dbrgn

...I guess unless you're one of the minorities, or speak the "wrong" accent. Then all of a sudden you're not welcome anymore.

Here's the ETH/EPFL press statement: https://actu.epfl.ch/news/joint-initiative-for-trustworthy-a...

I talked to the electrician about using a CEE16 connector to charge the car. He said that this should only be done if you don't load it near its max (16A) for long periods of time. He's seen multiple CEE16 connectors that deformed condsiderably after a year of use with regular charging sessions at 16A. If you load it to 10-12A, it should be fine.

Another recent example: I'm in Switzerland. I paid 550 CHF (630$) this summer for a "go-e Gemini" charger. I screwed it to the wall and ran a roughly 15m 3-phase 16A cable to the main fuse box (maybe around 50 CHF for cable and installation tubes), where an electrician connected it properly for 108 CHF (124$) and added an appropriate RCD for 116 CHF (133$). All in all, it cost me around 800-900 CHF (900-1000$).

Without doing some of the installation work myself, the electrician would have cost me several hundred CHF more.

When I watch a video like the demo-video for the Krita plugin we're discussing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QDPEcVmdLI), I do see a lot of creativity happening. The person is using stable diffusion as a tool to achieve the look, style and composition they want. The skill to be able to use such a model for creating art is definitely an acquired skill, and I would definitely consider it a form of art.

Of course there will be people just clicking "generate" on a website. But isn't that the difference between consumer and artist? Everyone can press the shutter button on a digital camera to take a snapshot. But the artist knows how to use light, angle and technology to create a photograph with the looks and composition that they intend. (If you compare snapshots from amateur photographers and from professionals, the differences are astounding. And it's not just about the cost of the equipment.)

Certainly, there will be jobs – especially the rather repetitive jobs – that will be replaced by the use of AI, just like stock photos replaced jobs of certain photographers, or just like industrialization and automation replaced the jobs of a lot of craftsmen and artisans. But craftsmen and artisans are still around, and they are paid a lot more than they used to be paid, as long as they provide added value on top of the generic products available on the market!

Yes, but - at least in landscape photography - there was a divide between people using retouching to "fix" things (i.e. removing spots, making the colors more realistic, etc) and the people altering the style of the photo (e.g. by boosting or even shifting certain colors to achieve a certain look). The latter was viewed as fake by some people I knew. Today this is just part of your photography style.

Why is that the case? Tools like OpenCL do exist, but I assume CUDA is simply better suited for these tasks, is that true?

(With the dominance of CUDA, choice of a GPU on Linux gets even harder. It used to be a clear "fuck you Nvidia" if you wanted to use Wayland, but Nvidia definitely has the lead when it's about video editing and machine learning.)

That's an interesting point. Retouching a photo after taking it used to be "manipulating reality", frowned upon by "real" photographers. Nowadays, postprocessing digital negatives and adding your own style to it is part of a normal photographer's workflow.

(However, I think the negative feelings don't come from a discussion of "real vs fake" or "classical vs new", but mostly from the point of view that using artwork as training data is stealing. I don't agree with that view, but I think it's at the core of the argument.)

If you have lots of money and like fancy rings, sure, go for it!

If you just finished your college, sit on a big pile of student loans, work in your first job and then spend several months of income on a shiny rock, then that is a bad financial decision, no matter whether you love diamond rings or not. (And from what I hear, this situation happens a lot, due to social pressure and "desired social status".)

Ah, thanks, that is indeed an aspect I was not aware of. From my point of view, it doesn't change much about the cost-value-ratio though.

The decent restaurant is a good example: For the price of a 9000$ diamond ring, you can eat a fancy dinner at a 300$ restaurant every year for the next 30 years of your marriage. And the money is probably spent much better that way. You'll build up memories of shared experiences.

Yup, but you need to reference the commit ID, meaning that you always need to create two commits, one for the reformatting, and a second one for updating the .git-blame-ignore-revs file. Additionally, you may not use git rebase, or any other workflow that modifies the history, or the references will be broken. Third, the git config needs to be set per-project (can't be set globally), so all developers need to manually adjust their config, for this feature to be useful.

If you value a clean commit history, then simply reformat as part of the code change. With autoformatting on save (e.g. through prettier), that's a complete non-issue anyways.

I, as a European, cannot fathom how anyone would spend a significant amount of money on an engagement ring! The engagement rings we got ourselves cost 18$ and were made from wood. After all, they only need to last a few months, or maybe 1-2 years, until the wedding.

Regarding the wedding ring, I can understand slightly better how someone would put a bit more money into that, considering that you wear it for life. But there are so much better options than buying a shiny rock. Why not go to a goldsmith and pay 1000$ for a workshop where you forge your own rings? That will result in a lasting memory of a nice event, for a fraction of the cost, instead of throwing thousands of dollars out the window for a shiny rock that you simply buy at the store. Or maybe you don't even need gold? In my opinion, silver, titanium or maybe something like steel combined with carbon fibers looks better anyways.

Just as an example: Our eslint checks take 2 minutes to complete. Improving this would considerably improve developer productivity.

Occasionally batch-fixing syntax makes "git blame" far less useful.

In that case the developer could explicitly move focus to something that makes sense in the context of the application flow.

Of course the submission needs to be handled separately (if a <form> tag is being used). But that's not the point. The semantics for a disabled button are much clearer: You indicate that the button cannot be pressed (because it wouldn't actually do anything). Having a button that can be clicked, but that doesn't do anything, sounds like a wrong choice. Even worse is "making it look like it cannot be pressed by adding CSS rules".

From what I know about accessibility, semantics are key. If the semantics are clear, then accessibility tools can optimize their flows accordingly. Using styling to convey semantics is a bad idea.

If accessibility tools cannot deal well with certain situations, then those tools should be improved instead of making semantics worse.

If accessibility tools remove the focus from the disabled button and focus the document instead when a button is disabled, wouldn't this be a problem of the accessibility tool in the first place?

Even just focussing the parent element would be a much much better idea than focusing the document.

Making a button look disabled without actuall disabling it sounds like a semantically bad idea.

That depends on whether it's actually a classic HTML <form>, or whether it's just a collection of input fields submitted through JavaScript.

And of course, if you disable the button, you could prevent duplicate form submission as well through the onsubmit event.

My wife and I managed to buy (half) a house (from the 1800s) this year, in Switzerland, considerably below 1M. It's in a rural area though (30 km from Zürich), and without central heating (tiled wood stove instead). I guess it depends a lot on your desired standards of living.

One effect of this was that big companies and pension funds were desperate for some way to park their money. This lead to the situation that they would build lots of new appartment buildings in metropolitan areas that would remain empty for years, not returning any income, they were just a vehicle to park the money. At the same time, this development was detrimental for the towns, but the towns couldn't do much against it. In the towns, people would move from the old appartments in the center to the cheap new appartments in the outskirts, leaving behind a dead center. (There was an article about this effect in the "Tagesanzeiger" called "Die Huttwilisierung der Schweiz", worth reading.)

Hah, previous place ticks 3 out of 4 bulletpoints :) We didn't have an air conditioner, but thanks to leaky windows, CO2 buildup was not an issue.

If you can manage the risk of rising interest rate, then SARON isn't a bad choice. At least in the past, sticking to LIBOR/SARON was the cheapest option on average. But of course, if you can't handle the risk of rate increases, you shouldn't do it. (One option to reduce the risk is to pay the difference between SARON and the current fixed rates onto a dedicated savings account.)

But of course, if had gotten the chance to get a <1% 15-year deal, I'd have done it :) I'm slightly late to the party.

Even with a CLA in place, you can still fork, improve and sell Synapse / Dendrite (or derivatives of it), as long as you follow the AGPL.

Oh wow! Thanks a lot for this link, I wasn't aware of that.

> tomorrow they can go proprietary and you're OK with that

That depends on the CLA's wording. A CLA could allow the right to sell commercial licenses to the code while always keeping the same code under the AGPLv3.

I haven't read Element's CLA though.

If I'm not mistaken: The two projects were started by the people that founded Element. When they founded Element, they transferred the projects to the Foundation, to make them more independent. Now, they're taking them back and relicensing them with a reciprocal license (AGPLv3 + CLA) instead of a permissive one (ALv2). I assume this is about other companies using Synapse and Dendrite without contributing back, so now Element wants to be able to sell licenses for the projects, or get contributions. See https://element.io/blog/element-to-adopt-agplv3/ for more details.

From how I understand this: Synapse and Dendrite were Foundation projects, but the contributions came almost exclusively from Element.

Element is forking the two projects, and is redirecting their maintenance efforts towards their own forks. This means that the Foundation versions of the projects will not receive active maintenance anymore, and the Foundation does not have the funding to invest in the development themselves.

It's a de-facto handoff, unless someone wants to invest significant resources in development of the pre-fork versions of the projects.

SQLite is great, but the article misses the greatest weakness: It is almost entirely untyped. Feel free to specify fancy types for your columns. But SQLite doesn't care in the least. You can create an INTEGER column and write text to it. Or bytes. Or anything you'd like!

The other thing I miss often is better support for schema migrations. For a lot of things (like adding certain constraints after table creation) the "create new table, copy data over, delete old table" workaround is needed. However, it's only a minor annoyance, and if it allows the codebase to be more maintainable, that's OK with me (given the fantastic quality track record of SQLite).

Yep. LibrePCB has it too (both DRC and ERC).