ama5322's comments

I was able to carry the onewheel on any transport, and that's nice, but it's not as convenient to lock compared to a bike. It's also too heavy to carry comfortably for more than 5 minutes. When you want to go into a supermarket for example you're in a worse position compared to a bike.

How do you handle an escooter in that situation?

I've seen the "carry handle" in action on a EUC, and it's pretty convenient for that. Held vertical takes next to no space on the ground so it's not much different than having a trolley.

Can't comment with a unicycle, but I regularly ride bikes, used several electric scooters and onewheels.

The onewheel is genuinely fun to ride and control. It does require a lot more attention than a bike. And I also never felt comfortable riding it faster than my ability to outrun it, which meant that it's never exactly ideal for long commutes (see my other comment above about the safety if interested).

For long distance and commuting, a bike is unbeatable IMHO. Comfortable, safer at speed. Electric or not.

I never saw the point on e-scooters, and don't own any for this reason. I feel more in control and have better ability to manouver and recover with a onewheel than an e-scooter, but the e-scooter requires almost zero brain to use, so there's that. The e-scooters have much bigger range too, and are less tiring to use.

I wish I could try an EUC. I suspect it has similar characteristic to the "flow" mechanics of the onewheel which would make it appealing, but I wonder how fast I would actually push it comfortably before wearing a full-face helmet.

I did absolutely enjoy my time with some onewheels, but I did experience a "sideplant" on a climb when I likely exceeded either the torque of current limit when I absolutely never expected it (and got no warning either). Definitely not fun.

I never had issues when playing with it even at top speed and hitting an obstacle, as the extremely low platform and modest top velocity meant I could always recover by scrambling forward and propelling with the front feet. The real problem happens when not expecting it, like when I was slowly climbing, and even at zero speed the fall can be nasty. I never lowered my attention even for a split second on the onewheel after this.

I never had a chance to try an EUC, but due to how the legs are used for support, I can't see the same as a recover possibility. If the EUC fails, faceplant seems inevitable.

As for the "pushback", the effect on the onewheel is extremely noticeable and didn't feel the need for an additional auditory sound. The problem, as stated by OP, is that you can have failure modes where the motor stops supporting you before "pushback" (or even sound) kicks you in.

Not sure what to think of this, as in sarcastic sense...?

It's not like we're discussing trite software, I was just discussing about the "plot device" here where the decoding of an arbitrary language with complex symbology is a central feature. Doesn't it feel "forced" to you in the same way action movies show absolutely unrealistic martial arts moves for the sake of entertainment, or watching most "hackers" in computer movies?

Wouldn't you agree that starting form the absolute basics would be a much sound/quicker way to come to a unambiguous shared vocabulary instead of just showing complex blots to another species and expecting them to decode it? It's also especially odd to me that the somehow the host civilization is doing the decoding part. Considering contact from a supposedly more advanced civilization, I would almost expect the opposite to be true, where the aliens would likely take most of the burden of establishing communication (and probably already did so by watching/listening).

But I get it.. I still enjoyed the movie (like I can still enjoy action movies or computer movies)...

I liked the movie and enjoyed the visual pretext of the communication, although it always felt not very credible to me from a logical standpoint.

I would expect two intelligent species intending and willing to communicate to form an increasingly complex communication scheme starting from basic principles.

Of course, this wouldn't have translated into a decent plot by itself.. :/

On my machine, when I last tried the various accelerated terminal emulators, I wasn't convinced. At least under plain X, GL context creation adds extra latency when creating new windows (might be different if you use a compositor all the time I guess). In addition, on terminals such as kitty, the startup time of a full new process was really non-negligible I suspect due to the python support.

With a tiling window manager, the built-in notebook/tiling functionality is not really useful (the window manager is more flexible and has universal keybindings) so when looking at the time required to pop a full new window in either single or shared instance they were actually behind regular xterm. Resource usage wasn't stellar either (xterm was still better than most lightweight libvt-based terminals). Couldn't feel much of a latency improvement (again, X without compositor).

I'm sure at full throughput the difference is there, but who is looking at pages of output you can't read? I do keep terminals open for days, but my most common usage case is mostly open window -> run a small session -> close and I got annoyed fast.

In my old organization, internal emails (same domain, internally sent) were regularly classified as spam if the UA wasn't outlook. "Clutter" added another circle of hell, as not only you had to explain "check your junk folder" but also "check your clutter folder".

I attributed this to the sheer incompetence of the local admins. The same organization later switched to O365, and the problem remained unchanged.

I doubt much if we think decades. Sheet stock has always been used in conjunction to modular systems such as these, via manual or CNC machining (slots and holes are trivial to do). The advantage of a modular system such as these is the ability to build a scaffold with only straight cuts and a few off-the-shelf connectors.

In most cases you need a sheet metal press to form a scaffold out of _just_ sheet metal.

For anything structural (ie: when thickness matters), the price of custom-cut sheet stock is not that competitive anymore.

The price of machine-cut metal sheet has dropped quite a bit the last years though. I think it's filling a new niche, not really replacing the space of modular extrusions.

This sounds like the process required for most ISO certifications which sums up to: "pay up, do nothing useful" in my experience.

The extra cost of certification is only very _rarely_ useful. I have to laugh at the "bolster cybersecurity rules to ensure more secure hardware and software products".

It shifts the cost to the company that needs/wants CE.

On one hand, it might actually incentivize companies to pay up for OSS maintenance services, since certification requires a _process_, and not just an end product you can copy without any commitment at all. I don't see this working for small devs though (the paperwork will likely exceed the actual extra revenue in all but the largest projects - so why bother?).

This also puts CE at disadvantage where another market can just do that: steal/clone OSS and skip all the certifications. I'm a lot more worried about this point than the rest.

On the same vein, see the _dust_ that can be produced with filled materials: https://www.thregr.org/~wavexx/rnd/20230113-carbon_fibers_3d... (posted on HN 10 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34367420 without comments)

I understand for overflow exceptions, but I would have expected the cost of a register flag to be zero or near zero, for example, in an integer adder?

It also doesn't look like to me the cost of a software check can always be trivial. It can be for a single operation, but an advantage of an overflow register is that it allows to check for a group of operations as a whole (check/branch just once and abort), which is what is probably practical to do algorithmically. In such scenario switching to software checks for each op and/or bound check the inputs sounds by far not minimal.

This is a big issue.

I don't have a youtube account, and likely never make one. I was bypassing the login wall as long as I could, but ever since login was enforced to watch age-restricted videos, I now simply skip the content.

You'd think this would be a non-issue: I'm mostly following retro-content of this kind. But the amount of age-restricted videos I'm hitting is just baffling. I was following summoning salt, and I was able to watch the video before it got age-restricted. Is there any profanity there? No. If you think there is, you should reconsider your moral views.

I've seen creators over-censor their videos for the same reason, to the point of absurdity. As in this one, I've seen as far as pixelating 8bit 8x8 "nudity" in 90ies games just to be on the safe-end side.

There's no question youtube serves as a big audience window for small content creators. Youtube is amazing for discovery due to the immense choice. However I do support and watch videos outside of youtube (and I'm more and more eager to do so).

I encourage all creators to post on youtube with this attitude in mind.

Interesting. Is it a deliberate decision or just an omission?

Firefox had/has "snippets" for a while. You can turn them off, but the point still stands.

> This hasn’t been consistent since at least Vista and the release of WPF, which does totally custom control rendering. Circa 2006.

Ignoring 3rd party apps, to me the windows UI died with XP where the consistency stopped being somewhat pushed on the base OS/UX itself.

Strictly speaking nobody cares what APIs are being used or if there are multiple of them as long as they convey a consistent UX. If a consistent UX is pushed on a system level, even custom apps will try to stick to it (see macos).

But the sad truth is that on windows there is no longer one. W10 can show you dialogs from the windows 3.1 style up to a WPA, and you'll likely encounter a mixture all the time because there's no consistency.

I sometimes watch retro hw channels and looking at windows from 3 to 2k reminds me the stark difference.

The tiny sensors are a marvel of technology but have absurd levels of noise though. They're essentially unusable as traditional single-shot readout sensors in anything but exceptional light conditions. Internally phones take multiple shots and do an enormous amount of postprocessing for each shot. It's a completely different technique.

You can get a feel by how much post-processing is done by installing something like "opencamera" on a flagship phone, disable all filters and look at the raw file (if your phone allows it) and compare the results.

A single solid scratch might be caused by an accident of sorts, this can always happen.

The kind of damage the OP is speaking about seem to match the description of very light superficial scratches causing diffused softening. Could be damaged coating, or just the glass being too soft.

I've only seen this happen on cheap (and normally polymer) lenses.

Seems overkill. I use pure dish detergent under the tap directly with my fingers (you can feel the dirt, do not press against the lens). Dry with a new/clean paper towel by pressing (buffering? do not drag the paper across the lens). Dirt cheap, perfect result in seconds, can be done everywhere. Normal hand soap contains moisturizer, so this is not indicated (but generally works too although might leave stains).

If your lens is being scratched by this try spending a bit more on better glass. There's no point in skimping on something you hold on your eyes the entire day. Mine always lasted more than 7 years, and I only ever needed to change due to loss of acuity.

I'm using both, and in both cases for both work and personal projects.

There are a few things which are better in GH, some are better in GL. Which one is which is really subject to taste (I prefer the review workflow in GL, I much prefer the simplified issues management in GH, but I got the exact opposite opinion from colleagues). GL used to have the upper hand with CI, but lately GH actions again improved enough that I don't mind it.

For a professional setup though, GL CE offers an escape hatch and can be a _huge_ cost saving measure if you ever find yourself needing it. Managing GL in a container is almost painless in the last couple of years. By contract we're actually running on an older GH plan due to plan cost increases we don't find reasonable. On that basis alone, GL seems a no brainer. Both GH and GL online services princing plans can have questionable costs in several scenarios.

GH can give your project wider visibility due to it's popularity, but I never had any any complaint from developers. I see issue reports coming in on GL even on obscure projects, and in most cases devs already have accounts on both platforms.

I do see somewhat less random requests for generic help on GL (as in "what do I need to do to install this?" which is answered in the README), but it's really hard to quantify seriously.

It's kind of interesting that this happens given how relatively old robot vacuums are nowdays. The robot getting wedged into high or low obstacles is a pretty common issue.

The expensive robots added lidar sensors for better navigation, but the basic obstacle sensing mechanisms hasn't really improved: front/side sensor, bumper, + cliff sensors for falling (and these last ones aren't 100% foolproof either).

A front camera doesn't really help these robots IMHO (roomba, cough). Nice gimmick, but unless you reach 99% reliability, you'll still see your robot squishing dog poop, falling, wedging itself into the sofa..

I guess it's a nasty tradeoff between robustness, service lifetime, and cost.

I bought a cleaning robot a year ago (totally recommended btw), and I also went the route to adapt the furniture and placement of things to help the robot.