soneil

It used to be the continent used 220V, and the UK used 240V, until we standardized on 230V.

The UK defines this as 230V -6% +10% (i.e. 216.2V – 253.0V), and nominal supply is 240V

The continent defines this as 230V -10% +6% (i.e. 207.0V - 243.8V), and nominal supply is 220 or 230 by region.

We called this harmonisation - in reality it's more like agreeing to disagree. We just fudged the tolerances until everyone was happy.

(To put some context around this - most sites don't receive nominal supply. The actual voltage delivered depends on your distance to the local substation. Typically they over-deliver such that sites closest are a little over, sites furthest are a little under. If they actually delivered ±0%, sites at the edge of their network would be further from nominal. So end-user equipment should be built to expect variation.)

I can't promise I'm up to date on that - that was two years ago, but they're still selling to the EU from their own site, and rest of world from Tindie. So I'm working to the assumption that they wouldn't still refuse EU sales from Tindie unless they felt they still needed to.

You and I could sit at Christmas dinner, and conspire to measure the shadow of a 1metre pole at solar noon on Easter Sunday, at our respective locations.

We could then compare those measurements when we meet next Christmas.

Most the USP of these is that they have an M-core which is usually where such tasks would live.

In automation it's not unusual to find controllers where the entire system lives on an MCU, and you quickly find that it's difficult to keep up with network requirements. I have devices where the MCU is 20+ years old, and the embedded TLS implementation hit a constraint 10-15 years ago.

This looks like the ideal use-case for these; your actual application lives in the M-core as it always did, but your network, TLS etc into an A-core that's much more suited to them, and where "fullsized" implementations are much more readily available.

The Police are already tooled up to issue traffic citations. Tooling up the BTP to do the same task would just mean more money, and end you at the same result, no?

The root issue is that BOI have/had an issue trying to retrieve balances. At which point they have two options: prevent transactions if the balance cannot be verified (which would deny people access to their own money), or allow transactions if the balance cannot be verified (which enables people to go overdrawn).

SEPA transfers are near-instantaneous, this isn't access to funds that haven't cleared, it's access to funds which have already been transferred. None of this is really specific to Revolut, they're just the most common reason for "the man on the street" to have a second account to receive a transfer.

Which technically works because the GPL only concerns the software you've received - it does not concern nor compel the software you've yet you receive.

I believe anyone can get .uk domains now, they don't have to be .co.uk - but this one's been anomalous since 1985.

Say $2MM in tickets are sold, putting $1MM in the pot. And no-one wins. So next week, $2MM in tickets are sold, putting $1MM in the pot - which already contained $1MM from last week. Continue this over a few weeks.

After 5 weeks you have $5MM in the pot - and another $5MM in profits. On week 5, $2MM in tickets could buy $5MM in winnings, but that doesn't mean the scheme is negative. It just means this week's draw looks like a good deal.

States love lotteries because the house cannot lose - their share is taken before it goes in the pot, so the pot is never a liability.

Years. I've closed netflix accounts, I've sent them sms from their telco's webtext portal asking them to stop, and still there's a koneill out there who is very, very confused about why his email doesn't work. I know where he lives, I know what pizza he ordered, I know his name, his phone number, I just don't know his email address. And apparently, neither does he.

The number of services that fail at email validation (or keep sending you reminders, forever, that you haven't validated), blows my mind. For such a simple process, that seems to exist on every single service I (and koneill) sign up for, it has a surprisingly low rate of successful implementations.

We can get half way there with /.well-known/webfinger - but the alias that provides doesn't show up in the feed, so that's not the username I find from links like OP's.

Rate-limit unauthenticated requests per API key and authenticated requests per account. Problem solved. Turn $0.12/month users into $5.99/month users, and don't worry that the 3rd-party apps aren't showing ads - because Premium users don't get ads anyway.

and yes, I totally get that there's a wider point to be made in reddit and twitter both going hostile on the same day.

(to be clear: I don't consider this a problem. But I do consider that for RH, this may be an unintended side-effect.)

I suspect they're playing with unintended consequences now.

One of the nice "features" of buying CentOS, is that it meant CentOS was never going to compete - there was a clear line between community and professional, and CentOS were never going to sell you professional services.

Pushing everyone to non-RH builds has removed that line, and there's a strong chance that non-RH builds selling professional services, is going to have a higher opportunity-cost than publishing CentOS did.

There's really three things that make this a hugely curious story. One is that it's relatively unique. The same way that car crashes don't make the news but plane crashes do - effectively, this is to plane crashes, as plane crashes are to car crashes.

Next, it's frankly interesting from an engineering point of view. Especially as it doesn't need to be your wheelhouse to understand the enormity of 2.7 tons per square inch. It's On with an 'n' that's obviously enormous.

And thirdly, the fact that the CEO appears to have ignored the experts and YOLO'd it, is hugely vindicating to anyone who considers them an expert in their niche. That's the closest this gets to schadenfreude for me.

The only thing really interesting about the people inside, is that it removed said CEO from the story so he can't answer for himself.

I think I'll stick with my position that it's not within the spirit of the licence. (But I'd agree that this change has no impact on this.)

As a paying customer you receive access the sources, as you're supposed to - but under contractual terms that you can't share them.

Take the GPL as the most famous example. Providing me GPL'd sources that I'm not allowed to redistribute under the same terms definitely feels like it's against the spirit of the agreement. I'm too warm-blooded to argue whether it's under the letter.