litchralee @ litchralee @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

380

Joined

2 yr. ago

I have to ask: does your server switch to storing PDT during daylight savings? Either way, I'm so sorry you have to deal with that.

2. The return value of time.time() is actually a floating-point number ... It's also not guaranteed to be monotonically increasing, which is a whole other thing that can trip people up, but that will have to be a separate blog post.

Oh god, I didn't realize that about Python and the POSIX spec. Cautiously, I'm going to guess that GPS seconds are one of the few reliable ways to uniformly convey a monotonically-increasing time reference.

Python has long since deprecated the datetime.datetime.utcnow() function, because it produces a naive object that is ostensibly in UTC.

Ok, this is just a plainly bad decision then and now by the datetime library people. What possible reason could have existed to produce a TZ-naive object from a library call that only returns a reference to UTC?

True, and I don't see a problem. :)

Station wagons and utes (a la Hyundai Santa Cruz) should be a thing in the USA.

I should have clarified that the Mazda 5 is no longer in production. I've seen them from time to time here in California.

I'll be upfront: IMO, hatchbacks > SUVs. That said, a number of manufacturers make "uplifted" versions of their sedans/hatchbacks, such as the Mazda CX-3 which is the bigger version of the Mazda 3 sedan/hatchback. The same applies for the Mazda CX-5 which is a bigger Mazda 5 (not in production anymore).

But directly answering the question, AWD is typically an extra weight penalty (200-300 lbs, 90-130 kg) with attendant fuel economy impact (usually around 1 MPG lower), a bit more maintenance due to having to keep the wheels equally worn, and in rare cases, gets you into trouble where a 2WD car wouldn't.

To elaborate on that last point, in snowy weather, an AWD car can get moving better than a 2WD car, but the number of braked wheels is unchanged. So some people end up getting stuck further along on an impassable road or down in a ditch in their AWD car, in places where tow trucks have to wait for the weather to calm down. Meanwhile, the 2WD car would have already detoured when first encountering the unplowed snow. An experienced driver can make better use of AWD, but can doom a novice driver in the same situation.

If you don't have snow, then you're not really getting much of the benefits of AWD but have all the downsides and it costs more. AWD doesn't shine in the rain either, since moving faster is rarely desirable in wet conditions.

If you do have snow, snow tires on a FWD is generally superior to all-season tires on a AWD or 4WD. This is because snow tires improve braking as well as acceleration in packed or slippery snow, for all cars. But you can always add snow tires to an AWD or 4WD.

So for light winters or places where it snows so badly that driving at all is ill-advised, a FWD with snow tires may be perfectly suitable. Since you've been happy with your Nissan Versa, I assume you don't have the steep, slippery driveway which would tip the equation in favor of AWD/4WD.

TL;DR: it depends, but go AWD only if you need it.

From your description, this sounds a lot like how double/triple pane windows work, or like a Trombe wall. Although a Trombe wall is meant to heat a home, vents could be used to take advantage of convection currents that shed the heat away from the house.

That said, this wouldn't necessarily be cooling per-se, but would be avoiding heat gain. And at that point, any material that's loosely coupled to then house would be equally effective, like a wall with studs 24" (60 cm) apart rather than the USA standard of 16" (40 cm).

In fact, this is how some homes with massively overhanging roofs manage to passively keep themselves manageable in the summer, since the overhang blocks direct sunlight from reaching the walls and windows at summer's high noon, but lets light in when the sun is lower in winter. Soffit vents let convection currents flow up the inside of the roof, exiting at a ridge vent. So the idea is sound and already deployed in relevant climates.

There is also amateur radio (aka ham radio), which can legally and practically operate at higher output powers if necessary, and on far more frequencies than CB. Although doomsday people often say to just buy a ham radio and use it without a license, I don't advise that, simply because having the radio is only half the challenge.

The other half is the ability to competently operate the radio to effectively communicate and organize aid. And this only comes with practice by talking to others, in the form of regular participation in radio nets and/or emcomm activities. Emergency radio isn't even limited to voice transmissions, with digital modes and even fax modes being an option that can transmit quicker and farther. Having a legit call sign will make it easier for rescuers to identify your transmissions, as well as figuring out if you've been located.

While some people will make ham radio a lifelong hobby, others obtain their license simply for small-talk, or for a SHTF scenario, or as longer-distance walkie-talkies when camping in heavily wooded forests. The possibilities are endless, but it all starts with a first radio and some basic training on radio handling.

Ham radio clubs across the USA and the world are generally very welcoming of new folks, so it's worth looking up your nearby club or dropping in on an in-person club meeting.

No problem! This is a topic which I've been strangely fascinated for years about, although we'll might not know if it actually answers the case that OP described.

This kinda all started when I was learning how to drive, and kept seeing people online talking about how "in California, no one has the right of way, but can only yield it". This was puzzling to me as a student driver, because obviously I have the right to the street if I'm in it.... right? No.

It all made sense when I finally determined after some research that "right-of-way" meant the property that the state/county/city owns, meaning that all the drivers are temporary guests upon the right-of-way, and thus have to yield it to each other in an orderly fashion, like passing around a can of Axe body spray in the high school locker rooms.

Indeed, driving in California doesn't really have any absolute rights whatsoever, since no situation affords anyone an absolute ability to do something. A green light doesn't mean blindly drive into an intersection, since the Anti-Gridlock Act of 1987 prohibits causing actual gridlock, and pedestrians can still cross if they entered lawfully, among other things. Even an ambulance or fire-truck cannot blindly drive waywardly into the street, expecting everyone to get out of the way. There are enough rules that it's easier to just say no rights really exist, and everyone just has to calmly and fairly cooperate so that everyone makes it home alive.

Suffice it to say, there are zero absolutes. And that's probably for the best, since if there were absolutes, so-called self-driving cars would probably be mowing down pedestrians, cyclists, and other motorists with full force of law.

There's also the whole topic about property and property rights that could put first-year law students to sleep, about how a separated property right can in-fact be a property unto itself, with its own rights about how it can be disposed of, and with whose permission. It's rights all the way down lol

Another possibility is related to a [citation needed] claim about the Romans and their roads. Roman roads are remarkable in that some have stood the test of time, some still recognizable today, I'm told.

Supposedly, Roman roads were engineered as all-weather roads because their engineers understood the importance of drainage. Water destroys all, in what we understand today as freeze/thaw cycles and soil erosion undermining the road foundation.

It is said [again, citation needed] that the penalty for messing with the drainage of a Roman road was severe, possibly being the death penalty.

As roads then and now are often constructed with flanking drainage ditches, adding a driveway would necessarily affect the drainage of the road if done improperly, so perhaps some jurisdictions prohibit driveways additions unless properly engineered and permitted.

TL:DR: could modern governments be following the same logic undertaken by the Romans about road drainage? Have you thought about the Roman Empire today? :)

/s

I've never seen such a sign, but I'll take a guess what it might be referring to. Here in California, the definition of a freeway does not have anything to do with number of lanes, speed limits, the presence of freight traffic, or any affiliation with the National Highway System. Instead, it is defined in the California Vehicle Code section 332 as:

a highway in respect to which the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands or in respect to which such owners have only limited or restricted right or easement of access.

This roughly corresponds to what the Wikipedia describes in its page on "controlled access highways", a term which includes the California and USA federal government's term of freeway or the eastern US states' term of expressway or the British motorway. That is, a road which all ways onto and off of the road are carefully crafted.

There are many roads in California and the United States which will meet the requirements outlined by the Interstate Highway standards, and will look and feel like an interstate freeway, from the signs and lane markings and shoulder sizing.

But none of that matters for the California legal definition of freeway. Indeed, some freeway-looking roads will have signs that say "end freeway" or "start of freeway" with no other visual cues. And this is because the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) has not acquired the property rights from adjacent landowners to prohibit building driveways onto the public right-of-way.

To clarify, a right-of-way is not an individual right like free speech or freedom against unreasonable searches. Rather, it's a legal term referring to a property right, namely a grant of access on/over some piece of property in order to cross it. In the case of public roads, the property right is held by a public entity, and that means the public can use it. Since a right-of-way is a type of property, there are rights implied by a right-of-way. So a right-of-way right. Yeah, lawyers named things badly here. Anyway...

A feature of public rights-of-way is that any adjacent private properties can connect to and travel upon the right-of-way. The rationale -- to oversimplifying things -- is that if the public entity could deny the right -- including to build a driveway -- then a property could end up with zero ways to access it without trespassing, making it impossible to enter or exit, which makes the property near worthless. It is an age-old rule from English Law that rendering property worthless is bad, so private property rights necessarily comes with an implicit ability to connect to adjacent public rights-of-way.

But property rights are a bundle which can be sold separately by their owner. For example, many suburban property owners don't own the rights to minerals underneath the land, since the preceding developers sold that right to someone else. And so the state -- through CalTrans -- or the city or county can buy (often through eminent domain) just that single right from the property owners. Thus, the properties along a road might -- unnoticeable to the naked eye -- not be legally allowed to build a driveway, having shed that legal right away by forced-yet-fully-compensated sale.

To that end, it's possible that a sign warning against illegal driveways is the state's way of preventing future land owners from trying to build such driveways, since those owners would lose in court. If the state has acquired such rights, it's usually because the road is planned to become a freeway or expressway (a limited-access road, in California terminology), or they wish to preserve that possibility early and for cheap. So far as I'm aware, in California the right is only ever acquired for state roads, with the sole exception of the expressways in Santa Clara County, because they planned well ahead in the 60s.

Other states may be similar, by extrapolation.

TL;DR: OP's state might be hedging their bets to build a future freeway, and wants to prevent future legal issues with landowners, since the state knows it would win those cases

If not code or documentation contributions, then well-written bug reports. Seriously, the quality of bug reports sometimes leaves a lot to be desired. And I don't necessarily mean a full back-trace attached -- and please, if you ever send a back-trace, copy-and-paste the text, never a screenshot -- but just details like: system details, OS, version, step-by-step instructions to reproduce that a non-coder could also understand, plus what you expected to happen versus what actually happened.

This stuff (usually) comes naturally to programmers and engineers, but users don't necessarily see things this way. I sometimes think bug reports need to adopt a "so tell me what happened?" approach, where reporters are encouraged to describe free-form what they think of the software, then providing the specific details that developers need. That at least would collect all the relevant details, plus extra details that no developers thought to ask.

Even just having folks that help gather and distill details from user reporters on a forum is easing a burden off of developers, and that effort should be welcomed by any competently-organized project. Many projects already have a template for reports, although it often gets mistaken for boilerplate. Helping reports recognize that they need to fill in all the details is a useful activity that isn't code or docs.

If there were changes in 2020 to 2024 inclusive, then yes, I'd write it as 2020-2024. But if not inclusive, then I'd write 2021-2023.

I'm not any type of lawyer, especially not a copyright lawyer, though I've been informed that the point of having the copyright date is to mark when the work (book, website, photo, etc) was produced and when last edited. Both aspects are important, since the original date is when the copyright clock starts counting, and having it further in the past is useful to prove infringement that occurs later.

Likewise, each update to the work imbues a new copyright on just the updated parts, which starts its own clock, and is again useful to prosecute infringement.

As a result, updating the copyright date is not an exercise of writing today's year. But rather, it's adding years to a list, compressing as needed, but never removing any years. For example, if a work was created in 2012 and updated in 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2022, the copyright date could look like:

© 2012, 2013, 2015-2017, 2022

To be clear, I'm not terribly concerned with whether large, institutional copyright holders are able to effectively litigate their IP holdings. Rather, this is advice for small producers of works, like freelancers or folks hosting their own blog. In the age of AI, copyright abuse against small players is now rampant, and a copyright date that is always the current year is ammunition for an AI company's lawyer to argue that they didn't plagiarize your work, because your work has a date that came after when they trained their models.

Not that the copyright date is wholly dispositive, but it makes clear from the get-go when a work came unto copyright protection.

It would be amazing if PCIe lanes becomes the predominant limiting factor, rather than drive cost, for building large storage arrays. What a world it would be, when even Epyc and its lanes-for-days proves to be insufficient for large Chia miners err Plex servers uh, Linux ISO mirrors.

I'm not a physicist. But I did live in an apartment at university, and shortness of funds plus hot weather meant experimenting with various box fan configurations.

What I found most optimal was to open two windows on opposite sides of the dwelling, with the one box fan aimed outward, using cardboard to block the openings around the fan. In my case, the choice of egress (ie air flowing out) window was based on: the window which best fit the box fan's shape, proximity of noise to the bedroom, and the quality of the window screen.

As for why the fan points outward, this sends the heat of the motor (60-100 W) out of the dwelling, rather than drawing it in. Also, if facing inward, the high airflow at the tips of the fan blades would tend to draw small flies into the dwelling. But if the fan is at the egress window, then the ingress airflow will average out over the full surface area of the ingress window, producing a lower peak airflow rate, akin to a gentle breeze.

If you have a multi-floor unit or house, it would be optimal to place the fan at the highest egress window, to take advantage of heat naturally rising. Opening multiple ingress windows will quickly cool those rooms, while also reducing the peak ingress airflow and resulting drafts (eg blowing papers off tables). Of course, it's necessary to open all the doors to form a path between the ingress and egress windows.

The original reporting by 404media is excellent in that it covers the background context, links to the actual PDF of the lawsuit, and reaches out to an outside expert to verify information presented in the lawsuit and learned from their research. It's a worthwhile read, although it's behind a paywall; archive.ph may be effective though.

For folks that just want to see the lawsuit and its probably-dodgy claims, the most recent First Amended Complaint is available through RECAP here, along with most of the other legal documents in the case. As for how RECAP can store copies of these documents, see this FAQ and consider donating to their cause.

Basically, AXS complains about nine things, generally around: copyright infringement, DMCA violations (ie hacking/reverse engineering), trademark counterfeiting and infringement, various unfair competition statutes, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract (re: terms of service).

I find the civil conspiracy claim to be a bit weird, since it would require proof that the various other ticket websites actually made contact with each other and agreed to do the other eight things that AXS is complaining about. Why would those other websites -- who are mutual competitors -- do that? Of course, this is just the complaint, so it's whatever AXS wants to claim under "information and belief", aka it's what they think happened, not necessarily with proof yet.

Absolutely, it is essential to always run the numbers. I was once offered a sizable rebate if I accepted a non-0% car loan, but no rebate if I paid cash or had my own financing. Since their loan had no early-repayment penalty -- and I demanded this in writing -- I accepted their loan and paid it off upon the first statement.

My suspicion is that that sort of offer was to boost the commissions earned by the loan brokers, rather than to move cars. Or maybe both. Who knows.

0% interest offers show up fairly frequently in the USA, often as general-purpose credit cards, or for car or furniture payments, in addition to the many buy-now-pay-later services that allow financing almost anything. However, the motives for offering 0% are slightly different for each of these products.

But answering the question directly, a 0% offer is beneficial if you were already going to make the purchase and would finance it. Cheap credit makes it easy to overspend, since the payments will be "tomorrow's problem". For people who can afford to pay for something in full, it might still be beneficial to finance with 0% just to conserve cash on hand. But the tradeoff is having to service the debt with regular payments; missing one payment can cause the debt to resume at an exorbitant rate. It takes a decent amount of financial discipline to make a 0% offer work in your favor.

Going back to why 0% offers even exist, I'll use furniture and cars as they're the historic examples. Furniture is expensive, whether it's a sectional sofa or a queen-size bed with frame and storage. There's also a sizable markup for furniture, and competition between furniture stores is strong. Thus, to help entice people to buy furniture, sellers will offer 0%, outsourced to a loan company, with the loan subsidized by some of the profit margins.

For cars, the equation is slightly different. Sure, cars are an order of magnitude more expensive, but that also means the opportunity cost for dealers to offer 0% is correspondingly larger. Instead, 0% financing for cars is almost always subsidized by the manufacturer, not the dealers. This is a financial and business strategy that allows a car company to create more sales in a given quarter, if perhaps they need to meet certain year-end targets but are reluctant to reduce their list prices.

0% car loans induce more sales fairly quickly, but will draw on the company coffers in the years to come, because the loan company still wants their cut to be paid by someone. Consumers will usually benefit from these offers, as it's rare for people to buy a new car outright.

It's my opinion that if a car company has to subsidize loans to move their product, that's a tacit admission that their product is wrongly priced or the competition is better. I would take this into consideration, although it wouldn't necessarily carry the day when considering a purchase. After all, car payment interest is not insignificant.

A quick "rule" is to see how old the word/concept is. "plaintiff" would have existed almost as long as the English legal system came into being, or probably even older to the court of Assizes pre-12th century.

Whereas firefighter as a profession might have only become a word after the establishment of fire departments by insurance companies, which I think might have been a 19th century development.

This entire series by Cathode Ray Dude is a wonderful dive into the world of PC boot sequence, for the folks interested in a touch of embedded architecture. His delivery is also on-point, given the complexity and obscurity of the topics.

From this video alone (41:15):

The way this worked was: they installed Xen hypervisor on your PC, put Hyperspace in a VM and Windows in another. Now, you either know what a VM is -- and I don't need to explain why this is terrifying -- or you don't and I need to make you understand so you never independently invent this.

And (43:59):

This is just a bad idea, ok? Virtualization belongs in data centers. Putting some poor bastard's whole OS in a VM is a prank. It's some Truman Show shit. It's disassembling the coach's car and putting it back together inside the gym. It's not remotely worth the trouble and it probably didn't work.