rimunroe

> A heat pump house uses perhaps 40-50kwh in deep winter.

Over what time period, and where? My geothermal system draws about 1200 watts when heating our large house on the coldest days of the year

No idea. I was just chiming in to say that is indeed the case with YouTube for some people.

To elaborate, I think experts usually use these terms as follows: an addiction is something where you have a continuous and difficult to resist drive to keep doing/using something due to it being inherently rewarding. A dependence is something where if you stop regularly doing/using something you’ll experience some sort of withdrawal.

I knew someone who had exactly that feeling about YouTube. It was a genuine struggle for them to stop even though the amount of time they spent on it was negatively impacting their life and the content was making them more anxious.

You can inject these things pretty easily. They're about the size of a grain of rice, and pretty popular in some circles.

They waited on the line until I said I'd deleted it and then immediately reactivated my connection.

Funnily enough the only time I ever got in trouble for torrenting anything was when Cox was my ISP circa 2009. I'd been torrenting some PSP game and my connection went down. When I called the helpline they explained what happened and said they'd restore access once I confirmed I'd deleted the downloaded file.

Thanks! I forgot that article, but now I remember that I read or skimmed it when it made the rounds last year. It's actually where I first learned that the aqueducts were uncovered!

I was surprised to find out it was largely uncovered, though I guess it probably makes it much cheaper to construct. I usually think of aqueducts as pipes or tunnels, like Persian qanāts. I wonder how much water is lost due to evaporation.

> If wife and husband are home during her most fertile time window in a cycle, she will instinctively “find him” [...]

Have you known many couples who had trouble trying to conceive? There's a reason fertility monitoring strips, apps, etc. are such a huge market, and it's not because people are trying to avoid pregnancy.

> [...] for some magic moments that may not be particularly planned or even romantic, rather more characterized by a delightful and clumsy urgency.

I guarantee that if you interviewed couples who had been unsuccessfully trying to conceive for a long time a large number of them would strongly disagree with using "delightful" to describe the urgency of sex during the fertility window.

I worked for five years at a shop where a few years in we started pair programming aggressively. One of our most experienced engineers was really into XP and agile work (in the “purer” meaning of the term). He often suggested pairing when thorny problems came up, and eventually it spread. It often took half or more of the available time for programming each day. That was by far the best working environment I’ve been in. The team was excellent and it seems like we all improved in our skills when we started doing it more. We cut down on how long it took to get in while managing to produce better code. It made planning features and adjusting to unforeseen snags in plans so much quicker. I can’t emphasize enough how much of an impact it made on me as a developer or how much I miss it.

The biggest downside to me was that it forces a level of engagement exceeding the most heads down solo work I’ve done. I’d come home and feel mentally exhausted in a way I didn’t usually.

> I'd say this is the crux of the matter.

That's why my opening paragraph and final paragraphs were devoted to it :)

I feel like a lot of the things I hear from other folks is that I'm missing the possibility of programming the way I used to, rather than being sad that it might no longer be practical within the constraints of my life. Even if I did start doing it on the side, going from eight hours a day programming to squeezing in one or two would be quite the change.

> You could perhaps even start your own company if it's that important to you.

I have no interest in ever starting or running a company. Every person I've known who does it has it consume their life. I'd rather spend time with my family and do stuff which doesn't involve a boatload of stress and additional responsibility. Not to mention that in the case where I'm no longer able to find a job programming the way I used to then I don't think it's likely a company where people did that would be competitive enough to survive, at least not normally. Also, one of the reasons I rarely program on the side is that I don't often have ideas for things to make. I just don't feel the need for much software in my personal life, and certainly don't think of the sorts of things where there's a market for them.

Having a lucrative job where you do something where you find great satisfaction in your daily work isn't the norm and is the privilege of a lucky few, but that doesn't mean they aren't justified in feeling sad at the prospect of it going away.

Exactly. I said this elsewhere in here, but I’ve felt extremely lucky that for the last 13 years I’ve gotten paid to do something that would otherwise have to be a hobby. The problem is that I have other hobbies already and am a parent with limited time to devote to such things in the first place. It’s valid to miss things you were extremely lucky to have in the first place.

> Craft lovers can still lovingly craft away, even if they have to do it on their own time instead of on their now-AI-dominated day job, just like in ye olde days. Nothing's stopping them.

…except time, which sadly is limited. I’m sad about the real potential that I might not get to be paid to do something I enjoy so much anymore. I care about end products for sure, but that’s not why I’m in this career.

I do this because a large part of the work engages me in a pleasant way. I like TDDing in a tight loop. I like how it forces me to think one step at a time, how I get to stop myself from jumping ahead, and how I get to verify my thoughts or theories within seconds. I find efficiently manipulating text in my editor satisfying. I love the feeling of being validated that my architectural choice was right when a spec changes and the required code change is obvious, minimal, and clearly expressed. I enjoy the feeling of obtaining mastery for mastery’s sake rather than because it lets me create a product.

I’ve felt incredibly lucky for over a decade that my work gave me the opportunity to chase that. I may find enjoyment in wrangling AI, but I’m skeptical it’ll scratch that itch. If it doesn’t and I wanted to still scratch it, I’d have to do it on my own time. That would mean sacrificing time I’ve previously spent on other interests, and I don’t have a ton of time to begin with.

> For example `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(Temporal.PlainYearMonth.from({year:2026,month:1}))).subtract({ years: 1})` won't work, because it misses the prototype and is no longer an instance of Temporal.PlainYearMonth.

I don't know if I'm missing something, but that's exactly how I'd expect it to compose. Does the following do what you wanted your snippet to do?

  Temporal.PlainYearMonth.from(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(Temporal.PlainYearMonth.from({year:2026,month:1}))))

JSON.stringify and JSON.parse should not be viewed as strict inverses of each other. `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(x)) = x` is only true for a for a small category of values. That category is even smaller if parsing is happening in a different place than stringification because JSON doesn't specify runtime characteristics. This can lead to things like JSON parsing incorrect in JS because they're too large for JS to represent as a number.

> Although coal is very useful for production of steel, it is not essential as wood can be used instead.

Wasn't the production of charcoal in Europe during the middle ages the cause of rather massive deforestation?

> My guess is that since I couldn't possibly fill the dishwasher before using it

Do you own very few dishes or something? That's the only reason I can imagine not being able to fill it before needing to run it. Even before having a kid my wife and I could easily fill the dishwasher daily since we cook quite a bit.

> The way I wash dishes uses less water than a dishwasher.

Could you elaborate on this? My understanding is even if you're using a sink/basin filled with soapy water this is still almost always less efficient than a dishwasher.

I do this simply to keep on top of dishes. I always run the dishwasher at night regardless of how full it is. If it's significantly full after lunch I run it then too, even if it's not all the way full. Otherwise, when dinner comes around I likely won't have room for the additional dishes from that and would need to do a cycle before going to bed, wait for it to finish, then empty and load it with the leftovers.

I linked the "why do magnets do that?" interview elsewhere in the comments, but if anyone else missed it I highly recommend it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q

No worries! That makes sense. I got tripped up by "just came up with the unique arguments [...] and gave the lectures" and "Leighton and Sands [did] most of the work of knitting it into a cohesive, coherent book". It felt like glossing over the degree to which the books' contents match the words he spoke.

> Yes, this is one of the areas of significant challenges in reproduction.

I feel this deeply. I'm very slow at writing by hand and have trouble paying attention to what someone's saying if I'm also trying to simultaneously summarize it. In college I solved this by becoming very, very swift with LaTeX. My pure math notes were easiest, but I struggled with physics notes the most. I settled on a middle ground of learning TikZ and making a bunch of LaTeX macros for common stuff. This did well enough for most simple diagrams. I'd fall back to hand-copying more complicated ones and just typing the text. I'd either scan the drawings afterward and add annotations as needed or convert fully into LaTeX. Converting these hand-drawn ones into LaTeX was a ton of work. After doing this for a short bit, I realized that I was remembering the more complicated diagrams better than the easier ones. I figured out that being able to take almost verbatim notes easily wasn't making me absorb the material at all, so I started spending more time afterward tidying everything up to make things stick a bit better.

> Even more impressive is what the Goodsteins did with the "Lost Lecture" to recreate the figures from just a few pages of surviving notes that looked like this: https://i.imgur.com/zQessy9.png

That's really cool. That note looks about as inscrutable as the ones I have from when I was being taught a crash course in QCD.

> Leighton deserves the credit for this. Feynman did share his notes, but Feynman's notes are.. an adventure.. to work through.

It's pretty clear he also used the recordings of the lectures themselves. Otherwise there'd be a much bigger difference between the lectures as presented in the books and the audio recordings[1] of him actually giving the lectures. Leighton deserves a lot of credit, but the lectures Feynman gave were substantially similar enough that it's absurd not to act as though he didn't co-author them.

> Feynman did share his notes, but Feynman's notes are.. an adventure.. to work through.

I don't doubt his notes would be, however they also used the audio recordings of and took notes during the lectures themselves for the books. I'm not sure how much they relied on Feynman's notes themselves though. It's been about 15 years since I last read and listened to them together, but I recall the experience of the combined activity being that the book was surprisingly close to being a transcript of what he said (including references to figures which the books reproduced).

This is why I thought it was impressive that the book didn't read like a transcript on its own. I rarely encountered professors who gave such well-structured lectures, but it seems like something Feynman could not only give prepared lectures in this way, but could do this off the cuff as well.

[1] https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/flptapes.html

Do you mean he didn’t write the lectures he gave to students? I know the books weren’t put together by him and were substantially edited, but I thought the original lectures as delivered by him were either all or largely his work.

I once worked through part of the first volume of his lectures in the published book while listening to the recordings of him partly out of curiosity to see how much the original lectures as he gave them matched the ones which were compiled and published in written form (which I already knew was something not done by him). I came away feeling impressed one could either stick so closely to some lecture notes when lecturing and/or put together a written work which so closely matched a spoken one without coming across as being a transcript. It’s quite the accomplishment and one which I felt was a credit to everyone involved.

I know what you mean but this framing is dismissive. I think the larger change is that it's become a bit more acceptable in the society as a whole to acknowledge that many men we've held up on pedestals were actually flawed, or at the very least to give more credence and attention to stories told by contemporaries. In the case of Feynman, I think the way he writes about his relationship with women gives clear examples of misogyny. From an article[1] on this subject:

> Among his many accomplishments, he contributed to several key conceptual breakthroughs in quantum physics, and his role in developing the field of quantum electrodynamics led to a Nobel Prize in 1965, which he shared with Julian Schwinger and Shin’ichirō Tomonaga. [...] He came off as a fun, likeable guy who just liked to do math, play pranks, and bang on the bongos.

> These things are true. But it’s also true that throughout his career, Feynman reveled in blatant misogyny and sexism. In “Surely You’re Joking”, Feynman details how he adopted the mindset of a pick-up artist (an outlook he also claims to have eventually abandoned) by treating women as if they were worthless and cruelly lashing out at them when they rejected his advances. He worked and held meetings in strip clubs, and while a professor at Cal Tech, he drew naked portraits of his female students. Even worse, perhaps, he pretended to be an undergraduate student to deceive younger women into sleeping with him.

Mythologizing or overly condemning figures is bad. I think it's one of the worst things we can do. It's both a disservice to everyone who knew them because it can minimize his impact on them and a disservice to the person themselves by inaccurately remembering them and is bad for society because it impedes our ability to learn. Personally I would be quite surprised if a guy at that time wasn't fairly sexist just given how often even as a kid I saw obvious sexism from people who were even a generation younger than him. I read the Feynman Lectures (which are freely available[2]!) as an undergrad and later interned on a couple collider experiments at RHIC and CEBAF where I encountered a lot more of his impact on quantum electro and chromodynamics. He was undeniably massively impactful and a brilliant communicator. I'd recommend everyone studying physics read his lectures and watch some interviews[3] with him.

He was also human and would have had common flaws like anyone else. His books strongly indicate this. I don't think this means he was the devil, but it should be something we think about. I think you can reasonably debate whether or not people in historical contexts should be judged "good" or "bad" based on ethical standards which are more commonly accepted now than they were then, but I can't imagine a good reason to ignore the existence of those flaws or to say they don't matter. People treat Feynman as a role model, but I hope most people can agree that trying to sleep with undergrads when you're a professor is bad and should not be emulated.

[1] https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/surely-youre-a-creep-mr-fey...

[2] https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

[3] I particularly like this one, though I feel a bit bad for the interviewer (also his ice melting explanation is probably wrong, but he does couch it with "so they say") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q

> For example, I experienced occasional crashes in Safari. I managed to find a workaround, but I strongly suggest being careful before using anything from this article in production.

Also, while I haven’t checked on other devices and non-WebKit browsers, on my iPhone 16 Pro this page makes my power usage spike and noticeably heats the phone.

I keep my ~25 year old Ti-83 or 84 from middle and high school in my shop because I find using it while working on stuff with dirty hands much easier than my phone or tablet. I just need something which basically never needs new batteries and lets me use parentheses to group expressions and the occasional trig function. I think the current batteries are almost ten years old now.

I don't know about that exactly, but my understanding was that this is similar in justification to compelling a person to be fingerprinted or give a DNA sample. To me there does seem to be a fairly major difference between forcing someone to disclose information held in their mind and forcing them to provide a biometric. The former seems equivalent to compelling testimony against oneself. I have a hard time seeing the latter as compelling testimony against oneself, especially if giving fingerprints or DNA isn't.

My understanding is that this and similar techniques don't get you back into the before first unlock (BFU) state. To do that as far as I know you have to shut down the device. Otherwise--even if locked--your phone will be in the after first unlock (AFU) state. I believe that in the AFU state considerably more of the system is decrypted and accessible than in the much more limited BFU state.

Maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in here.

> You can get rid of all human enemies by knocking them unconscious (I play expert mostly so killing is forbidden anyway). But right, if you go rambo even on lower difficulty levels, you'll most likely get overwhelmed

I can't recall if they're in Thief 1, but in Thief 2 at least there are guards with helmets which are immune to the blackjack, but afaik none of them are immune to gas arrows/mines.

On a related note, I believe the the engine they developed for the first two Thief games and System Shock 2, the Dark Engine, was also the first to use an entity-component system.