HN user

fredrik-j

62 karma

I'm a curious software engineer.

Posts0
Comments32
View on HN
No posts found.

Do you, or anyone else here, have any experience with using a slide duplicator on a macro lens with a digital camera, DSLR, for 25 mm slide duplication?

Especially I wonder if you've got advice on picking a useful level of resolution when digitizing slides. I seem to recall that a 35 mm slide contains around 10 megapixel data. If correct, is it at all useful to digitize at a higher resolution for general purpose usage, eg display on a computer or showing slideshows with a digital projector.

Otherwise I'm currently leaning towards digitizing at 4K resolution as a default, given that 4K is 8.2 Mpx.

How does dynamic range come into play? I seem to recall that slide film has a high dynamic range in general.

As other's have mentioned, the lies about WMD where rather quickly dispelled, and doesn't compare to moon landing conspiracy. As far as I understand the WMD fraud was successful insofar that the administration was able to use it as a pretext to go to war, but it was also quickly debunked.

I think you're missing the point that Armstrong tries to make. While he indeed starts with your selective quote, he then goes on to say that it is rather unlikely that the government would get away with a fraud of that scale. If nothing else, then simply because of the amount of people involved in the moon landing, and third parties that then and still to this day are able to confirm that the moon landing actually happened.

My experience is also that people who trust the tales of a conspiracy over a wide array of substantial counter arguments are simply not open to actual counterfacts from others. It's like fake news, the conspiracy supports their believe system, and rational arguments to the contrary simply isn't effective.

Still I agree that conspiracy nuts need to be confronted. Perhaps though, not so much in an attempt to convert the believer as to stop them from spreading the conspiracy to others.

Yes, regularly. Some archaic code has a surprising longevity. Personally at least once per month I end up with a case where I wonder why some code was implemented or for what purpose. Context that is rarely documented in the source code, but is often exposed at least implicitly through commits, commit messages, date or authors.

I strongly advice against abandoning revision history just because it is easier to just start fresh from a single git commit of the current state of the code. Especially so for code that has been in use more than a couple of years, where the developers may have forgotten the purpose or who did what.

Surely you can convert the svn repository to git with history intact? We did that when we migrated from cvs to mercurial. If it is too complicated to do directly from svn to git, maybe it is easier to convert via mercurial, i.e first from svn to hg, then from hg to git?

https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/ConvertExtension

As a swede this is a bit embarrassing to me. I have a few friends who's bought into this completely, and of course bought the book. All without even a hint of critical thinking. It is hard to tell your friends they've been conned.

I can understand it to some extent. Here's someone, who claims he is a behavioral expert and scientist, and who offers a seemingly plausible simple method to understand yourself and other people, and how to use that method to efficiently interact and work with others. Who wouldn't want that?

Unfortunately the books are still sold. I've considered printing stickers that warns about the nonsense and sneak it on to copies in book stores. How else can we stop the proliferation of this junk?

Can anyone now give a reasonable ETA for the HTTP/3 RFC:s?

I see that the WG charter has one milestone in May 2020, and Daniel Stenberg of curl has mentioned early 2020 before. In addition, AFAIU, both Chrome and Firefox have implementations ready, though still behind flags.

Is it likely that we'll see actual deployments and a wider rollout already in 2020?

I fail to find any specific references to these policies forbidding use of executables not embedded in the apk. Not saying it's wrong, it's just news to me. Does it apply only to apps published via Google Play?

(edit) Never mind, found it.

https://play.google.com/about/privacy-security-deception/mal...

"An app distributed via Google Play may not modify, replace, or update itself using any method other than Google Play's update mechanism. Likewise, an app may not download executable code (e.g. dex, JAR, .so files) from a source other than Google Play. This restriction does not apply to code that runs in a virtual machine and has limited access to Android APIs (such as JavaScript in a webview or browser)."

Is it possible for the states they traveled through to revoke their drivers licenses? I mean they've presented ample evidence that they've intentionally exceeded speed limits on average over the entire route.

Thanks for the example video!

I note that the example skipped one crucial step, to scan for available devices. Scanning and enumerating available devices, and selecting a device, is a step where potentially sensitive information is exposed.

Will scanning for and getting a list of all available devices be something that a websites can do through the api? Or will the api delegate scanning to the browser, much like the file selector api, where the browser is only exposes the final user selection, the selected file, rather than letting the webapp have access to the entire file system? I.e in this case a list of all available bluetooth devices?

If an extending class does not implement a method which is implemented by its super class, a call to that method on a instance of the extending class will invoke the super class' implementation of the method.

The super class implementation of the method may perform something that is entirely correct even for the extended class, or it may do something that is inconsistent with the assumptions of the extended class. Either way, there is no way for the compiler or runtime to determine if the omission of the method in the extending class is intentional or a mistake.

This is one reason to prefer Composition over Inheritance, especially in Java.

Having both a renewable and sustainable sourcing of biofuels is important, and EU actors have a obligation to the world to improve.

That said, SCHiM's statements makes it sound like the EU is currently burning the world for the sake of their own green conscience. That's not the full picture. Admittedly when it comes to import of biofuels it appears to be hard to verify and enforce that the source is renewable and sustainable. And the EU probably isn't doing much better than anyone else in that area.

On the other hand: EU:s primary source of biofuel is internal production and not imports[0] and there is little deforestation going on in the EU, many European countries even have a slight net positive reforestation[3], despite a huge internal production of biofuels.

[0] https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/renewable-en... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_by_region [2] https://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation/

There is also a great interest in increasing the capacity for local sourcing of biofuels to reduce dependency of imports and creating jobs locally. So while there is reason to be mindful of how biofuels are sourced, and that there still are bad actors in the EU (as well as and elsewhere), my impression is that the general trend in the EU is one of increased awareness and positive development.

The closest I got to definition of "healthy low X" was a general description of the approach in the paper:

"Briefly, the main goals were to achieve maximal differentiation in intake of fats and carbohydrates between the 2 diet groups while otherwise maintaining equal treatment intensity and an emphasis on high-quality foods and beverages.

Thus, participants were instructed to reduce intake of total fat or digestible carbohydrates to 20 g/d during the first 8 weeks. Higher priorities for reduction were given to specific foods and food groups that derived their energy content pri- marily from fats or carbohydrates. For example, the reduction of edible oils, fatty meats, whole-fat dairy, and nuts was prioritized for the healthy low-fat group, whereas the reduction of cereals, grains, rice, starchy vegetables, and legumes was prioritized for the healthy low-carbohydrate group.

Then individuals slowly added fats or carbohydrates back to their diets in increments of 5 to 15 g/d per week until they reached the lowest level of intake they believed could be maintained indefinitely. No explicit instructions for energy (kilocalories) restriction were given. Both diet groups were instructed to (1) maximize vegetable intake; (2) minimize intake of added sugars, refined flours, and trans fats; and (3) focus on whole foods that were minimally processed, nutrient dense, and prepared at home whenever possible."

I find the last sentence interesting, reminds me of Michael Pollan's quip: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

That argument is skipping straight to the "Profit!" point. A somewhat distant Star Trek future where resources are distributed evenly among all. I'd like that to happen, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Meanwhile the argument ignores the not so far away reality where automation is available to the people who already have resources and jobs today, leaving even more people who currently have little without jobs and automation.

A job is not a right today, it is a responsibility. Our society assumes that everyone, or at least a large majority of all that can, has a job. How do we prepare for a future where the majority cannot get a job?

The most promising answer currently seems to be Basic Income. Though that leaves me asking too. How will we convince people and corporations that have to give up more of their income and accept taxing their property, to redistribute all resources to a huge mass of people that have not money, nor influence? It seems very easy as long as it isn't your own money. Paying taxes, few say that they enjoy that.

Where will your money, which you have to have to buy the incredibly cheap things or services, come from when you do not have a job any more?

We already have a job market where a significant number of people have become permanently unemployable because their competences are not wanted.

Now imagine mass unemployment not only in blue collar work but also in white collar work due to automation. If unemployed white collar workers cannot get jobs and blue collar workers cannot migrate to white collar jobs because both job types are replaced by automation and AI, where will they get an income?

Well it isn't as black and white as you're painting it. It is correct that sometimes law enforcement are obliged to enforce laws they as a group or as individuals do not agree with. On the other hand law enforcement are not obliged to enforce all laws all the time at any cost.

The legal principle of proportionality states that law enforcement always have to consider whether their actions are reasonable in comparison to the violation of laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)

There is also a general concept related to proportionality that basically states that law enforcement actions must be strictly necessary or required in the given situation. Especially when the means of enforcement includes physical violence.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/UseOfForc...

Technically Mattermost is very interesting. Unfortunately I cannot figure out their licensing scheme and business model. The license file mentions several licenses: AGPL, Apache 2, and the MIT license. They seem to apply separate licenses to binaries that they publish vs the open source repository. Is there an implied open core business model somewhere? How do I know when Mattermost Inc will show up and demand money for a proprietary license because I've misinterpreted what parts of the mattermost software is AGPL licensed?

https://github.com/mattermost/platform/blob/4ae72ad1a878fdf1...

With bluetooth you need to consider radio interference between the sensor and the main device. In my experience that increases complexity of the sensor, and is something you largely can avoid with a module that has a physical interface to the main device.

I'm hoping that project Ara will become the perfect test bed for sensor module development. Useful after the initial validation stage of experimental stuff on a breadboard but before the stage where you have established enough customers that you can afford to develop a completely integrated and standalone IOT device.

Another option is to perform a sleep study at home. You borrow a wearable device that records your sleep quality, breath, ECG, etc. You wear it over night, then turn it in for analysis.

Common symptoms of sleep apnea are if you're regularly tired without apparent reason or experience a reduced ability to concentrate during daytime, or if your surrounding complains that you snore loudly.

Yes, we're all simply unfit sloths, standing up is physically demanding and that's why standups must be short. :)

Seriously though, my impression is that standing up encourages brevity in other ways.

Standing implies that the meeting must be short because there apparently isn't even time to sit down before you start. It really does save time when you do not have to find a suitable and available conference room and let everyone pick a chair.

Standing also makes subtle signals of loss of focus very visible. You easily pick up on the small things, like when people start shifting their weight, look at their phone, turn around to look at other things, etc. Things that aren't as visible when sitting down.

There is also a implied invitation to walk away at any moment. You're already standing, walking away requires little effort, at least physically.

No, it isn't short-sighted. On the contrary it is a matter of letting Microsoft earn their trust again at a reasonable pace after almost two decades of systematic abuse. The Halloween documents where published 1998 and it is only the last year or so since they've begun dipping their toes in open source waters. They've thoroughly earned their shame.

Besides, even if everyone at Microsoft has changed attitude that's no excuse. Microsoft has had five years since the acquisition of Skype in 2011. Isn't it, by now, time to stop blaming their predecessors and own up to the current state of affairs?

I do not know about in general but where I work we physically stand up during daily standups.

My impression is that the standing up part really works too. We usually get quite restless when the meeting exceeds the allotted 10 minutes. Of course that might just be because people are bored quickly too.

A question to those sitting down during your standups: Isn't it weird to sit down during a meeting that is literally called a standup? Have you tried or considered standing up?

It is of course good to be aware, but legacy Android versions shouldn't be a show stopper for modern TLS.

For general web browsing, I'd expect that both Chrome and Firefox are installable on Android 2.3 and bundle their own TLS libraries.

Other app developers can also vendor TLS libraries, like Bouncy Castle, to support modern encryption on legacy devices.

While CPython 3.x is rock solid and shipped years ago - no argument there - both Pypy and Jython still lacks stable Python 3.x releases. That's a major migration pain point.

It is hard trying to introduce Python 3 at a place that has systems that depend on both Cpython and Jython. Jumping between python 2 and 3 between projects is quite taxing mentally. And staying on python 2 only leaves me with a sense of lingering doom to say nothing of having to endure all the idiosyncrasies of python 2.x. I really enjoy the few moments when I can use Python 3.

It is perhaps easy to consider the 2 vs 3 debate over and done with for people who can just disregard Pypy and Jython entirely in their environment. I probably would think so myself had I not been so unfortunate to be the unwilling maintainer of solutions dependent on Jython right now.

I have to add that the Facebook app does not have to have or ask for any permission at all to let the user pick an image to publish in their stream. It can use Android Intents to delegate to the user's choice of image picker app to do that[0].

The Intent system[1] is the real ingenuity of the original Android platform. I wish it was used more. Unfortunately most apps choose to implement things like picking an image or an address from the address book in their own code instead - thus more or less forcing the user to submit excessive permissions to the app to get anything done - rather than using the intent system.

The 6.0 on demand permissions may be a decent step forward from the old way of forcing the user to hand over all permissions at install time. Even better would be if the user could indicate to the app that it should use an intent based solution instead requesting a certain permission.

Obviously there are exceptions to this, some tasks require permissions and cannot be resolved with intents.

[0] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5309190/android-pick-imag... [1] https://developer.android.com/guide/components/intents-filte...

I question the explanation that it primarily was USA's military dominance that kept Europeans from further local military conflicts after WW2. Other factors that can explain why Europeans haven't started wars against each other are: democratization of the region, increased standard of living and the growth of the middle class, war fatigue and strong anti-war sentiment after having lived through WW2, increased trade, the forming of the United Nations, and regionally perhaps more impactfull the European union, and involuntarily being at the centre of the cold war.

Unfortunately I have no references to prove the relative impact of these alternative explanations compared to rayiner's. Still I'd suggest that using the strength of USA's military force as a sole or even primary explanation of post-WW2 peace in Europe is an oversimplification.

No, the bank only see who issued the charge, when the charge occurred and possibly which charging station. Not why the charge occurred or what was charged.

For local travel, commutes, etc, you normally get a pre-charged travel card from the local public transit provider. The route and cost of each individual trip is then a transaction limited to the transit provider's internal charging system. You can also buy a single ticket directly with your bank card, but the bank will still only see when the charge occurred, how much was charged, and possibly which charging station, not where you travelled.

Obviously the travel provider's internal charging system will have detailed information about how their travel cards are used to pay for trips. Still, the cards are normally not personal, so the provider cannot know it's the person charging the card that also is the person travelling.