Kerfuffle @ Kerfuffle @sh.itjust.works

https://github.com/KerfuffleV2 — various random open source projects.

---

Read more

Posts

3

Comments

253

Joined

2 yr. ago

It’s a great hobby dont get me wrong, but the way this post is phrased makes it seem like you’ll be getting amazing results from the get go.

Before I started roasting my beans, I usually bought pretty good quality freshly roasted coffee. For example, something like this: https://www.freshroastedcoffee.com/products/ethiopian-yirgacheffe-fto-coffee

It's not what millionaires would drink, but it's still much higher quality than the random stuff you'd buy in the grocery store. So far, every batch I've roasted myself so far compares and tastes like good coffee to me.

"Mastering" it and achieving a perfect roast that a true coffee gourmet will say is 10/10 probably is quite difficult to master. Darker roasts are also harder to get right also (at that point it's easy to burn the beans). I think achieving the level where a normal person will say "this is pretty tasty coffee" is not difficult at all though.

but you’re gonna get a lot of smoke roasting beans in your electric oven

There's really not much smoke with light/medium roasts. My kitchen is pretty small and there's a smoke alarm on the wall that doesn't even get set off. For dark roasts it could be a bigger issue.

Prolonged exposure will lead to “popcorn lung”.

There's 5-10 minutes at most when the beans will actually be smoking and you're not going to be roasting every day. 2 cups of green beans makes about a pint jar of roasted coffee. I drink a pot of coffee every day and it lasts more than a week.

Also, you’re gonna melt some plastic colanders if you drop coffee beans into them right out of a 400-500 degree oven.

I specifically said not to do that. :)

If you want to try roasting coffee beans at home once or twice on the cheap, you’re better off

Have you ever actually done it? Not to be confrontational, but I think you're really overestimating the issues. Also, if someone is just doing it once or twice, then long term effects like "popcorn lung" aren't going to matter.

I thought its mode of operation is always “continue the provided text”

I haven't played with trying to use it for conversation like stuff so I can't say anything about whether it's "particularly good" or not. However, "continue the provided text" doesn't preclude conversational stuff. If you give it enough of an example of the "conversation", even non-conversation tuned models will complete it. They'll write both sides of the conversation if you let them, but you can use stuff like reverse prompts to return control what it's your "turn".

I'd guess the chat tuned models are kind of more aimed at question/answer and specifically providing accurate and helpful answers rather than just dialog in general as well.

The R5 230 is a super old graphics card. I wonder if it’s built into the board like a laptop

The hardware, which primarily targets software developers wanting to compile on a native RISC-V system, is priced at $1,199 for the motherboard with processor and a cooling heatsink; a $1,999 ready-to-run bundle adds a case, power supply, 128GB of DDR4 memory, a 1TB SSD, an Intel X520-T2 two-port 10-gig-Ethernet network card, and an AMD R5 230 graphics card.

Almost certainly not since you can get the motherboard/cooler/CPU without it.

Again, good points. Also, I definitely wasn't taking the length of days into account!

The only one I didn't recognize was the mud + slime one (apparently it's a derogatory corruption of "muslim"). The rest are relatively common/well known.

A more restrictive license wouldn’t help in that case.

Well, it depends. Elsewhere in the thread, people mentioned licenses that have ethics clauses:

1. https://firstdonoharm.dev/
2. https://anticapitalist.software/

How enforceable (or whether I would actually have the resources to do something) these are is another problem, but it still might give some entity pause. Just generally though, using a restrictive license like GPL is pretty likely to make Puppy Punching Worldwide Inc look for other alternatives as well. Odds are, their puppy punching software isn't going to be compatible with a license like the GPL.

whoever budges and makes way for the other male has just become the submissive male.

For someone who actually thinks like that, being insecure about how someone else might think they're the "submissive male" makes them the "submissive male". "Real men" aren't going to care what some random person who will never affect them thinks, especially if it's silly stuff like this.

Alpha posturing aside, a lot of people make kinds of unnecessary sacrifices out of insecurity also. It's good to start trying to develop the habit of catching yourself and doing whatever you wanted to in the first place regardless of what people think (within limits, obviously).

I usually use MIT, partially because my current interests (AI/LLM stuff) involve interfacing with some other projects that are MIT and partially because it's just a simple "do whatever" license and I don't really care to enforce terms. Of course, if I thought some government or company was going to use stuff I develop to launch the nukes or control a robot fist to punch cute little puppies right in the snout then I'd start using a more restrictive license but the odds of that are... pretty much nonexistent for everything I've ever created.

Based on the Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus#Advantages ) it doesn't seem like that's the case. Optimal launch windows are more frequent and flight time is reduced (although it's not a massive difference). That section doesn't specifically mention delta v or fuel requirements but I assume if there was a notable difference aside from the flight time part that there would be something about it.

I'm far from an expert, but I'd guess in a way stuff like fuel requirements don't really vary that much with distance, just time. This is because the vehicle will accelerate to some set speed and just coast for most of the way before decelerating at the other end. At least with current rocket propellant-based approaches, it's not feasible to include enough fuel for the thing to be actively thrusting for more than a fraction of the total time.

ezpz just design automatically unfoldable balloon that can survive in clouds of sulfuric acid

Russia managed to land a probe safely on the surface of Venus that survived for almost an hour and sent back pictures... in 1975. The probe was called Venera 9: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera_9

By the way, it used an unfoldable parachute to slow its decent, that presumably could not only survive in clouds of sulfuric acid but near the surface where conditions are much more extreme.

Nothing about landing (or floating, in this case) a probe on a different planet is "ezpz" but comparatively speaking, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine it being possible given what humans have already accomplished with less advanced technology. So why be snarky and contrary for no reason?

I'm talking about the approach in general. Is OceanGate guy the one to pull it off? Probably not.

If you're being reasonable here, you have to compare the difficult with trying to create a colony on other planets like Mars. There are major challenges involved there too, like distance, lack of atmosphere, less accessible resources that could be used to maintain the colony, etc. The only thing I'm arguing here is compared to colonizing Mars, for example, there are points in favor of Venus. If you read the Wikipedia article I linked, you'll also see this isn't an idea OceanGate guy came up with and it's also not really all that new either. Reputable organizations like NASA have seriously looked into this previously.

I actually think it’s extremely easy to travel to Venus, drop from orbit and deply several tons of Air just at the right time for the descend to be slowly reversed until you reach the correct height.

Not sure why you feel the need to be snarky here.

I never said it was "easy" in the general sense. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of the procedures that were used to land rovers, on Mars for example. They were both quite difficult and complex, requiring precise timing and a bunch of steps to happen exactly as needed or the rover would smash into the surface or burn up on entry.

"Drop from orbit and inflate some balloons at the right time" is comparatively easy compared to the complex procedures that were used for the Mars missions. Obviously, deploying a probe on a different planet is always going to be a difficult and complicated task.

That's a good point, although with sunlight so accessible and abundant and nuclear waste not being an issue (presumably you can just drop it to the surface) I'm not sure what the benefit would be of using that approach.

Thank God we perfected “landing somewhere in the upper atmosphere” in the 70s.

Am I misunderstanding or are you skeptical about it being possible to stop before reaching the surface? Because if so, that seems kind of weird. One would just need to deploy the balloons or whatever at the appropriate point. As far as technical challenges go, I'd guess this is actually going to be easier than safely getting something safely down to the surface.

Venus has one of the most hostile environments in the Solar System.

It might seem unintuitive, but there's an area above the clouds that's actually really very mild as far as conditions go. It's also closer/easier to get to than Mars and various useful components can be harvested from the atmosphere which is quite dense while Mars doesn't have much.

Also, breathable air is less dense than the Venusian atmosphere so habitats filled with gas humans can breathe would actually be buoyant. You wouldn't even need a pressurized spacesuit to go outside, just an air supply.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus

Haunt some of the powerful but evil people in the world and see what I can change. Let's see how effective a dictator like Kim Jong Il can be with a ghost all up in their business.

If I have poltergeist abilities then I suppose just straight up assassinating people would be possible. After all, if you can shove a book off the shelf or flip a light switch then breaking a few tiny blood vessels in someone's brain to give them a stroke is going to be easy. Not that killing other people would be easy, but maybe as a ghost I'd have a different perspective on death.

I don’t think it’s fair to place the blame on the user.

Consumers/users don't deserve all the blame, obviously but they deserve a significant share.

It’s not their fault for using a browser they like.

A huge amount of what's wrong with the world comes down to people saying "I'm going to go ahead and do this even if it causes harm". Same situation here.

It's someone fault if they choose to do something that causes harm. We can't help what we like, but we can help what we do.

Are you using a distro with fairly recent packages? If not, then possibly you could try looking for supplementary sources that could provide more recent version. Just as an example, someone else mentioned having a similar issue on Debian. Debian tends to be very conservative about updating their packages and they may be quite outdated. (It's possible to be on the other side of the problem, with fast moving distros like Arch but they also tend to fix stuff pretty fast as well.)

Possibly worth considering that hardware can also cause random crashes, faulty RAM, overheating GPUs, CPUs, memory or overclocking stuff beyond its limits. Try checking sensors to make sure temperatures are in a reasonable range, etc.

You can also try to determine if the times it crashes have anything in common or anything unusual is happening. I.E. playing graphics intensive games, hardware video decoding, that kind of thing. Some distros have out of memory process killers set up that have been known to be too aggressive, and processes like the WM that can control a lot of memory will sometimes be a juicy target for them.

As you probably already know if you've been using Linux for a while, diagnosing problems is usually a process of elimination. So you need to eliminate as many other possibilities as you can. Also, it's general hard for people to help you with such limited information. We don't know the specific CPU, GPU, distribution, versions of software, what you were doing when it occurred, anything like that. So we can't eliminate many possibilities to give you more specific help. More information is almost always better when asking for technical help on the internet.

Anyone that uses Mac or IOS.

I mean, maybe I technically can download it but that's not going to do anything other than eat disk space.