ahmedalsudani

Another variety: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jambiya

I carry a knife specifically to stab people who pronounce my name that way (the Achmed way).

... yes, this is a joke.

You can use a managed switch to get this working if you have a router with too few ports.

I have several gl.inet routers running openwrt but they all have 2/3 ports total. I put a TL-SG108E in front of them and use that to tag ports.

This particular switch has an interface that is quite easy to reverse engineer, so I have written a script that allows me to easily move ports between VLANs without bothering with the unintuitive web UI.

A few lemons/potatoes can power an MCU. 0.5 watts is luxurious.

https://youtube.com/shorts/qLTEtXY5-BQ

This is one of my favourite things I've read on here, and it frames working on a team the way it should be framed!

Going to adopt every part of it. Thank you for sharing.

Yes, they are less secure. VMs can rely on HW features to ensure memory isolation.

The strawman is reducing his comment to "really just a debate on ideal hours and the post fails to make an argument there."

It's not about ideal hours at all. I'll post the entire comment here for anybody that might not have clicked through so you can actually decide what it's about.

Quoting Carmack:

I find these “shorter work weeks are just as effective” articles to be nonsense, at least for knowledge workers with some tactical discretion. I can imagine productivity at an assembly line job having a peak such that overworking grinds someone down to the point that they become a liability, but people that claim working nine hours in a day instead of eight gives no (or negative) additional benefit are either being disingenuous or just have terrible work habits. Even in menial jobs, it is sort of insulting – “Hey you, working three jobs to feed your family! Half of the time you are working is actually of negative value so you don’t deserve to be paid for it!”

If you only have seven good hours a day in you, does that mean the rest of the day that you spend with your family, reading, exercising at the gym, or whatever other virtuous activity you would be spending your time on, are all done poorly? No, it just means that focusing on a single thing for an extended period of time is challenging.

Whatever the grand strategy for success is, it gets broken down into lots of smaller tasks. When you hit a wall on one task, you could say “that’s it, I’m done for the day” and head home, or you could switch over to something else that has a different rhythm and get more accomplished. Even when you are clearly not at your peak, there is always plenty to do that doesn’t require your best, and it would actually be a waste to spend your best time on it. You can also “go to the gym” for your work by studying, exploring, and experimenting, spending more hours in service to the goal.

I think most people excited by these articles are confusing not being aligned with their job’s goals with questions of effectiveness. If you don’t want to work, and don’t really care about your work, less hours for the same pay sounds great! If you personally care about what you are doing, you don’t stop at 40 hours a week because you think it is optimal for the work, but rather because you are balancing it against something else that you find equally important. Which is fine.

Given two equally talented people, the one that pursues a goal obsessively, for well over 40 hours a week, is going to achieve more. They might be less happy and healthy, but I’m not even sure about that. Obsession can be rather fulfilling, although probably not across an entire lifetime.

This particular article does touch on a goal that isn’t usually explicitly stated: it would make the world “less unequal” if everyone was prevented from working longer hours. Yes, it would, but I am deeply appalled at the thought of trading away individual freedom of action and additional value in the world for that goal.

From the HN guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You are constructing a strawman. Go read his comment again. He differentiates between knowledge work and physical work.

+1 csk is as good as it gets. Had him for my first CS class there and to the end of my time there, that class stood out both in terms of quality and enjoyment/engagement.

If you're at Waterloo and have the chance to be in Craig's class, jump at it.

This is a neat problem! Thank you for sharing!

It's common for the obvious cases and obvious constraints to be assumed.

Adding "distinct" would have made it clearer, but it was obvious that the author meant distinct from reading the title alone.

In medicine those kinds of arrangements exist, but they charge 30% (I forget if it's off the top or the bottom).

Yeah I'm specifically responding to the question above.

Some things like REST/HTML/XML are familiar enough that the initialism is as good as a dictionary word.

SOAP, on the other hand, I forget what that was. Hopefully it's not important.

One of the 5 stages of grief: bargaining :)

I have tried to use a couple of tools with better types on the job and on the "productive/industry" side of the spectrum. That consistently led to disappointment. It's been a while since I gave up on TS; what drove me away then was the typings I had to download and update and debug.

Nowadays I'm working on learning the purescript terrain for frontend development. In that world, the limitation is not the language but my ignorance. That feels better.

It's way better when you learn the words. Now I understand it's about frequencies and channels.

DFS to a software crowd will always expand to depth-first search. I was trying to figure out if that's what was being discussed here (with plenty of skepticism, admittedly) until reading GP.

I'm describing my experience. Feel free to live according to yours if it differs.

Also, in jest: citation needed on the RMS claim. We can all play that game ad absurdium :)

Emacs is a great platform, but the default key mappings make it an RSI machine.

If I recommend Emacs to anybody today, the first thing I would tell them is to:

- enable evil mode and prefer its interface to vanilla Emacs

- install doom-emacs and learn to love the leader key instead of the C-[...] combinations

And of course what you said about moving your whole hand and using both hands still applies, including when you need to use the shift key.

I started to develop RSI once in 2015 and got my act together after that scare with an ergonomic setup and better practices. It's been smooth sailing since, always as an Emacs user.

If you can convince your crew to try something new, there are some great FPS games nowadays. I've enjoyed those, though I haven't been able to put in anywhere near your number of hours.

- Squad

- Escape from Tarkov

- Rising Storm 2: Vietnam

In recent years, I have been spoiled by doom-emacs (and previously spacemacs). They have made everything work out of the box for me to such an extent that I mostly don't know what's active--I've just learned the right leader combination to get what I need done.

It turns out I've been using smartparens without realizing--just opened a file and checked the active modes to find out.

The keys I've learned are (using evil):

- [Visual mode] S -> surround by a pair

- [Visual mode] d <char> -> delete pair of <char>

- [Visual mode] c <c1> <c2> -> replace pair of <c1> with pair of <c2>

Those along with C-M-k to kill a sexp and % to go to the other end of a pair have been all I need for my work (the vast majority C/C++ and Python).

One thing I keep putting off is figuring out a way to jump to the opening/closing quotes. For those I still have to go medieval if there's any nesting.

Another problem is that it's a small set. If you had a list of all HN users, you could compute md5 for all of them in seconds.

Serves you right for disparaging The One True Language!

Ok, fine, we'll present Idris with a fig leaf.

Paredit made a massive difference when I was writing Lisp. It does take some getting used to, but pretty sure it was a net positive after a week of use.

I actually started enabling it when writing other languages (Python/C++) to see if it could do its magic there.

Thank you for your super practical list! Going to go through all of those books over the next few months.

Unfortunately it's not very simple.

Converting PS/2 signals to USB is trivial.

USB to PS/2 is a different story. Only a small subset of USB keyboards support it. They keyboard basically needs to send PS/2 over USB.

Oops, should have checked new.

There's a previous submission from a different source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33535015

As I clicked on the link, my mind was wondering how it would compare to the last DIY keyboard I saw ... which was trishume's. I should read the username before clicking :)

Thank you for sharing your new workstation, Tristan. This one looks quite a bit less intimidating than the last one--I think I'll finally start dabbling in the DIY keyboard world.

One thing I need to figure out/work on is how to turn the output from any of the DIY designs into PS/2 signals. My desktop setup requires that.

Currently using the PS/2 version of https://www.ergodirect.com/product_info.php?products_id=450, which has been discontinued for a while. If this keyboard dies, DIY might be the only option for an ergonomic PS/2 keyboard.

This explains all the mysterious and opaque decisions that are regularly posted here by affected businesses.

Thank you for sharing your insight!

1. It could easily be auto correct

2. A lot of brilliant people much smarter than you and me have trouble with spelling. It doesn't take away from their ability in other areas.

3. Hate to be that guy :) but it's not a grammatical error

It's hard to keep an optimistic and creative imagination when the status quo is as bad as it is, but don't let the present malaise limit your horizons. There is more than one way out.

Absolutely. There will need to be treaties and a method to account for the carbon cost even when something is produced abroad if we are to achieve aggregate reductions.

Unfortunately things look grim when you look at the state of international relations. It doesn't feel like we'll see progress on international carbon pricing anytime soon.