jxcl

The 90’s TV comedy “Father Ted” painted a bleak picture of one of these islands. It’s not something that would appeal to me

> Not sure why your dishwasher changes anything, they normally run off cold water and use their own heaters.

For North America at least, this is not true. Dishwashers are hooked up to the hot water supply[1] (and it's a good idea to run your sink tap hot to "prime" the hot water for the dishwasher).

They _also_ use built in heating elements to keep the water hot, and to dry the dishes, though.

[1]: LG Dishwasher Installation instructions (as an example), page 8: https://www.lg.com/us/support/products/documents/Dishwasher%...

You do get better about using the functional operators as you use them, and they can be incredibly powerful and convenient in certain operations, but in this case he's missing the simplest implementation of this function using the `?` operator:

    fn add2(x: Option<i32>, y: Option<i32>) -> Option<i32> {
        Some(x? + y?)
    }

You're right, but for those learning Rust, there's _so much_ to learn, that having occasional reminders of the more basic things is really handy. I've been hobby programming in Rust for years and professionally for about 6 months, and I still picked up one or two simple things from this list.

There was an article on HN earlier this week about PBKDF2 iterations[1]. The gist of the article was that adding iterations to the key derivation function doesn't actually increase the entropy of a password all that much. No matter how much education and encouragement they're given, some users will choose weak passwords, and those passwords will be crackable even with any reasonable number of DF iterations.

This was good support for 1PW's 2-key solution, since one of the keys is randomly generated with a true 128 bits of entropy, no matter what password the user chooses, a compromise of the service's data store alone will mean the user's vault encryption key is uncrackable.

[1]: https://neilmadden.blog/2023/01/09/on-pbkdf2-iterations/

Disclaimer: I'm an employee of 1Password.

Tesla has an "Auto high-beams" feature which attempts to detect traffic and dip the lights when it does. I find that it reacts much slower than I normally would to oncoming traffic, so I don't use this feature.

If the car is in autopilot, it requires the auto high beams to be on, but using autopilot at night is not something I would be comfortable with.

LG tvs will let you update firmware over a flash drive! It’s a bit fiddly but worth it in my opinion to avoid the internet connection.

I actually really hate it. Palantir does all sorts of stuff I disagree with; this is the first time I've heard of a company named Anduril though.

I want to enjoy my LotR as an escapist fantasy without being reminded of the American military industrial complex please.

They both look like they might be similar sizes in an illustration like that, but the Hubble mirror is 2.4 meters, whereas the JWST mirror is 6.5 meters, which has 7 times the light-gathering capability of Hubble.

Does “listener” mean the same thing as REPL here? I’ve never that term in this context before.

I haven’t yet read Dostoyevsky, though I have read Chekhov and Pushkin in translation. I’m speaking more generally about Garnett’s translations rather than a specific work. I’m currently learning Russian, and I’m sure it’ll be a while before I can read Dostoyevsky in it’s original form; though I have read some Chekhov and he is an absolute pleasure to read in Russian.

> The big problem, though, is that we’re constricted by the supply of public domain translations. We simply can’t typically offer much more than Garnett

Certainly! If your reading is constrained to public domain works, you have basically no other option. I've read many books in translation and before I learned about the Constance Garnett controversy, I paid little to no attention to who translated the work that I'm reading.

I guess I'm trying to spread the word that the translation matters almost as much as the original work itself, and it may be worth doing research on various translations before picking one to read. And although the original works are still as great as ever, it seems to me that the translating profession has really come a long way since the 1800s. As a result I tend usually to look at more recent translations first.

> they’re usually worse to read from a purely side-by-side English view, even if they’re more authentically Russian.

I don't think I understand what you mean by this.

If you’re interested in reading Russian literature, do yourself a favor and avoid the Constance Garnett translations. Her main goals were speed and volume of translations, rather than to actually make the translated works a pleasure to read or keep them true to the original author's intent.

> “The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is that they aren’t reading the prose of either one. They’re reading Constance Garnett.”

> Garnett’s flaws were not the figment of a native speaker’s snobbery. She worked with such speed, with such an eye toward the finish line, that when she came across a word or a phrase that she couldn’t make sense of she would skip it and move on.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translatio...

I don't know about the other books off the top of my head, but Count of Monte Cristo and Dumas' other works were published as serials in a newspaper, where I'm pretty sure he was paid per word. Such a system really encourages going into detail with things that are not exactly relevant to the plot :)

(I love all of Dumas' works)

I'm not sure about the specifics of the protocol but I've used tens of DACs and only ever run Linux, and I've never had a problem with compatibility. I'm pretty sure the USB audio standard is pervasive enough so that basically any DAC you buy will be compatible. On all the DACs I own I also have no trouble configuring the protocol to higher bandwidth settings like 24-bit 192 kHz signals.

I tested this on my own system somewhat recently, with a Ryzen 5950X, 64 GB of 3600 MHz CL 18 RAM and a 1TB Samsung 970 Evo, using the config file that ships with Fedora 33.

I created a ramdisk as follows:

    ~$ sudo mount -t tmpfs -o size=32g tmpfs ~/ramdisk/
    ~$ cp -r Downloads/linux-5.14-rc3 ramdisk/
    ~/ramdisk$ cp /boot/config-5.13.5-100.fc33.x86_64 linux-5.14-rc3/.config
    ~/ramdisk$ cd linux-5.14-rc3/
    ~/ramdisk/linux-5.14-rc3$ time make -j 32

My compiler invocation was:

    ~/ramdisk/linux-5.14-rc3$ time make -j 32

And got the following results

    Kernel: arch/x86/boot/bzImage is ready  (#3)

    real 6m2.575s
    user 143m42.402s
    sys  21m8.122s

When I compiled straight from the SSD I got a surprisingly similar number:

    Kernel: arch/x86/boot/bzImage is ready  (#1)

    real 6m23.194s
    user 154m24.760s
    sys  23m26.304s

I drew the conclusion that for compiling Linux, NVMe might as well be RAM, though if I did something wrong I'd be happy to hear about it!

Firefox lets you disable keyboard overrides on a per-site basis, if that's something you're interested in

Page Info -> Permissions -> Override Keyboard Shortcuts

> I feel like the art world has a very weird “winner take all” mentality.

I agree strongly with this. I'm lucky enough to have a good job in software and I enjoy it enough to keep me happy, but I've also had serious art hobbies in the past.

I spent many years studying photography but never felt like I got to the point where I could impact somebody's life with it. I occasionally took portraits that people liked, but most of my time was spent doing landscapes. Everyone is so oversaturated with photographs and because of the internet it's basically impossible as a hobbyist to make your work stand out.

I started studying music in Dec 2019, which happened to be kind serendipitous because I had something to work on at home in the pandemic (there are only so many ways you can arrange eggs or glasses on your window sill to practice still life photography).

It struck me that with music, the barrier to have an impact on someone is much lower than with photography. With photography the cost of reproduction is essentially so low that people who are interested in it can see hundreds or thousands of photos through instagram in a day, and there's not a strong concept of the "original" piece. With music, the live performance aspect of music is impossible to reproduce, so it's much more valuable to people, and even simple songs with simple melodies can have a strong effect (I made my grandmother cry by singing "Georgian Song" by Bulat Okudzhava over Zoom, I had never made anyone cry through art before).

Kind of off topic but this is something I've been thinking about a lot.

I was looking at this sensor available from Adafruit (and others): https://www.adafruit.com/product/4867

Seems like a reasonable price for a true CO2 sensor.

> My guess is that using color sensors would have either increased the 3D mapping precision or added weight/power/bandwidth requirements, or otherwise been less robust in that environment.

I think you meant to say decreased? In which case I think you would be correct! Camera pixels are made up of these things called photosites which don't by themselves record color, only brightness. In order to record color information, the photosites are placed behind a Bayer filter[1], which effectively reduces the resolution of the camera by 3, because in order to get the color of a pixel you need its red, green and blue component. Bayer filters also frequently have a small blurring filter in front of them to make sure that nearby photosites with different color filters get the information they need.

If you're looking for the highest resolution image possible, black and white is the way to go!

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter

Interestingly, they only mention vaccination in the second phase of the trial. It's not clear to me if this is misreported, or they're planning to expose unvaccinated healthy people to small amounts of the virus in phase 1.

> More feasible

If they don't interact with the thousands of miles of earth between the source and the destination, they probably also won't interact with the receiver! :p Imagine the retransmission rates!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector

Yep! I own a 2012 Wrangler. It's a toy more than transportation. It gets me where I need to go but carrying more than one passenger is a pain. The windscreen fluid jet is poorly located and doesn't get the whole windscreen when I need to get rid of dirt on the windshield. I have had to JB weld the gear shift knob back together.

It's a completely impractical and inconvenient car. But I still love it because it's fun to drive and it can, in fact, go pretty much anywhere.

> If you use a DNS name as an endpoint, and that DNS entry changes, you have to refresh it.

This is really frustrating for me. If you put a DNS name as a peer endpoint, wg-quick will resolve the name and then _replace the name with the ip address_. My IP address changes frequently and I have a script to update the A record when it does, but wireguard didn't have built in support for just keeping the domain name around when I last looked.

> In rhinovirus, a virus causing the common cold, a similar pocket was exploited to develop potent small molecules that bound tightly to the pocket distorting the structure of the rhinovirus, stopping its infectivity. These small molecules were successfully used as anti-viral drugs in human trials, defeating rhinovirus in the clinic.

So why isn't there a cure for the common cold? If there still isn't a cure for the common cold, why should we expect this drug target to be different?

Surely whoever wrote this article should have anticipated these questions?

(Edited to be less flippant)

Maybe it's a whiteboard problem, but I would just call it a puzzle. Puzzle solving requires creativity.

Picking up new technologies doesn't require creativity. Being a good developer (these days) also doesn't require much creativity, especially if you're just implementing spec and not designing systems.

The best way to get better at puzzles is to practice puzzles! The reason I don't want to call these problems whiteboard problems is because it implies that they're only used in that context. These types of puzzles can be done for fun, too! Perhaps you start with simpler puzzles and try some simple solutions. You might solve a few. You'll try some harder puzzles and you'll get frustrated because the solution doesn't come immediately. Sometimes you'll combine two solutions you've used previously to solve something more complex. It's an amazing feeling!

If you want a book of math puzzles, I recommend "Measurement" by Paul Lockhart. He explains and helps you explore math in the way he thinks it should be taught in schools, and I agree with him.

If you want something more programming focused, take a look at "Programming Pearls" by Jon Bentley. It's a very old book, so the constraints he has to work with are quaint by today's standards (do something without using more than a megabyte of RAM. Hah!), but they're good puzzles as far as I remember.

Good luck!

Edit to add: The most useful thing you'll get from spending time with puzzles from a certain field is the intuition about which tools to reach for and which to forget about. You'll still likely have to try for a bunch of tools before you find the ones that work the best (or at all), but you'll get better at choosing ones that are more likely to work sooner, so you'll be able to progress faster on harder puzzles. As Greg LeMond said about cycling: ‘[It] never gets any easier, you just go faster’ :)

I have been reading Orbital Index since October 2019, you guys do a great job, thanks so much!

I wish to continue to be subscribed to your newsletter.

> The orange car in the article image acted as kind of an 'anchor' for the colour compensation.

It's funny that you mention this because to me the car kind of looks like it's grey, lit by orange light from all sides except the top. Edit: after looking at it a bit more I think you're right and I'm wrong

I don't really agree with this. I'm not sure what my definition of lying is but of course it entirely depends on the purpose of the photo. A photojournalist cropping out an important piece of context is definitely lying. Me cropping out another tourist of a photo I took of a friend is not lying.

If I'm editing photos and someone has a temporary blemish or a pimple, I'm more than likely to edit it out. We don't remember faces to the same level of detail as a camera can, so it feels more correct to touch up such blemishes.

One thing that I had to get through my head when I was learning photography was that there's no such thing as "no filter". Every image you take is an interpretation of the scene, either through digital signal processing or film chemistry or retouching.

When I spend time editing photos my dad would claim I was "lying" by editing them, he thought any modification to digital photos was wrong because the jpeg the camera produces is "reality."

But of course, as this article shows, the camera is adding its own interpretation to the scene. Since our eyes can adjust to many lighting situations, the camera has to try to compensate and reproduce what it thinks our eyes would see, but it has no way to know if it's right! So, sometimes it's necessary to go back to the raw data and recreate the image as you remember it, along with whatever emotions you want it to elicit, rather than taking what comes out of the camera as "gospel".