adrienthebo

Obsidian Sync may provide a partial solution but it's mainly targeted at a single user synchronizing vaults between devices. There's also the Obsidian Git[1] plugin if you're working with developers that are familiar with Git, with all of the pros and cons you'd expect. Finally, there's obsidian-livesync[2] which in theory would provide some very powerful functionality; it seems very cool but given that doing such livesync is complex and easy to get wrong exercising a great deal of caution (frequent backups and care when rolling out for production uses) seems prudent.

Keep in mind that Obsidian requires a license for business use[3]. They're a very small shop that's entirely funded by licensing/sync/publishing income and are making a pretty fantastic product and they deserve some cash to keep developing Obsidian.

[1] https://github.com/denolehov/obsidian-git [2]: https://github.com/vrtmrz/obsidian-livesync [3]: https://obsidian.md/pricing

Sure there is a theoretical closable cycle in batteries, but guess what, the same can be said for fossil fuels.

On geological time scales involving massive deposition of organic material.

In contrast, lithium can be recovered from batteries with an industrial shredder and chemical processing.

Fossil fuels are non-renewable in a trivial sense but are grossly different in a practical sense; treating them as equivalent is a borderline specious argument.

Please excuse my ignorance, I haven't done a ton of async Rust programming - but if you're trying to call async Rust from sync Rust, can you not just create a task, have that task push a value through a mpsc channel, shove the task on the executor, and wait for the value to be returned? Is the concern that control over the execution of the task is too coarse grained?

PATA vs. SATA is a somewhat limited metaphor; PATA had a number of limitations such as the inability to hot swap hardware as well as using wide ribbon cables that made it largely obsolete. In contrast, both sync and async programming have reasonable applications; we're likely using both for the foreseeable future. The best EE analogy I can think of is using hyperthreading to execute multiple processes on a single core vs scheduling each thread to a separate core, but that's less a metaphor and more of a simplified model of what async vs sync is actually doing.

Should we move back away from parallelism and focus on handling synchronous stuff faster instead?

Rust already has excellent handling of synchronous computation, given that it can meet/sometimes exceed equivalent performance in C. The problem is when you're I/O or network bound; you can either throw threads at the problem (and by extension throw memory at the problem for the thread stacks) or use async programming.

A particularly interesting use case for async Rust without threads is cooperative scheduling on microcontrollers[1]; this article also does a really good job of explaining some of the complications referenced in TFA.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36790238

It may be temporary, but if bringing back X improves the quality of someone's life, more power to them. We're stuck with the downsides of continuous delivery; having a consistent UI for just a bit longer can be a cognitive relief.

When Pixel phones switched from navigation buttons to gestures I tried them and hated the experience and reverted. Eventually I got forced over to gestures and still hate them so delaying gave me a bit more bandwidth to allocate from stupid UI changes to things I actually care about.

Unusually warm water (as little as 1 °C above usual summer means) can cause the breakdown of the symbiosis and the mass expulsion of zooxanthellae, referred to as “coral bleaching.” [1]

Coral bleaching isn't typical and is a direct indication of water temperatures exceeding the max habitable temperatures. You can look at coral, or manatees, or algal blooms to confirm that our present conditions are anomalous. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but the research is in regarding rising sea temperatures.

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12237-014-9875-5

. . .But it was still hot

Even if the 101.1° water temp isn’t verified, it was exceptionally hot in the Florida Keys, and it remains that way.

Water temperatures at other buoys, and remote sensing using satellites, have recorded water temps in the mid to even upper 90s around the Florida Keys.

This has resulted in brutal heat for the land areas.

It may be that the Manatee bay sensors are in a uniquely hot location but the temperatures there will be negatively impacting wildlife; outside that location water temperatures seem pretty darn elevated.

I'm not a climate scientist but I'd reason that the tropics would experience greater heating resulting from the stagnation of the warm water that would previously circulate. More warm water in the tropics would result in more frequent and more intense hurricanes, so if the AMOC stops then we'll see even more extreme weather records smashed.

Profit maximization attempts have changed; supply chain disruptions provided an opportunity for corporations to increase their prices in unison. Prior to the pandemic there was more risk in unilateral price increases but now companies can look at pricing velocity and effectively work as a cartel without engaging in explicit conspiracy.

Receiving puberty blockers isn't something any child casually does after reading a book. Going off the Mayo clinic:

  To begin using pubertal blockers, a child must:

    Show a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria

    Have gender dysphoria that began or worsened at the start of puberty

    Address any psychological, medical or social problems that could interfere with treatment
    Have entered the early stage of puberty
    Provide informed consent

  Particularly when a child hasn't reached the age of medical consent, parents or other caretakers or guardians must consent to the treatment and support the adolescent through the treatment process.

The process of going on hormones/puberty blockers is a labor intensive process and typically requires the sign-off from a doctor and therapist. Nobody's getting sacrificed that isn't willing to jump through a number of significant bundles.

Asserting that an ad hoc system of markets and currencies is the pinnacle of economic achievement is pretty bold. To provide a counterpoint, why wouldn't our economic structures change in response to interplanetary/intergalactic civilizations? Will climate change have zero impact on the way we organize resources?

    - Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
    - Oceanic temperatures and pH
    - Quantities in PFAS in the environment
    - Opiate deaths (and other deaths of despair) per capita
    - Percentage of children and teenagers with depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation or have attempted suicide
    - Per-capita income in Africa and South America over the last two decades
    - School shootings per capita and firearms related deaths in children within America

Onshape allows for versioning parts and assemblies, mate connectors to determine how parts should connect, assemblies and subassemblies to define the relationships between parts and allow for reuse, configurable parts (feature flags etc); it's extremely powerful and pleasant to use. Regrettably it's a closed source SaaS option but all of the open source CAD tools are grossly underpowered in comparison. There's nothing like KiCAD that'll let you get work done quickly effectively - at least in my experience.

Application performance monitoring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_performance_manage...)

Seconding this; act has a lot of potential but misses a number of features such as support for deployment environment variables (eg `${{ var.DEPLOY_SPECIFIC_ENV_VAR }}`) and only recently added support for reusable workflows (https://github.com/nektos/act/issues/826). It looks like fine software and the maintainers deserve praise for their work but it's not yet a drop-in replacement for GitHub Actions.

In 2021 more than 140 firefighters died, coming out to more than 3 a week. First responder jobs are dangerous which is why there's training to reduce the danger. Having an officer grab them a pair of pants and a shirt wouldn't imperil scene safety and the fact that the raid team couldn't bother says plenty.

wiki page delete commit: https://github.com/krakenrf/krakensdr_docs/wiki/08.-Passive-...

I've had my eye on [step](https://github.com/smallstep/certificates) and [step-ca](https://github.com/smallstep/certificates) for a hot minute; it's production quality and seems much more pleasant than the EasyRSA scripts. Haven't tested it but I'd recommend that as a place to start tinkering.

Before we fetch the pitchforks and torches do we have any proof of this beyond a screenshot of a potential ToS violation?

The Pakistan floods were due to massive rainfall exacerbating glacial melt, both of which were triggered by climate change. Pakistan is responsible for fewer than 1% of global emissions and experienced catastrophic flooding anyways. It's an incredibly poor nation that got the short end of the climate change stick. The level of sorrow that Florida pales in comparison to that of Pakistan; I'd argue that Pakistan warrants $100B as much as Florida does (if not more).

Admittedly there's also grinding poverty in parts of Florida so I appreciate the comparison; that's a good hole in my argument.

Should we provide compensation for Floridians to move to safer areas? Yes.

Should we provide compensation for Pakistan for improved flood management? Yes.

Should Pakistanis or Floridians rebuild in the exact same places and the same ways where they've been building? No, unfortunately nobody gets that luxury. That's the horrible thing about climate change - we have very few options and they all have major downsides but we don't get to opt out. Florida's going to experience massive flooding regularly and Pakistan will face the same, and either populations in both areas adapt in some fashion (build for floods or move) or continue to experience mass devastation when the inevitable occurs.

I don't get to dictate where people live any more than I get to dictate where the flood waters go. It's heartbreaking but that's the world we're stuck in.

Should parts of CA or other earthquake prone areas be labelled uninhabitable?

Major earthquakes happen an order of magnitude less frequently than major storms - but there's merit to reconsidering how much infrastructure we build right next to fault lines. So, possibly?

What about areas where forest fires are routine?

Without appropriate fire breaks or building construction, possibly - if your house and property isn't constructed to survive a wildfire, then it's _going_ to burn. We can either adapt now or pay much higher costs later.

Flood prone areas?

Oh jeez, yes, the fact that we build in flood plains is absolutely bonkers.

Tornado prone areas?

Maybe, but it's a much lower risk than hurricanes. We really need to account for risks during building construction; our current approaches aren't working that well.

High UV?

High UV is a bummer, not an repeated existential risk to all inhabitants.

Poor air quality?

Poor air quality is also a bummer but is something we have more control over. Similar to high UV, poor air quality doesn't represent a regular, frequent, unavoidable, catastrophic risk to all of the inhabitants and all property in the vicinity.

It makes no sense whatsoever to dictate that people cannot live on the coasts due to natural disasters which happen everywhere, all the time.

It makes even less sense to build in areas that are all but guaranteed to be destroyed several times per century. If you can build infrastructure that'll actually last or are willing to accept all liability when the inevitable occurs then by all means, build your house on stilts and cover the cost of reconstruction. But beyond freedom of choice, I don't understand why we think it's okay to assume obvious risk and expect society to provide compensation for a risk that's been known for decades if not centuries.

Having people educated, healthy, and protected from the damages of homelessness all have positive externalities. Paying people to return to areas that are regularly ravaged by massive storms only benefits them until the next storm and doesn't represent a long term good, especially in the face of climate change.

If an area is regularly rendered uninhabitable by major weather events then rebuilding in that area is a liability for all involved. When buildings and property are destroyed their contents are dispersed or leak, representing an environmental hazard; people and animals returning are exposed to evacuation risks in following weather events; and then there's the obvious tax and insurance liability discussed elsewhere.

We've been treating these areas as fit for habitation and we're watching in realtime as they become uninhabitable. While it may have been more tolerable to live in these regions in the last century when global temperatures were lower we're at an inflection point; we're going be forced to concede spaces as too dangerous for regular habitation because storms are only going to increase in severity and frequency.

As a society we have a few options: 1, we continue to rebuild and pay the costs until it becomes completely cost prohibitive; 2, dramatically rethink how we build in the area and construct buildings that can cope with several feet of storm surges; or 3, accept reality and begin the process of resettling people in areas that won't be submerged in 100 years. It's likely that we're going to pursue option 1 for the next 10-30 years because collective change is hard but we ought to start having these conversations well in advance of insurance companies writing off all of Florida as uninsurable.

This doesn't even begin to touch on the benefits of allowing areas to revert to wetlands, but considering that they act as excellent buffers from the storms we're observing as well as carbon sinks, but it's worth stating that retreating from these areas makes more sense on ecological and financial grounds.

That's the thing with free market capitalism - nobody needs to advocate for policies like moving people to urban areas in the name of efficiency. Instead people living in rural areas are forced to migrate to cities to make a living wage, thereby causing the negative scenario you're describing. Free market capitalism allows those with capital to dominate social decisions.

* NPR: To Manage Wildfire, California Looks To What Tribes Have Known All Along https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-...

* Cap radio: The Racist Removal Of Native Americans In California Is Often Missing From Wildfire Discussions, Experts Say https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/09/16/the-racist-remo...

* Nature: Quiet Fire: Indigenous tribes in California and other parts of the U.S. have been rekindling the ancient art of controlled burning https://www.nature.org/en-us/magazine/magazine-articles/indi...

Edit: formatting

"We don't know what will happen" is a specious reply because the models we do have are continuously improving, have been proven quite accurate so far, and backtesting continues to refine the behavior. This isn't a matter of having no idea what'll happen; there'll always be uncertainty but when the models continue to be validated and keep pointing at potentially devastating scenarios then the prudent thing is to act now instead of hoping the models are wrong.

The greenhouse effect is due to radiation being trapped by the environment, atmospheric or otherwise - not the increased CO2. And while greenhouses may have artificially increased CO2 to improve plant growth it's accompanied with nitrogen fertilizer. The global increase in CO2 will only see a minor increase in plant growth but will be capped by limited nitrogen, and the hotter environment and associated increase in water evaporation will lead to reduced plant growth.

Ingesting this could probably do some nasty things to your gut biome - but remember that we're talking about an herbicide. If you ingested most herbicides you'd be dead shortly after, so this could be much safer.

Edit - ingested herbicides at any meaningful quantity.

Another RF neophyte here - what's the selling point or applications of an RF transceiver over the 300 - 928 Mhz band? It looks like those frequencies were used for TV broadcasting but the spectrum has been reallocated, and there's not a lot of unlicensed space to play with. Given this what kind of applications are there for this device?