davidovitch

I have an EliteBook 845 G7 and also that one is top notch, minus the screen and driver bug on the WWAN modem. I whish HP did not include a keypad though on the bigger screen sizes since your hands are always towards the left instead of the middle of the machine (Dell and Lenovo have 15/16 inch options for which the keyboard does not have a keypad).

At work I am limited to using HP but I have to say that I have been very pleasantly surprised by the HP EliteBook 845 G7 (Ryzen 7 PRO 4750U). When I bought it new in 2020 it had initially sleeping problems but later kernels improved the situation. Other driver problems where with the finger print reader (easily fixed with LVFS firmware upgrade) and the Intel WWAN card (that still doesn't work due to a bug). The display with privacy filter works but generally, when privacy mode is off, the screen viewing angles are terrible (I will not buy a build-in privacy filter on future models).

Personally I would recommend laptops from shops that give you a Linux option right from the start. From the big manufacturers I could see that this is the case for the Dell XPS and Precision 7670, while Lenovo offers it on various Thinkpad models. I could not find that for any of the HP models (except Dev One).

Although I have not used them, I am not a big fan of the Clevo based machines that System76 and Tuxedo have. I think the Librem and Framework machines look nicer (even though I prefer 14+ inch sized machines).

A good resource to check for Linux compatibility of specific components and laptops is https://linux-hardware.org. I whish this resource was used more often by reviewers.

I would also give a laptop bonus points if its firmware is supported by easy upgrades via LVFS https://fwupd.org/lvfs/devices/.

No AUR package yet it seems, but a PKGBUILD is already provided so I would assume it is not too much of hassle to take it for spin: https://docs.safing.io/portmaster/install/linux#arch-linux

There are modern alternative systems with an open firmware stack, for example the Talos II running Power9. Granted, it is not available as a cheap, slick and slim power efficient laptop, but it is real, only twice as expensive and very capable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER9

See performance benchmarks incomparison with AMD/Intel at: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=power9-t... https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=power9-t...

Very cool :-)

Regarding usability: I keep getting confused by the controls: indicating where you want to go vs which thruster to use. Back in yonder days I used to play Lunar Lander on Windows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Lander_(video_game_genre...) but there the controls indicate which rocket you're firing: down for going up, left for going right, etc.

These generator+gearbox combo's operate at efficiencies (mechanical to electrical power) in the order of 80-90%. I would assume it will be quite challenging to do that with a 100m long mechanical transmission system handling 5-10MW. I wonder how much maintenance such a system would require too.

Exactly. Other concept studies have looked at driving mechanical pumps to feed hydraulic pressure into a network [1], or (at a very small scale) mechanically drive a desalination unit [2]. As mentioned in the article, the problem is not figuring out if these concepts can work (usually they just do). The question is always: what will it cost compared to what we have now, and how much more complicated will the wind turbine become?

[1] https://www.tudelft.nl/en/2017/tu-delft/possibility-of-hydra... [2] https://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/drinking-with-th...

In the server/workstation space you can also opt in for an expensive Raptor Talos II system (but you'll get Power instead of x86). There is very little competition in the space for open/libre high end computer hardware systems.

I agree with what others have mentioned here: I really like your elegant workflow (thanks for sharing!!). I also like that it is generally applicable to any collection of PDFs.

However, to be fair, you can follow a somewhat similar workflow with Zotero in combination with the Firefox plugin: download pdf by adding it to the Zotero database in Firefox and Zotero takes care of the indexing. Zotero misses the fancy interactive fuzzy searching you have in your workflow thanks to fzf, but I've added it as a feature request for Zotero [1].

You don't have to organize your papers into folders (or collections in Zotero parlance since a single item can appear in multiple collections). For most academic papers the Zotero plugin will also grab the pdf's metadata as a bonus without additional costs.

[1] https://github.com/zotero/zotero/issues/1536

Other features I use often are:

* manage to-do-lists based on the page they occur, and/or their tags, deadlines and priority level.

* table of contents for a larger one page note

* auto git add/commit upon application start

What I would love to see is:

* automated and robust git push/pull with GUI based conflict resolvement so I could collaborate with colleagues who are not too comfi with git using zim

* organize pages using a nested tag structure (like gmail lables) instead of folder structure.

I think the official documentation is here:

https://seaborn.github.io/api.html

https://seaborn.github.io/tutorial.html

I participated in the crowd funding phase (waiting for my router to arrive later this year), and they have just updated their IndieGogo project page: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/turris-omnia-hi-performan... saying:

  At the same time, we will discontinue the "Board only"
  perk. The demand for this version was very low and it
  presents a complication for handling and logistics.

Just to be clear, it is the board-only option that is being discontinued, not the router+case! The case looks pretty cool to me.

Not exactly like the Pi's, and coming in with 5 Gig Ethernet ports is the Turris Omnia: https://omnia.turris.cz/en/. It is intended to be a router, and not really a Pi clone though. However, it is (almost) completely open. You can order the board only for $119, but that option will disappear soon if I got it right.

There's also LiquidFeedback [1] maintained by the Public Software Group of Berlin, difficult to judge how actively developed it is since they use their own Mercurial hosting [2].

It is a bit confusing, adhocracy is maintained by Liquid Democracy B.V. in Berlin, but then there is LiquidFeedback maintained by the Public Software Group of Berlin...

[1] http://liquidfeedback.org/

[2] http://www.public-software-group.org/mercurial

Part 1 has been discussed on HN a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11041210

There is not too much information on their home or github page. There's more hints an pointers in the documentation http://adhocracy3.readthedocs.org/en/latest/, but it would be interesting to see some kind of an overview with features, work flows etc.

It seems that they also have an older version running on Python2: https://github.com/liqd/adhocracy, docs: http://adhocracy.readthedocs.org/en/latest/

Would love to see tools like this and/or others [1][2] come more widespread and commonly used in the democratic decision making process. I am naively hoping it will help engaging more people in the democratic process again in Europe. Transparent democratic discussion and decision making is a hard problem to solve that doesn't scale well in real life. Figuring out how to scale-up the number of participants with the help of tools like this is democracy's only hope for a bright future.

[1] https://www.loomio.org/ [2] https://consider.it/

edit: typos

It is right there in the second paragraph on the about page: https://github.com/liqd/adhocracy3

ars technica reviewed the article a couple of days ago: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/winners-act-as-thick-...

Exactly, the paper also expresses hopes that people continue to study of human social interaction:

>> Moving forward, experiments in artificial social contexts like ours appear to be a very powerful tool to examine strategic behavior in socially relevant situations. We hope that our work will stimulate further work along these lines.

It is clear it will be nearly impossible to account for all the factors in one controlled experiment. Note that such "total experiments" in the other scientific fields is challenging as well. Usually one first tries to understand certain fundamental processes, then they move on to the interactions between them.

Ultimately, what this paper means to me is that there is evidence (based on simplified conditions, granted) that people collaborate better when they believe they will receive a fair share of the outcome. This makes a lot of sense to me, especially when comparing to real life.

For example, why is it that in many cases it is the small startup that creates innovative new technologies compared to large and well funded established players? I guess there are many factors at play, but I would argue that at least one factor relates to a more successful collaboration within the smaller environment, which in part is sourced upon the fact that there is promise of a higher payout in the case of success (equity as part of the salary).

Only discovered MUBI today via HN. Looks great! There is one annoyance (which I also have with Netflix): I live in Denmark, but I am not fluent in Danish. Not all your movies have English subtitles though, so how can I watch anything else except the three languages I master (English, French and Dutch)? Are licensing issues preventing you from offering English subtitles on all your movies as a default?

Very annoying when the source to the real report that is being discussed is not included. So here it is, in Spanish [pdf]: http://www.unodc.org/documents/bolivia/Informe_Monitoreo_Coc.... I don't speak Spanish so I have not read this report.

According to [1]:

“It’s not only about making money off a crop. In the old fashioned alternative development approach, we substitute one illicit crop for a licit crop. It’s about a more comprehensive approach that includes access to essential services like schools, hospitals, and roads in areas that traditionally have been hard to reach,”

and another citation, from the original UN report press release [2]:

"the importance of comprehensive, participative and long-term development programmes, as essential elements to ensure a sustained reduction of illicit crops."

I am by far an expert in this area, but I think kicking out the DEA allowed Bolivia to shift efforts from violent, top down (US orchestrated) repression to:

* Giving farmers incentives to shift to other crops: do not let coca be the only way of sustaining the farmers family

* Still allow coca growing for traditional usage (chewed, in tea, or as a natural analgesic)

* Bottom up: work together with coca unions and farmers to understand the incentives that drive farmers to chose coca in the first place

* Probably many more things I am not aware of

[1] http://theantimedia.org/cocaine-production-plummets-after-de...

[2] http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2015/August/2014-bol...

edit: layout fixes

The plan sounds hopelessly naive but it did bring Indiegogo down at the time of writing. I guess that is something :-)

It does place things in perspective though. It will not solve all the problems, but we need to realize the resource we have available as Europeans are quite extensive indeed. There is a solution out there, and giving the Greeks some slack will not bring down the skies.

In Belgium, you are allowed to do this. When I moved to Copenhagen I was seriously annoyed for the reasons you mentioned when I realized I had to first cross, wait and only then go on with my ride. However, I started realizing that the Copenhagen way actually works very well, and it is a LOT safer, and so much more relaxed (not slower). Merging into traffic and crossing the street to get to the lane to turn left can be a stressful affair. I used to bike in Brussels and I can assure you that is a jungle over there: you have to be reckless as a biker (and so I was) if you want to get anywhere at all. On the upside: a fast morning ride through Brussels from home to work was one big adrenaline shot. Once behind my desk, I was awake, sharp and ready to start working :-)

Additionally, cars going for a left turn usually have a separate traffic light which is red when the main direction has green. The time you gain using that lane compared to the "box turn" is minimal as such.

A lot is also context: Copenhagen has a very extensive bicycle lane network that does not involve any cars that is constantly expanding. Cykelslangen is a nice example of such a bike only short cut https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmKXYZZy6dI, http://www.dw.dk/cykelslangen/, http://classiccopenhagen.blogspot.dk/2014/06/cykelslangen.ht.... When going around the city, you are just faster with a bike because you take more direct routes (away from car lanes) with less traffic lights. If I have to take a left turn on big busy car street, I couldn't car less if I had to wait for making a box turn: I am faster anyway, and the properly tuned and fast switching red-green lights minimize the wait.

I guess this discussion is way off-topic at this point :-) But I find it interesting enough to keep it going. The real challenge is obviously to have this government funded publication company stay free of direct government interference. The article mentions a sort of tax that is levied before the wage is paid out, and should be delivered directly to the join publication house. Much in the same way as some European social security contributions are collected today. That would keep the funding away from the yearly government budgeting rounds.

No matter what system we think of, the powers at be will always try to influence the press and information. We can also see that in the current system, where large stakeholders can pressure/influence journalists and publications. I don't think the state has a monopoly here, on the contrary.

In the December 2014 issue of Le Monde diplomatique there is an interesting article that investigates future possible press models within the French context: http://mondediplo.com/2014/12/13press (in English, but behind a pay wall). The authors argue that for public interest press (news, investigative journalism, etc), a shared publication and distribution institute/company should be funded by the government. In that way, the magazines/newspapers/whatever only have to finance the costs of the journalists and editors. Publication costs are carried by this joint/shared open publisher. The article is focussed on the French situation, and stresses that the government already hands out a yearly €1.6bn subsidy to the press, and end with concluding that funding a joint open publication institute will not be that much different money-wise compared to the current situation.

I find it quite annoying that the original papers are not mentioned anywhere in the article. How difficult can it be to include a link/reference/doi to the source? I understand that for many people these scientific articles are too much, and unfortunately most of the times the scientific sources are still behind pay walls, but it is very important if one wants to verify the claims made in the news article.

I believe the following articles are the ones on which this story is based: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2014.06.016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2014.10.018 (behind a pay-wall unfortunately)

15%-20% is for photovoltaic solar cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics): where sunlight is converted directly into an electical current. The article here talks about converting solar irradiation into pure heat.

This is quite interesting, and given my experience with LaTeX (I am a post-doc and prefer working with LaTeX), I often wonder if it is all worth the trouble. Although I have only used Word (and LibreOffice Writer, odd the article doesn't even mention it) sporadically over the last years (and only for simple documents), I do wonder how Word and friends perform in settings that were not part of the experiment that is reported here:

* Large documents (50+ pages) (I remember having to deal with file corruptions, figures appearing at random places, formatting suddenly has a free will, ...)

* Lots of figures that get updated during the writing process

* Collaborating: merging several documents into one big report, especially if other authors do not follow formatting guidelines etc.

* Citations and references

* The authors mention it in the conclusions, but I think the test should also have included a scenario based on using templates instead of building something from scratch.

Other aspects why I prefer LaTeX:

* Version control with plain text files is rather convenient. And so is collaborating.

* Comparing different versions of the same document(s) is much easier with plain text (diff), although you can do something similar with PDF's

* I agree to a certain extent with the authors that scientific content is more important than the form, but I do prefer a traditional LaTeX look over Word documents. By far.

* I always use templates, and this speeds up the writing process significantly. Ideally, you can forgot about the formatting in those cases.

I think the authors make a good point though. Maybe we should invest in smarter/better/more productive LaTeX editors?

edit: formatting, added citations point...

I can't really relate to all the other great IDE's out there for Python, but in the scientific context I think Spyder makes a lot of sense. It tries to create a comfortable environment for scientists with a limited background on computer science. Especially for the more GUI oriented users, it is great to have a visual on the variables in the workspace with the variable inspector (like Matlab has). Debugging toolbar, object inspector showing rich text documentation (including MathJax rendered formulas), running a multitude of Python or IPython consoles, syntax checking etc makes it for my line of work as a scientist a very decent environment.

There was a nice tutorial given on the SciPy 2013 conference [0] by Carlos Cordoba (the main developer these days for Spyder I believe). What I also think is exciting is that he shows some ideas about how to integrate the IPython notebook in Spyder (last minutes of the talk). Would be interesting to see when that feature further materialize. I think that is a potential killer feature. There are more interesting idea's on further improving Spyder, please ping the mailing list if you are interested in helping out :-)

Besides python(x,y), the WinPython distribution [1] can sometimes offer some installation releave for Windows systems (don't have experience with it as a Linux user though).

@Rickasaurus: When running Spyder straight from source, you can have multiple instances running. Not sure in what context that would be useful besides developing Spyder with Spyder [2] though: python bootstrap.py -- --new-instance

@Derbasti: Spyder does work with Python 3 [3] for the older 2.1 branch. For 2.3 I believe full Python 3 support is also eminent.

[0] http://pyvideo.org/video/2113/the-advantages-of-a-scientific...

[1] https://code.google.com/p/winpython/

[2] http://code.google.com/p/spyderlib/wiki/NoteForContributors

[3] http://spyder-ide.blogspot.dk/2013/01/spyder-v2114-supports-...

Disclaimer: I am a tiny and modest Spyder contributor.

Edit: fix layout