dangoljames

Great read, thanks!

I discovered this bottling gallons of homebrew beer and cider.

This was just as ridiculously nerdy as it was when friends of mine from school and I did it in 1981 -- in basic on the trs80 though :D

Just fucking great :)

Nobody goes into business for fun. Enjoy what you do, but remember that turning a profit is the goal. Have strong principles, and never sacrifice them: but remember that your primary mission in business is to turn a profit.

Brilliant!

CKEditor is an highly under-rated drop-in solution for web sites and applications that is lodash of embedded text editing.

If your application requires a decent text tool and you aren't using CKEditor you're doin' it wrong...

Paywall at New Scientist? Weak Tea...

This is an amazing telescope and the work they are doing with it is equally amazing, but that article blows goats, from the point where they suggest the telescope provides radio wavelengths by which the imaging is performed, to the point where they conflate distance to remote objects with simple resolution of the frustrum, at the conclusion of the article.

DISCLAIMER: I am an amateur armchair astronomer/astrophysicist and I know better than that drivel.

Hrm, really cool but what is the licensing?

Meh.

This is a very vertical search algorithm; it is useful only for indexing and searching cities as shown.

Forth reborn?

yep. I got into it a week or so after ditching FB.

The mastodon.social instance is in ten or twelve different languages, is noisy, organic, and actually has a pretty good vibe about it.

o.O

Yeah, No.

Dildos have been around for a very, very long time.

What problem does this solve?

ditched chrome for waterfox (https://www.waterfoxproject.org/en-US/)

In a word: Arch

My hero of the day.

Full disclaimer: Not only am I not a fan of NHL Hockey, I'm just generally not a team sports fan at all.

Hopefully the guy has given up on the constant <wink>ing, heh.

FIRST QUESTIONS 1. DOES IT DO WHAT I NEED TO DO, AS ELEGANTLY AS I DO IT? 2. IS IT WELL DOCUMENTED? 3. IS IT SIMPLE ENOUGH THAT I CAN PERFORM A SECURITY AUDIT ON IT?

SECOND QUESTIONS 1. IS IT SUPPORTED, AND IF NOT IS IT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR ME TO SUPPORT? 2. IS IT PRESENTED AS PRODUCTION/GA CODE?

You won't need to bother about answering the second set affirmatively if you can't do so with the first. To make a good clean decision, the answers to all the forgoing should be in the affirmative.

If you ignore the attractive module names and apply this simple hueristic faithfully, you'll find that the pool of potential production modules is not only reduced dramatically but that in some application areas the selection will actually become quite sparse.

You might say that my hueristic is incomplete, and you might be right, so feel free to add a few conditions of your own.

Note that while we're all different and have different requirements, you should still direct your efforts toward keeping the hueristic as simple and concise as possible.

It is at least science, in that sense that they've repeated the experiment faithfully and obtained results at least as useful as the original Eagleworks experiment.

Unsurprisingly and anticlimactically, they obtained the same results.

This simply underscores the need for high power testing.

Additionally, they need to also test in orbit/microgravity.

Just my 0.02$US :)

Disclaimer: I am only an armchair rocket scientist :)