any feature requests or bugs at: https://github.com/arduino/arduino-pro-ide/issues

For those of you who love and cherish the classic Arduino IDE, don’t worry it will continue to be available forever.

Read the whole story
50 days ago
This is fairly exciting, and long overdue.
Somerville, MA
Share this story
Next Page of Stories