cookingmyserver

What is mind blowing to me is how little weight impacts the fuel efficiency in my situation. I get ~58 MPG on my 385lb bike and ~55-60 MPG in my 3,500lb Prius prime. Obviously the regen helps, but still it is crazy how efficient the Prius is.

What I’m struggling with is that what was done is not illegal in its self. It’s not necessarily suspicious in itself (from the perspective of a single dev working on tasks), unless you assume fraud. Of course we know fraud occurred so we can look back on it and have our perception of the request tainted.

If my boss came to me and said, “continue showing customer funds sent to our “sister” investment company in the staff dashboards” I wouldn’t find that suspicious. I would probably push back and say that might be confusing unless we separate out that amount and rename the total to something that denotes part of this value is with our sister company. But I would assume design incompetence and not fraud.

But then again if I was just one of a handful of devs that worked with the company I would probably find it suspicious, as I would confidently know that nowhere else in the codebase do we support a close integration with our sister investment company and should therefore know we shouldn’t treat them any differently.

Also the modification to exempt the investment company from risk rules does seem suspicious, unless again you believed there was an integration somewhere and believed investment risk mitigation rules were handled on the other platform or something.

Does anyone know how they track the position of the communication satellites? I assume they use GPS for the users position, the gyro and accelerometer for device orientation, and then periodically load and update the LEO sat paths on the device when they are connected. Or is the antenna able to estimate LEO position via a signal the LEO sats sends out?

No, The T-Mobile and Starlink agreement uses part of their existing spectrum to communicate directly between the phone and Starlink Satellite.

I think it is important to remember the context of the discussion. I think I it is completely reasonable, and not odd at all, to have a utilitarian view of science, when you are talking about spending $100 Billion.

I was a backer and have received mine, thanks for all of the hard work! I am curios, now that you have the tooling and partnerships established, what is the turn around on a new wave of flippers?

I am going to assume you made the comment from position of ignorance on how they executed the stunt. They used a very very large airbrake to slow the aircraft down after pitching down into a near vertical dive and letting prop windmill. The risk of the plane flying away was negligible.

This (the crash, not the revocations) might be the worst, most embarrassing outcome for the FAA. Had the stunt gone completely right they could have just put the hammer down on the pilots and said "it could have gone wrong and people could have got hurt!". But we got to see what happened when things went wrong. We saw, even in failure, no one got hurt, and it doesn't seem like anyone was close to getting hurt. Is this luck or were the pilots right the entire time, planning for failure and ensuring no one would be harmed even if they failed? Still doesn't excuse them for going forward despite the exemption being rejected, but a successful failure raises doubt as to the FAA's ability to evaluate risk, which only compounds the current Trent Palmer situation.

Serious question, are you really asking for examples of broken sites? Have you never used a site that was broken, took forever to do something simple, or was otherwise not acting as expected?

Just this week the LMS our company uses accidentally removed existing functionality we relied on to sell courses. They didn’t purposely remove the feature, but instead a UI overhaul never included the UI for it. The feature was still available in the backend and for the legacy design, but they just forgot to include it in the redesign.

Also, present your argument for why I don’t understand accessibility.

Hit the nail on the head. There is no guarantee that a website will be functional or work correctly for those without disabilities, much less be designed in a user friendly easy to use way. When does a bug or bad design choice impacting screen readers constitute discrimination or failure of reasonable accommodation?

The answer is nuanced and will depend on the history of the website and not just the current state. Is the site always buggy for everyone? Is the site confusing for everyone? How do the developers respond to bugs/feedback for general bugs vs bugs impacting accessibility.

Of course if you completely ignore accessibility that is much more straight forward.

I would highly discourage including a keyboard or mouse. If you are already spending $2700 on a VR computer I suspect you already have a keyboard or mouse you prefer or want to invest in a setup of your choice. No point in creating eWaste to drive home the point that this is a computer. And to that point you say that they need to emphasize that it is a computer and not just another headset (to the point of saying included a keyboard and mouse), but then bring up their use of terminal windows in their marketing (I agree though they should show other things as you suggested)?

Two of your points in your comment seem to be lambasting the fact SimulaVR aren't advertising towards the lowest common denominator of people buying tech. It is a $2700 computer and display. Who exactly, that would ever actually purchase this device, would not understand it is a computer (or that it can come with one if you aren't doing stand alone), or not realize that if it can be used in a coffee shop it can be used in a home office?

I don't know if I would agree. The fact that growth is stopping is more damaging to share price than the actual material impact of the growth stoppage, until the price corrects.

I think there is a good chance Meta is not bluffing. It could be viewed as a way to slow or quarantine the spread of data regulations. Pull out of Europe and let Europe develop its own competitor that will have control over Europe, but won't be able to compete abroad. Satiating European want for data regulation and privacy laws in Europe would, hopefully in Meta's view, dampen the broader push for these regulations (a push being led by Europe). Essentially let Europe isolate themselves. This will probably be followed by Meta and other corporations pushing propaganda and marketing highlighting any mistake or failure of European replacements.

Pulling out of Europe would hurt, but at the end of the day Europe's population is small and already developed. In 10 years are there going to be a lot more Europeans spending a lot more, requiring more advertising? Doubtful.

But this could also backfire if other countries look at new European competitors with jealousy and want to emulate it.

Is the ground water near a coast line brackish?

I would be interested in seeing the difference in impact between large and small scale cloud providers. Larger providers have been able to vertically integrate and build/operate/fund power generation for their datacenters.

Almost all of this around renewables, which means they have to get energy elsewhere during the power gen gaps. Although, depending on policy of the local area they could still be mostly insulated from price increases as the energy they sell back to the grid will also fetch a higher price.

> The cost of hardening electronics and shielding is also not going away even if launch costs were non-existent.

Of course, but what about hardened electronics exempts it from the principles I discussed with scientific instruments in general?

> the cost will still be orders of magnitude higher than comparable commodity options.

Irrelevant, no one is comparing the cost to commodity hardware, we are comparing it to what the cost would be if we don't increase the number of scientific missions and continue with the current demand.

> in order to get RTGs you need to build, maintain and operate an entire specialized nuclear facility.

Yes, needing more material is going to cost more money, but does the cost per unit stay the same or go up the more you buy? We are going to need to increase production Pu used in RTGs anyways, if we are going to build facilities to might as well utilize them to the max.

> How exactly would a cheaper launch cost solve the problem of a Venus sample-return mission?

There will be unique engineering challenges that require unique solutions, but engineers will have a large shelf of parts to choose from if they have a specific issue they don't have to invent the wheel for.

> that cost is also unrelated to launch costs

That one is true. Missions that involve complex maneuvers, landings, driving rovers, etc, will require large amounts of staff and engineers. Other missions that don't involve those things could utilize a shared staff, so something like a general purpose probe network taking measurements across the solar system. Fleet management tools, policy, and procedures need to be developed so we can manage assets like we do with other LEO constellations.

> Way too many people seem to ignore the cost of developing and certifying scientific instruments.

It gets ignored because it is a symptom of not being able to cheaply launch probes. You spend all of this time researching and developing a scientific instrument only to make two of them. One to launch the other to go on a diagnostic model (maybe a third for a launch backup). You spread out the cost of development over more units and bring down the per unit cost of manufacturing (although probably not that much given we are still talking quantities in the tens or at most hundreds of units). But without a cheap launch system there is a fixed cost per unit of hundreds of millions to get it into space, so there is very little point in producing more than what you need for just that mission.

Of course certain missions are going to require special specs, but I do think that generic, somewhat modular spaceprobes are around the corner now that launch costs are going down. If you are going to retire a space craft that you've made a profit off of shuttling cargo to LEO might as well discard of it by sending it on one last mission into deep space with a couple of scientific missions onboard.

We will end up spending more money overall, but cost per unit of science (however you want to measure that) will go down.

> It's always been possible to dynamically load content like a payment signup form after the application loads, app review was never about preventing that.

Exactly. Its always been about security theater. The review process is holier than the TSA. But you still go through the same often nonsensical rigmarole for "security's sake", but don't worry when someone gets through we have a team of lawyers to sue people after the adversary got your data! So don't worry, if you see something you like just click the Get button and know we've taken care of it.

You can have a locked down and secure phone without a monopoly controlling your device. Apple is good at marketing security via security theater. Look at all the 0 days coming out. Hell the thing that probably embarrasses Apple the most about the Epic saga is that their justification for their 30% and not allowing sideloaded apps fell on its face when Epic's in app payment waltzed right through app review.

I have a hard time buying that the same users we struggle to convince to not use the same 7 character long password for every site care about security. They don't even know what sideloading means. They don't care about a secure experience, they care about the native experience. Ya click the blue icon with a white triangle and press Get on whatever catches your fancy.

The key difference is the product. What a company has a monopoly over is important and is a factor in whether the government takes action and what kind of action they take. Heck, the government even enforces temporary monopolies of specific technologies to promote R&D.

A video game console is marketed and used as a video game console by most people. Mobile phones and tablets are used as mobile general purpose computing devices. I know many people who only have mobile phones and tablets as their computer.

This means everything they do online and in their cyber lives is through their phone. That means two companies have complete control of communications, banking, emergency alerts, voting information, dating/relationships, political discussions, job functions/searches, photo storage, shopping, education, entertainment, identification cards, health care, physical access credentials, schedules, location data, IoT device control, password managers, news, navigation/travel, religious apps, etc.

If gaming consoles begin to be used for most of these things.. then maybe we should look at it as a monopoly that needs to be broken or regulated, but until then its apple and oranges.

They care when they believe it confirms their already existing bias. You will scoff at an adult telling you that D&D will make you satanic because you know that you are not satanic and have not had the urge to worship satan because of D&D.

But if they are telling you social media will make you feel bad about yourself, and you actually are feeling bad about yourself, you are likely to say.. yeah that is probably right. It allows them to cast their insecurities on to "Social Media" and say "I feel this way because of X". Otherwise where are these feelings coming from? Am I really a loser?

Depends on the country. Although they have been hiding it pretty well, and usually it is only symbols and not detailed information like IDs.

I don't think much of the Starship fanbase is watching 'Loco Vlogs'. As much as you can characterize an internet fanbase (very difficult to do) I don't believe the fanbase will ever get mad for SpaceX or the authorities going after trespassers. Trespassers cause delays and present a risk to the program we all want to see succeed.

SpaceX has been very cooperative with the fanbase, allowing photographers and different outlets to come onto the property and setup cameras for streaming.

I can see the fanbase getting upset if they change something with that, but I just don't see them getting upset over a trespasser being punished.

Django also provides auth out of the box. Granted the existing login page is for the admin, but that brings up another point.. it has a built-in admin portal which is super helpful!

If you want a user facing login page there are default login views, all you really need to do is make the template for the page.

Vanilla has always been able to do what jQuery can, otherwise jQuery wouldn't exist. It all depends on what your threshold for abstraction and verbosity is. That is going to depend on what you are doing and who you are.

> Their due diligence of the term took great trouble to make sure it had not any undocumented previous use.

Doesn't mean an organization should be able to just take a self-descriptive phrase, say purple icicle, and assign a very specific meaning to it. Every self-descriptive phrase has an existing usage. Because one day you'll see an icicle that is purple and say "hey, purple icicle" only to have a horde of people rush and say "thats not a purple icicle!" (literally what happened in this thread).

> They then failed to secure the trademarks they wanted, but not because the term had any documented previous use.

No, of course they didn't have any documented previous use. "Documented previous use" being reserved uses before. You know why? Because it is a self-descriptive phrase that is too broad, ie descriptive mark which aren't granted. They chose a very basic self-descriptive phrase (frequency of previous use doesn't matter) and literally could not get it trademarked because it is self-descriptive and broad, but YET CONTINUED ON even after being swatted down by trademark offices around the world. Absolutely bonkers.

Unpopular opinion: this is the natural consequence of squatting self-descriptive phrases. Open source is self-descriptive.. the source is open. The phrase was hijacked (by the OSI) and is being squatted on by people who want to enforce a very specific meaning of the phrase, even though it is self-descriptive and broad. If there is any ambiguity as to the phrase, it should be added to with modifiers, and not just claimed. For example, what does open refer to in OSS? Lots of different things. Thats why you should specify when addressing your interpretation. OSS should be an umbrella phrase that covers the multitude of interpretations like source available, FOSS, FLOSS, etc.

I've thought about making a nonprofit called the Grape Initiative which would release a definition of "Grape" that only includes purple grapes. If people want to refer to green grapes well then I guess they will just have to say green grapes! When I think about grapes I always think about purple ones, makes sense to me!

So, correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that uniqueness when it comes to data regulation is different than uniqueness in information theory.

Even though I generate a random salt when hashing passwords I wouldn't use it to select a user out of a database because I don't check for collisions by ensuring a unique salt that has never been used before. The chance of a collision is tiny, but I still don't want to do it. But this would still qualify as unique under data regulations?

What could she say at those speaking engagements that could possibly:

* Fit in a few speeches * Be worth $700,000 * Not be confidential, go against FTC rules, or raise ethical concerns * Isn't known to other researchers or experts (that could actually provide a research paper with supporting materials)

Further, is this the market rate for other financial experts, or just ones that have access to power and the ability to influence? Are there any financial experts or academics being compensated $50,000/hour to speak and don't have influence or power over financial organizations?

It will be interesting to see Republicans argue that their conduct on social media is an attribute of their party affiliation. They would either have to (1) argue that they weren't spreading fake news or inciting violence or (2) that spreading fake news and inciting violence is part of being a Republican.

I think that it could be considered a small business, but on the upper side probably. Their ads are the supplies they use to make their product. It works out to 4 million a year, although I doubt they were spending anywhere near that much starting off (which is why I think they could be past the point of the public's perception of a small business).

It would be like looking at how much a small business fabricator spent on metal and other supplies. That number is going to be larger than what they actually bring in as profit. If ads aren't your supplies then it would absolutely be an indication of being a large business if you spent $57 million on marketing.