roesel

Some basic plots would go a really long way to make the results more understandable at a glance.

If this was to be called an "Alexa alternative", there should at least be Home Assistant running on that Raspberry Pi. Despite also not having voice recognition, it could then at least be able to, you know, DO something.

How is this different from/better than puush/ShareX?

This would be amazing to use when playing absolutely any card game with friends who don't live close enough for a real game.

If this would be open-source and there was an easy way to modify some of the actions to fit the most common operations to a particular game, it would likely start as an engine for tons of other games/websites (Pokémon, Magic the Gathering, Star Realms,...).

It's more of "I would rather go to a party where everyone is wearing any mask they want than a party where every mask is required to have 1) at least one hole for an eye, 2) at least 50% transparency, and 3) cover no more than one-third of the face."

Of course, in the second case I am free to "choose" which eye to show or which portion of the face to leave covered, but if I'm concerned about privacy, I'd much rather go to the first ball.

doesn't life actually count as training? :) and it's a LOT of training, isn't it?

Liftoff! Bi-weekly summary of space news. NASA, SpaceX, ESA, science, exoplanets, ...

It would be useful to have a guide like this for a scientific field, since a lot of things coders take for granted like SO etc does not exist and a lot of knowledge in the field is hidden behind complicate democracy language or secretive authors.

What I miss in LyX is the ability to interface with Grammarly or LanguageTools. Otherwise it works great.

Went back and installed a second time. The web page no longer blinks and after the installation finished, the program did not crash and I was able to finish the tutorial.

I wanted to try a third time, but after a third reinstall, the tutorial no longer pops up. Is there a way to clear EVERYTHING away and try again as if this was a new computer?

Just FYI: I saw this comment and:

1) went to your link -> intensive blinking, firefox reporting that it "forbade access to graphics card" for whichever reason

2) Was impressed that Windows file is only 1 MB (turns out the installer downloads a lot more than that, which is ok but could be mentioned)

3) Started the program and agreed with tutorial

4) Followed tutorial to C:\Users\myusername\Desktop

5) Followed tutorial by pressing Backspace -> program stopped working and crashed

No hate intended, but if you want people to use this, you should probably think about fixing some of the steps to be less cumbersome :).

FWIW the program looks cool.

I dont know if that qualifies for a “long term health risk”.

And those are?

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1504/

Coherence is defined as a correlation of the light with itself. In simpler terms "how similar it is to itself after letting it evolve for a bit". Sunlight has a lot of different wavelengths evolving in many different ways, therefore it is not too coherent compared to an ideal single wavelength laser which will be identical even after "evolving" for a while.

However, if you look at sunlight at a certain time and then look at it one femtosecond later, the second look will still be similar to the first look to some extent, therefore you would have to say that the light is somewhat coherent.

This is why sunlight is definitely NOT "completely incoherent".

I would strongly disagree with "coherence should not make no difference to the argument". This is exactly what we mean when we say "a coherence length of X um" - you take all the spectral components and correlate them with their future selves and then look at something akin to average correlation.

Therefore the "coherence answer" is exactly and precisely the correct one. What you are doing is simply explaining it with different words. "The lack of coherence" of the wave as a whole is THE argument.

What your explanation is doing is applying a narrow wavelength filter and evaluating the conditions for each \Delta\lambda, which is absolutely a valid approach, but it is the same thing. Overall I like your explanation very much, but please be careful about statements like "not really the answer, at least not directly" as they only point at a misunderstanding of the coherence explanation.

Neither seems to have a web version (or a desktop version for windows), so if I were to switch, I would still revert to Gmail on desktop. Or am I looking them up wrong?

Edit: also, do either of them enable the "tasks" between emails?

Let alone that the app is abysmally slow on an iPhone 5s. Even if your inbox (not "done" emails) features 7 emails and 3 new emails come in, the app doesn't even fetch them fully and loads them one-at-a-time upon opening.

And the inbox.google.com web interface does the exact same thing! It also gets stuck for several seconds when pressing "done" on a lone email in a group, showing an empty group for a while until it realizes "oh, there are no emails in this group" and finally disappears.

The app should be SIMPLE and FAST and it is currently neither. I am really thinking about returning to Gmail fully and using some other client for iOS.

Do you have anything to back this claim? It seems to not make sense.

I feel like the article is not about this at all though. If you behaved according to the algorithm as a newbie, you would only refactor and change the design pattern if people told you that that should be done. Which your newbies weren't told according to what you're saying.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the usage here.

The high-pitch noise in the background was what I noticed the most. I have nothing against the "behind the scenes" style, but at least don't hurt my ears.

Gen I get this for every article on HN? Maybe a userscript or extension with HN link synopsis?

Thank you for the nice reply. I will try to look into the changelogs/blogposts and keep hoping that someone someday will address my pain points.

I must say I am rather disappointed with most changes discussed here. They all seem very superficial changes and I wish they would solve/improve other things. Some examples include:

1. Bring the "power plan" (balanced/presentation/high performance) switching into the tray battery icon next to "Battery saver", which is independent of the "battery saver" power plan. This seems (!) like an easy change which many users would adore.

2. Finally unifying settings into one and only one place instead of having a "Settings" app only to find that every other thing you want to change eventually leads to the old setting window which hasn't changed since at least Windows XP.

3. Fix the occassionally horrific Start search, which will do things like find "Word 2016" as "Best match" when having pressed "wo", but once another "r" is pressed to make the search string "wor", the "Best match" changes to "Wordpad". Way too often does it happen, that you notice the best match as you're typing and then hit Enter only to find that by the time another letter was pressed (still the right one considering the current "Best match"!!), the "Best match" changed to something else.

That's in the cases where the Search only finds programs installed to a specific date and is not able to find anything newer, which has already happened on two computers I've seen. Not even mentioning that the "best match" gets updated with time even when no new keys are pressed. So the same can happen just due to the "Best match" changing between you start and finish the movement to hit "Enter".

4. Finish improving the horrific thing that is looking up a network drive/device using explorer.exe, leading to freezes and delayed error popups that feel very Windows 95ish.

5. Maybe change that a window of Explorer becomes unresponsive if waiting for a HDD to spin up. This happens regularly if your system is on an SSD and you have a second disk (HDD) mounted on another letter (D:\). When you haven't clicked that disk for a while, everything freezes between you clicking on it and it spinning up to start reading.

But hey, let's add another presumably more sexy and unifying look to the uppermost layers of the system.

Edit: Maybe they did other under-the-hood changes that are just not being discussed. If so, where would one find them?

A nice intro into Sputnik, but otherwise almost no substance.

How are crewed missions not in line with the Apollo missions praised earlier in the article? I am a huge supporter of basic research but NASA had plenty of success with research which was performed to support/enable a more applied purpose.

It looks very similar to the "logo" of Princeton University [1].

[1] https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-eJ6mEvslTq8/AAAAAAAAAAI/A...

And as always, the live video feed of the landing was clunky :). They should nail one with a steady stream.

Also keep in mind that running multi-mode communication brings a new set of problems and challenges (dispersion, non-linear effects, ...) and thus the "expansion" usually comes with some sort of trade-off for a successful implementation (frequency of repeaters etc).

Renault Espace (among others) has had this for quite a while and it works fairly well. I'd even say it keeps your peripheral vision on the road more than the traditional clocks (if done right).