throwbadubadu

> but it's misleading to label them as travelling at "17,500 mph (28,160 kph)"

Really is? Ground speed is still what I expect and want to read, relative speed to each other at time of rendezvous would also be nice sure.. still, I mean depending on vectors, it may be over- or underestimating almost the same.. and I claim ground speed is what most people would expect. As someone said, the chance that their rendezvous speed is magnitudes off is slim.

You certainly will read that in the invoice?

Exactly, today it seems like an excuse to not think at all, and even if you call out something what will definitely not scale (e.g. your stupid O(n^3) approach will blow up even already going to 100 items, and you know your max will be more around 1000, just as an abstract example)... and those guys laughing at you with premature optimization blah at the same time well knowing and muttering "the prototype becomes the product" and you know where you will end with this planned tech debt having consequences on the whole architecture.. all could have been avoided with just a little more being less lazy and telling bs about premature optimization.

Yes, funny also in the light of constant threats of embargos and sanctions and what else..

Also funny if you think like: quietly! Not like here, first shouting out loud and announcing and promising whatsoever.. and then later see what's really delivered? :D

Why, you also only ever buy one liter of milk, and otherwise should seek counsel? Orn lets make it less abstract and say one sixpack of beer?

How long do you allow for evaluating if there is a dip? And will times never change?

And even if there is really none, then sure it makes sense from the company point of view and pure profit perspective. But if the company is well of, why lay off experienced, trusted and loyal workforce still? You always need slack room, like you need some money put aside.

And another level, work puts meaning to our lives.. either we allow for other meaningful things supported by some UBI, or we should rethink if profiting companies really need to ultra-maximize, or how they can also do a little welfare for their employed work force.. imo it's a pity the employee owned model is not more widespread, and it is all for the few.

But anyway, different end of a very wide spectrum. Certainly, struggling companies must get rid of the bloat, bullshit jobs, and evil within, if it needs that to survive and is the actual problem ;)

Yes, never do humans misunderstand each other, or instructions are not clear to everyone and totally unambiguous, and luckily no language has pure differentiation of meaning by intonation, and, and.. and...

Find it amazing that he assumed 8 times too much density, but still the design in regard to lift missed only 50%? Not too bad, likely had quite a margin planned as good engineer? ;)

Not sure if catalyst, but if the crowd learns something it is corpos and governments telling almost always the same story of getting hacked, cyberattacked, with the worst of criminal energy, even if its the most simple letting unpatched (more 1000days then 0days) software run or pretty much unsecured systems out open in the wild.. it is the common excuse everywhere for not understanding of an admitted for most too complex tech world.

... what's up next in this tough cruel world? Banks must tell you when someone stole your money? Companies must tell you when they go bankrupt and gambled your assets? I fear madness ahead.

More renewable is good.. but there is always one fear in my crazy mind about these: This isn't actually renewable but taking energy out of a huge reservoir (Same for solar if pea counting, but solar is really endless until the end of the solar system).. and if we'd scale it massively the result could be another catastrophe. (Same btw. with geothermal?).

(Btw.. I maybe got tidal wrong, so if it is just taking energy from waves via wind this counts as endless solar. Still, consider systems which would really break the tides and take energy out of the earth<=>moon system).

The answer to this fear is that this reservoirs are so massive they are quasi endless in regard to what we ever could take out? It is hard to find numbers for these crazy thoughts :)

There are several region dependent different name lists, just have a look at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone_naming

It is how you say that and how you just state something very oversimplified like fact, almost like a climate denier. To start with

> "focus on global warming means no one will do anything about poor land management"

Gross generalization, a lot changed long and still lately, you are just saying: all lazy because of global warming excuses.. and then

> "Global warming is to blame in their minds is equivalent to no other cause can be blamed."

Any quote where someone official reasoned like that? Btw funny, seeing that actually you are the one here blaming "global warming" for something?

It would have been just way toooo easy and non dark-pattern to replace the annoying cookie dialogues with that :(

Its remnant, its echo, or just the big bang, however you want to see it.

How save? Chernobyl's exclusion zone today is 2600 km², it initially affected 150000 km², Armenia is what? 40000 km². One well planned sabotage or airstrike, and the energy independence is not only gone but also an eventual long term disaster for much percentage of that land..

> It is now clear that Western use of natural gas and petroleum from aggressive dictatorships—which use cash flows from oil and gas sales to reinforce and expand their hold on power—has backfired badly.

This feels awkwardly over repeated today. Embargos as always of course don't work, still most of the West more easily than all doomsayers expected reoriented (while they ideally could have been off that much dependence already longer).. there is enough market to other countries and also circumventing embargos. Do the Armenians btw dig the uranium out of their soil and refine it?

Yes, though further what to abstract when can only be mastered with a lot of experience, or attempted. Attempts are not bad if a dev/team doesn't lack the courage to reflect and undo them. You see you abstraction becoming leaky? Stop right here, don't do it! You see that abstraction has little value, hides intent, is confusing everybody? Remove it again!!

Rarely done, instead people just cargo cult on, do it for consistency even if they don't like it, or are too lazy or afraid to tear something down again.

Why many developers are struggling is beyond me, and so much git-hate, too. It is a powerful tool, but you can get started and a long time (or forever) around with few commands to accomplish your companies workflow - takes half an hour to learn these and put them in your notebook. If you struggle with git, how do you do with your programming language, IDE, debugger? All are vastly more complex.

Imo it is some internal objection (due to hate? laziness?) to deal with it.

Yes, the UI is not intuitive in all parts and partly ugly or from some viewpoints inconsistent, but that lately improved much. Nevertheless, complex is different. Much more effort went into mastering chosen shell, much more unintuitive is the IDE I have to use.. but those are tools, and that's my job.

> WTF is "detached HEAD"? I've looked it up dozens of times, and as soon as I get past whatever I'm working on, I forget what it means.

Don't wanna be mean, but again I wonder how you learn and handle e.g. complex data structures (vs that super simple thing..) or other hard problems in whatever you do.

> And on any team I've ever worked on, the branch history is a nightmare to look at.

Because teams have many people that don't care. I like git, shuffle commits around, rebase easily, conflicts are easy to resolve (there are merge tools that exist to help on top?) or would be hard with any other tool the same? (need to try jj). At least I have seen same shit happen with cvs, svn and also the short time I used hg - people are always at fight with their version control, I don't know why. I'm glad if there is a new tool that finally solves this, buut, I doubt it ;) Let's see.

> I want a dead simple VCS for small project use that doesn't come with so many footguns. I know simpler VCS exists, but without wide

Sorry, but lame excuse, just chose and try one and see, don't spread that much git-hate if you have not even tried, and mastered, another one? (And here you are with jj!)

Makes sense, thanks for superquick reply :) Then I'd say nothing even close to certain..

Love to look stupid.. as foreign speaker and after reading all comments and also all translations in the dictionary, I still have only a vague meaning of "moat" in this context. Could someone define precisely please?

Things like "network effects" vs "1-3 team moat" vs "human written text" now totally confused me.. what will protect it? What will be the most precious? Who succeeds?

> The take-away is, secure your new stuff as early as possible, ideally even before the service is exposed to the Internet.

What? Ideally..before? Seriously? It is 2024.. and this was true even decades ago, absolutely mandatory.

(Still remembering that dev that discovered file sharing in his exposed mongo instance (yes, that!! :D) without password only hours after putting it up.. "but how could they know the host it is secret!!" :D ).

Tension rods, logical idea, never seen before.. and ugly like hell, or do you hide them? All I find quickly is about tension rods for curtains. How common are they? Pluses no need to drill and would work for freestanding, more over just securing with screws to wall?

Nice philosophizing, but too simple. There definitely are constants in the universe, and dynamic things can stay pretty constant over looong time scales, think of stars, or something complicated as a solar system.. and then it is about rate of change at all levels.. what's nothing for me is the lifetime for a fruit fly, and I live merely a split seconds of our Earth's age.

And then there are humans, always against change ;) But some is reasonable, e.g. when life threatening conditions change. I step out of my house in freezing temperatures, if I don't do something I'll freeze.. I don't start philosophizing about where to restore it to, just wanna be safe and warm again.

I don't get all the clever insights. Environmentalism is already such a stupid term imo, this is not about saving the environment at all, or trying to keep the world the same. It is just human warranted egoism, about saving us.

The earth was once a hot fireball, so if for any strange reason it would turn into one again we can all be relieved, say that isn't new and post funny "this is fine" dogs? What kind of logic is that.

Time scales are huge, 1 year is different than 100 years than 100000 years than 1 million years.. what's "new" is very relative, come on.

You really want to still state today that global warming (to what permafrost thawing relates) is a narrative?

> Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.

Why you mean not? Does it matter if at that time fewer than 100 millions of humans inhabitated earth, and now we have billions.. and more than the number above will be threatened by sea level rise?

> which is otherwise a hard sci-fi book

Hard sci-fi is still a story and doesn't need to nail everything. And it had other pretty "unrealistic" moments that put me more off than the storm. Foremost, how they fixed the missed orbital rendezvous, no never going to happen that way. Or that they could just revert their home flight and go once more back and back again, how much delta-v would that be, never could have had that much extra fuel at least in that world... and other minor things, but still superb story.

Not letting an extremist party with 20% or unfortunately even a tad more into power is not sabotaging the popular vote? Each party is free to form a coalition or not, by their conditions and principals. The party has clearly shown and expressed that its anti-democratic. I mean, come on, you know you are too much Nazi if even Le Pen doesn't want to continue coalition with you [1], lol. Funny btw also how the NSDAP cried ANTI-DEMOCRATIC before they did what they did.. rest is history.

Besides that, stop dreaming on, we have too many far rights, but the 20% you call popular vote is still at least half protest votes, barely supporting most points of that party, but so frustrated with the other politics.

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-25/france-s-...

Often don't.

Outcry of an affected one? Democracy has the achilles heel of aborting itself, not only once that happened. That is why of course parties that want to keep that system need to fight parties that want to abolish it - and til there nothing is wrong in the party system, but it a starts when such a party comes to real constitution changing power.

Just for the books, neither the demos (nor myself) were directly for forbidding the AfD (sure, a lot of people are), because that is not the solution to the underlying problems.

There was one, which you could call snarky the reincarnation of the Wannsee conference: https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/neue-rechte/2024/01/10/gehei...

But I am not sure why grand poster is downvoted so much. This is a significant and important sign of the liberal and democratic side.. still the frustration is huge and fear and anger is constantly rising.. humans are bad and egoist. Extremism as everywhere is not avoided with good people showing their good faith, unfortunately, the only thing that keeps it low is happy people without economic stress.. in that sense the world is bound for trouble in many places, as we already see it. Democratic protests are good, but in the end it is democracy and current politics that fail here, not the misguided humans, and the other side which shows up won't improve it much..

> Desai: And so basically what these people decided is that if they let any individual company profit off of a barcode, then that would really be a huge impediment to this actually becoming universal. And obviously the whole idea of a universal product code is that it’s universal. So what they did is they chose seven finalists—seven companies—that would create a code in a way for it to be scanned, and none of these companies would get any sort of profits off of it.

> They would all agree to put the code in the public domain, and they would all just, you know, basically make money by selling scanners. That was the idea.

> Rosin: Wait. I just want to pause here. It’s, like, unimaginable. It seems completely logical when you explain it, that they should come up with a reason why this thing would be widely accepted, and that reason is sort of Marxist.

What's that, American ignorant author's defining a standard? (Sorry, cannot help but think that anybody else would call that sort of idea "Marxist").