Ephera @ Ephera @lemmy.ml

Posts

28

Comments

2,601

Joined

5 yr. ago

Sure, but so it's still non-sensical to compare a transistor to a whole chip. That's like saying a trumpet is louder than an orchestra.

1. No, it just isn't.
2. If we're somehow talking about an orchestra made up of lots of trumpet players being louder than a traditional orchestra, like alright, but then we still gotta figure out what it actually looks like in an orchestra. Does this new transistor actually use less space, for example? What's the price for it? And so on...

Am I stupid or is a transistor a very different thing from a chip? Like, a chip has lots of transistors on it, but comparing them is still rather non-sensical...?

I don't know about most painful, but my dad bought a phone many months ago and last week, he wanted to know how to turn on the flashlight on it. I was ready to edit the notification dropdown or give a five step explainer or whatever.

Turns out, nope, you just pull down the notification bar and there's a pretty obvious flashlight button right there. The problem is, you see, he did not know you could drag down the notification bar. There were dozens of notifications there.

I really cannot blame him either. I don't know what UX designer came up with just putting a bar at the top and expecting users to know that you can drag on it. But yeah, still, ouch.

Well, I don't know what we're counting here. Generally, if FOSS apps have notifications which one might perceive as annoying, they'll have a checkbox in the in-app settings, so I don't need to block them.
There is one scenario, where I've blocked notifications, which is when an app wants to run in the background, then it has to put up a permanent notification. I hadn't counted that, since that's an Android requirement.

Aside from that, IMHO it's pretty clear-cut whether notifications are either necessary or subjective or not a good idea, so apps with user interests in mind can get that right quite well.

Well, it shouldn't. Both C and Rust can achieve the same performance. There's also no overhead for calling Rust from C or vice versa. Theoretically, some detail-optimizations look less horrid in C, but on the other hand, writing parallel code is significantly easier in Rust. Graphics drivers tend to be all about parallelism, although I can't say how relevant it actually is in this case.

Having said that, it is likely that the initial versions of this new driver will have worse performance, until the code base matures more.

I only use FOSS apps, so never had to block any apps from sending notifications.

Sure. If I knew what the scope of this offer even was, I might have suggested doing that.

To be fair, the contract has a statement in there, that we don't actually have to complete the features written down, we just need to put in the amount of work that this money pays for. The customer is more or less within our own company, so it's not like anyone's going to sue the other side anyways. But yeah, it still just feels weird to hear management talking about fictitious features for a random amount of money.

Sometimes, I am worried that if the customer is dissatisfied one day, that management will be angry at us for giving such a bad estimate, even though we didn't. For example, as far as I'm aware, the current offer contains the complete list of features from a meeting where we explicitly brainstormed what would still be required. We did not discuss how much of that we could complete within the budget we're given. But if I now notice that management is offering the whole list for far too little money, am I supposed to intervene or are we doing the bullshit charade again?

Last week, we sent out an offer for 102k and then the customer asked us, if we can please lower it to 99k, so they don't have to go to their boss to get clearance.

Logically speaking, that is not how any of this works. It's still going to need the same amount of budget to complete the task. But no one asked us devs how long it'll take anyways, so I guess, that's not my problem after all.

Neat, thanks for the response!

I think, we have to tag @turtle@lemm.ee , so they see it.

Hmm, but that seems to be again that there's actually fields there, rather than proper nothing. At the very least, I would still say that the universe already existed before the Big Bang, if there was fields spanning all over the place and they just needed quantum fluctuation to turn into something you can touch. Especially, because "touch" is still just an interaction with a field.

And I'm not trying to say that the phenomenon itself is pop-sci misinformation, but rather how it's portrayed. They'll write a title like "How Quantum Fluctuation Creates Something from Nothing", which is technically something you could say, because "nothing" doesn't have a sharp definition. But it's also misleading as people will not think that "nothing" could also mean that there is actually still fields there. Instead, they will interpret it as proper nothing. And pop-sci journalists do that, because it brings in clicks, unfortunately.

Hmm, I'm no expert, but I think I looked into this a while ago and it turned out to be pop-sci misinformation. What I'm finding from looking this up right now seems to confirm that it's not actual empty space, but rather space with electro-magnetic fields or in a "false vacuum", whatever that is precisely. If you happen to know a specific keyword for this phenomenon, though, I'd look into it some more.

Random tip: Kala Namak is a condiment which tastes a lot like egg yolk. If you sprinkle it onto some cooked white beans, that's kind of like scrambled eggs (well, it is different, but also good and might satiate a craving).

Basically, Kala Namak is salt+sulphur. Egg yolk also contains sulphur, and well, sulphur is one of the minerals we should be eating anyways.

I had a colleague a few years ago, who wasn't dumb. He'd question everything, often discussing things down to excruciating details. Like, you seriously couldn't shut him up, with how much he was putting everything into question.

Except when it came to the bible. That was what he considered unquestionable truth.

One time, I felt like I kind of got through to him. We were discussing the Big Bang and whatnot, and I told him that I don't believe that actually started the universe, which really caught him off-guard, because he thought all the science people were a big hivemind and no one's allowed to disagree. I'm guessing, because that's how he's been taught about the bible, so he just assumed the enemy is taught the same way.
And yeah, I explained to him that I don't believe it started things, that I don't believe in creation (the fundamental concept as well as the non-evolution thingamabob), because things don't just randomly start existing. When you produce a chair, that's just some atoms rearranged from a tree, which is just some atoms rearranged from the ground and the air, which is rearranged from yet another place. That explanation also kind of got to him, because it really is all around us that things don't just pop into existence, ever.

What's also kind of interesting/funny, is that he did not actually have a terribly good understanding of the bible.
One time, I don't know how we got to that topic, but I was like, wait, isn't there a commandment that says you shouldn't be using god's name in vain? And at first he just said no, there's not, to then start really heavily thinking when I didn't back down. But yeah, I had to then look it up to confirm it, because he did not know his commandments.
That was his worst moment by far, but we had many bible debates, where I, with my shitty school knowledge and never having been interested in any of it, was telling him things he didn't know.

To me, that's a rather pointless thought experiment, similar to the conspiracy theory that we're in a big simulation. Like, yeah, there's no way to disprove this idea, but if it were the case, then we still gotta work within the constraints that we're given. It's not like you can be conscious differently or escape the simulation or whatever.

Science-minded folks might dismiss that idea perhaps less favorably as "unscientific", but that's basically saying the same thing. If there's no way to prove or disprove an idea, then we call it "unscientific", which is kind of just means there's no point in spending time thinking about it. This is also taking into account that it would be provable or disprovable, if it had an impact on our reality. Theoretically something could have an impact on our reality and then trick us into believing that it does not, but yeah, at that point we need quite a lot of unproven theories stacked on top of each other and there's still nothing we can do about it...

If you'd like something LaTeX-like (best for transscribing rather than composing), then there's LilyPond.

It's a different piece of software. It makes no sense for them to adopt the Firefox Terms of Use, no matter how they might think of them.

I had not heard of Verso yet. That's cool, that folks are already working on a UI.

I mean, I agree with your reasoning, but the thing is, Ladybird has to advertise to potential end users in order to find contributors. Servo isn't quite in a situation like that, because there's an industry interest in making it fly, but without the industry interest, it would have to do just the same.

Of course, the messaging in such advertising should be that it ain't ready and whatnot, but you kind of have to make it look promising from an end-user perspective for potential contributors to even just consider contributing...

So, you have to start it while your cursor is over the wallpaper, but then you can click on windows to kill them, right?

The engine makes it so HTML, CSS, JavaScript etc. are downloaded and turned into pixels you can look at. The browser embeds an engine for that purpose, but then also has a URL bar, tabs, bookmarks, a history feature and so on.