tburkhol @ tburkhol @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

611

Joined

2 yr. ago

acetic acid is almost as volatile as water, and the atmosphere contains a lot less of it. If you evaporate vinegar, you're likely to lose about as much - maybe more - of the acid than the water. So, evaporation is probably not a good way to concentrate vinegar.

I think about the Vision like I think about a new Gucci bag or a new set of Air Jordans. There's a small, but very visible, community that is super into that product, probably for reasons not related to its actual functionality. The difference is that there's a lot of overlap between Apple fans and broader technology enthusiast groups, where we're more isolated from the Gucci and Jordan communities. There are lots of brand-based fan groups who will happily accept branded merch or content, but not interpret that as 'advertising.'

The rest of the world tolerates spyware and especially ads if they feel like the product is worth the intrusion. There's a reason Meta doesn't have a logo watermark foating in the corner of Quest view field. There's a reason VR is still very niche, almost entirely limited to gaming.

Maybe Vision's AR experience will change that. Maybe viewing your entire life through a video camera with overlaid graphics has real-world value beyond privacy in co-working spaces. I doubt that value is $3000 and think Vision is more like Apple's Newton than Apple's iPhone.

The dumbass interpretation of "Separation of powers" means that the judiciary doesn't have jurisdiction over any executive branch official, for anything, ever. Corollaries being that congress can't pass laws that apply to judges, and the Department of Justice can't investigate Congresspeople. Instead of checks-and-balances, they want independent kingdoms.

And now that there's a denial, from a "senior administration official," it's proof-positive of a vast conspiracy. "Why would they deny something that's not real?"

This is exactly the kind of semi-ridiculous thing I like about home automations: the power to answer one's most trivial curiosities.

I'd probably add a logger, so I could follow the history of Mohkno's food thievery, then try different techniques to discourage her. Have ha also play a recording of you saying 'Mohkno, no!' Some activity to distract her during the critical food-stealing window. Or go all-in and get those microchip-reading pet feeders.

Snow Crash presented a United States balkanized into little corporate microstates around every franchise, where the Federal Government was just one more franchise operator. Border crossings between Days Inn and Pizza Hut felt surprisingly credible, even in 1992, when Microsoft was the poster child of tech-nopoly. Nevermind the actual company towns of the 19th century, with their own currencies, their own laws, and their own police. The East India Company. Monopoly tends to see government as irrelevant but sometimes useful tool.

I'd tried that...this has been going on for five days, and I can not describe my level of frustration. But I solved it, literally just now.

Despite systemctl status apparmor.service claiming it was inactive, it was secretly active. audit.log was so full of sudo that I failed to see all of the

apparmor="DENIED" operation="mknod" profile="/usr/sbin/named" name="/etc/bind/dnssec-keys/K[zone].+013+16035.l6WOJd" pid=152161 comm="isc-net-0002" requested_mask="c" denied_mask="c" fsuid=124 ouid=124FSUID="bind" OUID="bind"

That made me realize, when I thought I fixed the apparmor rule, I'd used /etc/bind/dnskey/ rw instead of /etc/bind/dnskey/** rw

The bind manual claims that you don't need to manually create keys or manually include them in your zone file, if you use dnssec-policy default or presumably any other policy with inline-signing. Claims that bind will generate its own keys, write them, and even manage timed rotation or migration to a new policy. I can't confirm or deny that, because it definitely found the keys I had manually created (one of which was $INCLUDEd in the zone file, and one not) and used them. It also edited them and created .state files.

I feel like I should take the rest of the day off and celebrate.

One argument goes that she was counting on her blatant incompetence to be grounds for appeal. Once/if Trump ever finds a competent lawyer willing to represent him.

I have never seen someone give off stronger sovereign citizen vibes without specifically mentioning "traveling not driving" or admiralty law. If you're trolling, well done.

I feel like the 2022 turnout is more down to the unique conditions and issues, across the age spectrum - especially Dobbs and election lies - than to anything specific to 20-year-olds. 28% turnout still means that the vast majority of GenZ can't be bothered.

I mean, the handful of GenZ that have reached adulthood do seem marginally more active than other post-war cohorts, but they aren't overthrowing historic voting trends. Pinning hopes for future political outcomes on them is as foolish as pinning the future of US democracy to black voters, or hispanic voters or any other minority/niche population, but media love doing just that. Just try googling "black women save democracy."

Headline aside, 28% turnout for genz vs 23% for millenials, genx, and boomers in their respective first midterms is not going to swing an election where current boomers turn out 70% and genx turn out 60.

Back in the day, I'd go through HDDs faster than systems-always needed to add storage before I could replace the CPU. I didn't start disassembling them until they got up to the 500 _M_B range, but you'd often get 3 platters back then. OP must be harvesting from a whole workgroup - I've only got a 3cm stack and 7 drives waiting for the screwdriver.

Fred78290 is the man. Much better than Fred78920

If the American empire falls, it's not going to reduce weapons production or arms sales. Decline into fascism requires more guns and bullets, as they get turned against domestic targets, while guns and oil are among the US's best sources of external currency.

Copium: in 2016, Trump got 6% of black voters. In 2020, he got 8%. That's a 33% increase in just 4 years. Hispanic votes went from 28% Trump to 38%, so a similar 35% increase. With another 35% increase, he's on track to get a majority of Hispanic voters in 2024 and, I dunno, maybe 110% of black votes?

Pi5+ just because I'd originally written Pi5+PS/case/SD.

And you're right that everything has gotten more expensive, but $35 in 2016 (Pi-3) is only $45 today (and you can still get a 3B for $35). The older Pis hit, for me, a sweet spot of functionality, ease, and price. Price-wise, they were more comparable to an Arduino board than a PC. They had GPIOs like a microcontroller. They could run a full operating system, so easy to access, configure, and program, without having to deal with the added overhead of cross-compiling or directly programing a microcontroller. That generation of Pi was vastly overpowered for replacing an Arduino, so naturally people started running other services on them.

Pi 3 was barely functional as a desktop, and the Pi Foundation pushed them as a cheap platform to provide desktop computing and programming experience for poor populations. Pi4, and especially Pi5, dramatically improved desktop functionality at the cost of marginal price increases, at the same time as Intel was expanding its inexpensive, low-power options. So now, a high-end Pi5 is almost as good as a low-end x86, but also almost as expensive. It's no longer attractive to people who mostly want an easy path to embedded computing, and (I think) in developed countries, that was what drove Pi hype.

Pi Zero, at $15, is more attractive to those people who want a familiar interface to sensors and controllers, but they aren't powerful enough to run NAS, libreelec, pihole, and the like. Where "Rasperry Pi" used to be a melting pot for people making cool gadgets and cheap computing, they've now segmented their customer base into Pi-Zero for gadgets and Pi-400/Pi-5 for cheap computing.

https://www.acepcs.com/products/mini-pc-intel-n100-ultra is only $140, and it looks to me like Pi5+ is $160 with PS/case/microSD.

None of those cases is going to be decided by November, or even January. He may have a 'convicted pending appeal' or two, but those appeals will be postponed until 2028. Hell, even if he loses, I doubt he'll exhaust his appeals before 2030.

"We tried this and got nothing," is not really knowledge that can be built on. It might be helpful if you say it to a colleague at a conference, but there's no way for a reader to know if you're an inept experimenter, got a bad batch of reagents or specimens, had a fundamentally flawed hypothesis, inadequate statistical design, or neglected to control for some secondary phenomenon. You have to do extra work and spend extra money to prove out those possibilities to give the future researcher grounds for thinking up that thing you didn't try, and you've probably already convinced yourself that it's not going to be a productive line of work.

It might be close if the discussion section of those "This project didn't really work, but we spent a year on it and have to publish something" papers would include their negative speculation that the original hypothesis won't work, or the admission that they started on hypothesis H0, got nowhere, and diverted to H1 to salvage the effort, but that takes a level of humility that's uncommon in faculty. And sometimes you don't make the decision not to pursue the work until the new grad student can't repeat any of the results of that first paper. That happens with some regularity and might be worth noting, if only as a footnote or comment attached to the original paper. Or for journals to do a 5-10 year follow-up on each paper just asking whether the authors are still working on the topic and why. "Student graduated and no one else was interested" is a very different reason than "marginal effect size so switched models."

I can't tell you how many times I had some exciting idea, dug around in the literature, found someone 10, 20, even 30 years ago who'd published promising work along exactly the line I was thinking, only to completely abandon the project after one or two publications. I've come to see that pattern as "this didn't actually work, and the first paper was probably bullshit."

It's really hard to write an interesting paper based on "this didn't work," unless you can follow up to the point where you can make a positive statement of why it didn't work, and at that point, you're going to write a paper based on the positive conclusion and demote the negative finding to some kind of control data. You have to have the luxury of time, resources, and interest to go after that positive statement, and that's usually incompatible with professional development.