davisoneee

Why do people wear 'cycling clothing'? Because, unless you have a short commute, having padded shorts makes riding more comfortable.

If someone is riding slowly, but still riding for a reasonably long time, having padding is a significant comfort.

..then you follow up saying it's rational to hate.

And is it REALLY 10-20%, or is it just that you're so used to asshole drivers that you just REMEMBER the cyclists who ride badly, and thus inflate the number mentally?

I say this as someone who regularly rides ~100-150 miles per week, and pre-covid commuted to work every day.

Not quite. With date, the timezone comes before the year.

LC_ALL=C date => Sun Feb 13 14:27:18 GMT 2022

The point is that in order to remember the order that the dates should be put in, you need to remember google's 'reference' layout .. Jan 2 15:04:05 2006 MST ... in other words:

1) Month, 2) Day of Month, 3) Hour, 4) Minute, 5) Second, 6) Year

So yes, you DO need to remember that the numbers are 'month/day' ordered, in order to, from memory, derive that it's 2006-01-02, and not 2006-02-01. With strftime, we effectively standardised "%Y-%m-%d"

..the point of the grandparent post is that if we emphasise _liability_, it's less likely we'll get any information.

This is a common understanding in industries dealing with safety. If you want to _punish_, focus on blame. If you want to focus on _helping ensure the problem doesn't happen again_, remove the threat of blame.

Also, mentioning reparations brings up ideas of ...current US political discussion... and is likely to polarise this discussion. Please try and keep this productive.

To follow Steve's comment:

> Until Rust 1.53, only references to arrays implement IntoIterator. This means you can iterate over &[1, 2, 3] and &mut [1, 2, 3], but not over [1, 2, 3] directly.

...now, you can also iterate over [1, 2, 3] etc.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/edition-guide/rust-2021/IntoIterat...

When the pressure is lower, less energy is deflected upwards. The tyre flexes over the hit.

        _               \________/
   \___/x\___/  versus       x

Less energy is transferred to the 'up' meaning the energy is still going forward. You still have upward motion, but that's less energy taken away from forward motion.

One thing every person has missed so far is that often the TDF riders are on rather narrow bikes with very little clearance.

This helps give an aerodynamic profile. Even at a few watts, this is considered worth it. You would likely have to do a lot of research to go with bigger wheels, as that would been wider fork, and thus throw off aerodynamics.

A bit daft, in my opinion, given that it's mainly the domestiques who are in the wind and the ones behind, and in the peloton, can be putting out significantly less energy. May even be better for recovery having a bit more comfort on the bike through wider tyres with a bit lower pressure.

If you're going OVER imperfections (i.e. high pressure tyres), you lose some energy going 'up'.

If you go THROUGH imperfections (lower pressure) you don't lose so much energy going 'up' as the tyre absorbs rather than bounces you.

Narrow tyres tubeless is a no-go as the high-psi required to get the tyre seated and shaped can cause blowouts, especially if you get impact such as a pothole.

Going for wider tyres means you naturally can go lower PSI, but if you drop PSI with tubes you risk pinch-flats ('snakebites'), where striking a hard edge causes both edges of the tyre to puncture (like X___X on the cross section, rather than \__x_/ of a normal puncture). If you go wide, you can then drop the pressure more as you don't have a tube to pinch. This gives you the great comfort, the pliability to absorb road imperfection (which improves speed), and less likelihood of puncture.

As an approximate pressure guide:

    # weight in kg. front load probably 0.45 (45%). tyre width in mm
    weight_front = weight * front_wheel_load
    weight_rear = weight * (1 - front_wheel_load)

    psi_front = (338.14 * weight_front / tyre_width ** 1.5785) - 7.1685
    psi_rear = (338.14 * weight_rear / tyre_width ** 1.5785) - 7.1685

This should ballpark you 15% tyre deflection under load, which was a guide from an old bike magazine on a balance of rolling resistance and comfort.

In what way is the BBC at fault for this? Their title is objectively true. A _valid_ configuration setting that was used by a customer _did_ cause fastly to have an outage.

It's not limited to one specific customer (i.e this customer isn't the only customer who could have caused the issue, presumably), but it _was_ something the customer (legitimately) did. It wasn't a server outage. It wasn't a fire. It wasn't a cut cable.

"a customer quite legitimately changing their settings (BBC: one fastly customer) had exposed a bug (BBC: triggered internet meltdown) in a software update issued to customers (fastly admitting, when combined with 'legitimately', that fastly are at fault) in mid-May".

I'm an electrical engineer and an academic. A key part of communication is _knowing your audience_, and communicating what is appropriate for them. Your average reader doesn't need to know how many W this generates. While, yes, HN may appreciate knowing the expected power output, that's basically irrelevant for the average reader.

This is from the BBC, not a scientific journal. While your average reader may know that their microwave is 800W, telling them "This turbine will generate <x> kW" doesn't mean anything. They _do_ have a home. If they don't _need_ to know/use Watts on a day to day basis, then the number is just going to be forgotten. However, they _might_ remember "a tidal turbine that can power thousands of homes".

It would be lovely if everyone was scientifically literate, but people have other shit going on in their lives. On a pragmatic level, I'd rather society remember the abstract idea of 'how many homes' than _forget_ the precise '<x> megawatts'.

To be fair, one suggested etymology I've seen for for 'mongo' is a simplification of 'humongous'.

Whether you believe this claim or not, it's entirely down to whether you want to take a charitable or negative guess at the original intention.

The UK did not go through with the porn block. You can perfectly well set up an account without any NSFW filtering, and as far as I can remember, it wasn't even 'opt out'. I'm with Virgin--oh the irony--and have never had any filtering.

If it happened to you, perhaps you just happened to set up your ISP when there was _talk_ of the bill, but ultimately it didn't pass.

"UK's controversial 'porn blocker' plan dropped": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50073102

If you have poor recall, how do you know what you need to look up? How do you know what entry points you have in your 'zettelkasten'? If you have no intention to recall information, why even bother taking notes? Instead of searching your notes, or following a zettelkasten ID trail, search the internet. We want to be able to _use_ information.

I'm all for the zettelkasten method, for good notetaking habits...however there's also a tendency of many notetakers, or productivity porn on notetaking, to waste so much time 'notetaking' and 'organising' that they never _act_. (I've been very guilty of this in the past).

Recall isn't bad. It's essential. It is, however, not the _only_ thing to use. You want to use spaced repetition for the most important, most used information. Stuff that's a bit more niche, rarely used, yeah just search that.

I'm in the process of writing up my thesis, focused exactly on this domain; collars for detection of eating, rumination, and oestrus behaviour (welfare and fertility), from Afimilk Silent Herdsman (collar system was originally a spinout from my University), combined with Automatic Milking Systems (robots) from Fullwood Packo (the Merlin).

In general, the cows are more driven to the robotic milkers by the feed they recieve while in the machine, rather than the feeling of relief (these systems generally provide an alert of cows being lazy...ones that haven't been milked in 10+ hours and need a shove), however these systems _do_ provide both improved health and improved productivity.

Even in experienced dairy herds, handling the animals and shoving them all to the robot at the same time causes stress. Having these machines running constantly (1 machine can handle a herd of ~50) lets cows regulate their own pattern, which can benefit herd dynamics as well (more timid animals can self regulate to a quieter period away from pushier animals). Farms can easily see 10-20% improvement on milk yield.

It also has the benefit that animals can go more or less often...you may have some animals who are comfortable with 3 visits a day, some comfortable at 4 (or even 5 if they have really high yield).

Calling it 'censorship' seems a bit inflated...you can request UK ISPs to remove the content filter. Further, the UK government retracted the internet 'porn' bill, which was a big driver of the act anyway.

I think it's a bit unfair to conflate 'always on' and 'default on, but easy to remove'.

edit: also, I'm in the UK, and happily using a VPN on Windows, Linux, and Android with no issues.

To self quote, "Firefox was the better extension platform...and didn't entice users away".

Firefox's share has been declining for years, and I wouldn't say it's become a significantly worse browser in that time. They aren't showing any signs of growing organically. They are trying to get away from Google, and for that, they need to grow their base and bring in much more revenue from users, or just accept being a small side player in the browser market.

You mention tech-savy...but is 'tech savy' what the public wants, or needs? Firefox has always been the more tech-savvy browser I would say, and yet they are losing ground to Chrome. The tech-savy browser is the one that's trying to push the boundaries; they are trying to do more technical stuff, which gives more opportunity for problems, such as workflow breaking.

I don't know if Firefox _can_ compete with Google, given how badly their market share is declining. I think a lot of that isn't even due to Firefox, it's in my view partly driven by Web Devs no longer caring about ensuring Firefox is supported, and also just that "Google" is the average users' doorway to the internet. I think it's also partly because the Chrome way just works for your average consumer...click the browser, search, job done. Again, the HN crowd seems to conflate 'what I want' and 'the reviews I see', and fail to really think about what _the market_ wants, or how the average consumer interacts in ways that may be wildly different than the way a current firefox user interacts. Chrome is stable because they don't really seem to do much from release to release, and that _works_ for the average user.

Regarding 2) ...evidently focusing on their existing userbase isn't viable.

So often these comments like "they are ignoring their user base" and "why won't they let us donate to firefox" miss the point (even if true / beneficial)...they don't want to double down on their existing user base; they want to expand their userbase to go with their mission of bringing more trust to the web

Firefox was the better extension platform for years, and that wasn't enough to entice users away from Google and Chrome. They are trying, and failing, to find a differentiator that will give market share. Trust, privacy, and security on the web so far hasn't got to consumers' hearts, and extensibility and donations are basically just pandering to those few users that remain.

Perhaps because of opportunity cost. Compared to how dependant on Google they are currently, maintaining a comparatively low-revenue service whose existance must be justified to a board, may be worse than doing the 'startup' thing of just pivoting _again_ and using those same developers to try and find something that _can_ sustain Firefox; something that can be a core offering and keep Firefox relevant in the market, rather than a small add-on subscription service.

Firefox gets 500M/year from Google (whether they _need_ that much is a different question). You'd need basically the entire current Firefox userbase to pay some amount monthly, or have a smaller subset donate massive amounts, to enable Firefox to operate independantly from Google. That seems wildly unrealistic to me.

Mozilla's deal with Google is worth 500M per year. For Firefox to be independant of Google, you'd need around 4M people subscribing to Firefox, with your $10/mo suggestion.

Now, whether Firefox NEEDS 500M per year is a different matter, but the whole idea of 'some people want to pay for Firefox' seems rather naive as a suggestion for how Firefox can be viable without Google.