prutschman

A 5 character a-z random string has log2(26^5) =~ 23.5 bits of entropy, way less than 128.

"But that's crazy, Morpheus. Thermodynamics says.."

"And where did you learn about physics, Neo?"

"..... In the Matrix...."

I get that tastes vary and some people apparently don't mind the hole punch in the display, but I'm curious why you list its presence as a hard requirement. It seems like it would make the display unnecessarily harder to source.

The Eagle one yours is based on says it needs 0.6 mm PCB to work. Is it just close enough not to matter?

Crimping an IDC cable.

(It works very poorly for this, and I speak from recent personal experience)

I genuinely hope both of you continue this thread, even as I think it's unlikely that you'll come to common ground. I'm finding it extremely helpful to clarify my thoughts on this type of situation.

Could you expand on the available diagnostic tools a bit?

Could potting prevent this, or can the whiskers "push through" epoxy?

this is quite frankly very surprising to me.

If we let t be time in seconds, and f be frequency in Hz, the sine wave formula is y = sin(2pitf). The 2pi is the periodicity of the sine function. If f is 1, we sweep through 2pi once per second. If we let f be 2, then it sweeps through two times per second, and so on.

So, you can think of the lookup index as being the tf part, but with t counting in integer fractions of a second, with the caveat that you'll want to perform some interpolation between values.

If the waveform were more complex than a sine wave, then in the general case this "skipping agead" could cause distortion. A sine wave is one of a couple special cases (square wave being another, and arguably it's "cheating") where you're not skipping "too far" to cause distortion. (That relates to the Nyquist sampling theorem and low-pass filtering, as kens mentions)

If existence is pointless except for procreation, what is our children's purpose? To have children, in order to have children, in order to have children? This is unbounded teleological recursion, unless you allow for a basis case in which any given life also has meaning for its own sake.

Myself, I hope for more for my own two children than just that they have children of their own some day, just as my parents didn't have me only in order that they might someday have great-great-grandkids they'll never meet

Culture and ideas transmit through channels parallel to heredity. Celibate monastic orders are one obvious example.

I want to live in a diverse culture for a reason analogous to why I'm wary of agricultural monocultures: All it takes is the right virus to come along, and all of a sudden we don't have any bananas anymore. There are some tragic failure modes associated with strong, cohesive, anti-"diverse" cultures.

I was misremembering the specifics too, it turns out. It was much closer to do_brick(). Ugly.

If I remember correctly, in the FTDI case that was very unlikely to happen. It wasn't a case of `if (looks_fake) do_brick()`. Rather, it accessed registers in a way that they knew their implementation supported but that was buggy in a widely counterfeited version.

(And I understand it they did this knowing the effect it would have. It wasn't some accident.)

I've never intentionally turned on google Photos backup since I use Dropbox instead, but I still notice it turning back on periodically.

So... what exactly become the merit of taxing land over property? If you tax property, the value of the land is included in that tax.

If land--but specifically not improvements to that land--is taxed then there's relatively more incentive to make productive use of the land. $1 of investment to improve the productivity of land by building housing or whatever is tax advantaged over $1 of investment to try to hold onto appreciating land in hopes it goes up.

There's some available literature on the subject of required laser wavelength/energy for an in-flight thermal mosquito kill: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-71824-y.pdf

For a thermal kill you have to deliver some number of Joules of energy into the target. You can use a lower powered laser over a longer period of time, up to a point. You have roughly 25 milliseconds of thermal confinement time before the mosquito starts to cool off. Longer exposures can work, but the total energy dose needed goes up. Longer exposures also require keeping the laser aimed at the target for a longer time.

Power needed also depends on how closely you can track the target. If you make the spot small enough that the target catches all of it then you minimize power requirements, but that increases the complexity of the optics. If you use a spot size larger than the target then the optical and tracking complexity go down, but you're no longer sending all of your Joules into the target.

It's not literally false, but I got an inaccurate impression based on the headline. To me it implied a positive discovery of evidence rather than a ruling-out.

If they'd said "determined new constraints on a hypothetical 5th force" or something I would have gotten a correct impression.

Not a jq expert, but my understanding is:

`.[]` takes a list and turns it into a sequence consisting of each element of that list.

`| x` applies the filter `x` to that sequence, turning it into a new sequence.

The outermost `[ ]` builds a list from that new sequence.

If you happen to know: Is it the performing the test itself that's illegal, or is it "merely" that to perform a test for someone you'd have to take possession of the substance, however briefly? (Bad for both harm reduction and liberty either way, I'm just curious which it is.)

The "mole" is the unit, "mol" is the symbol for the unit, like with "kilogram" and "kg".

I think they're referring to the fact that there is one dimensionless base unit already standardized in SI: the mole. There aren't two length units, so there "shouldn't be" two dimensionless ones.

(Whether they were trying to be funny or not I couldn't tell you.)

In some browsers you can get around this by selecting the text, keeping the mouse button down, hitting the keyboard shortcut for 'copy', then letting go. The selection will still be emptied, but the text is already in your clipboard.

My lay understanding of the current standard of care is very roughly speaking something like:

Patient exhibits symptom => perform a not-especially-invasive test Positive test result => invasive test like a biopsy Positive biopsy result => heavy-duty intervention (although I'm not focusing on this part of the chain in what follows)

Both testing and (certain) symptoms have predictive value, and don't completely overlap. So there's something like this going on:

P(actual problem|no additional information) = really really low, which is why they don't scoop out chunks of every organ to test "just in case" every time you go to the doctor

P(actual problem | [symptom AND positive test result]) = generally high enough in at least some cases to justify the risk of the biopsy, which is why it's the standard of care

P(actual problem | just symptom) = probably not super high, which is why the tests are developed

P(actual problem | just a positive test result) = substantially lower than P(actual problem | [symptom AND positive test result]), so in the general case the balance of risk no longer favors the biopsy

In the broadest of strokes, is there anything I've just said that you substantially disagree with?

And yet it's not only men who are admonished by the article. An example of a woman is given, too. That one example is of a woman who isn't monogamous and is "left with nothing".

What is it that she has lost?

Who is more free:

1) An average man who is only not a drug addict because he lives in a country where drugs are regulated or shamed in a way to make them hard to obtain.

2) An average man who succumbs to addiction in such a country, and is now in a never-ending cycle in and out of prison and living on the street and at daily risk of death because there's no way to ensure that the drugs he takes aren't 100x as potent as he was expecting because it's easier for the cartels to sneak the product over the border that way?

Do you have an NVMe M.2 device specifically? The M.2 form factor supports both NVMe and SATA (though any given device or slot might not support one or the other).

I've got a workstation that has both SATA 3 and M.2 NVMe SSDs installed.

The SATA 3 device can do sustained reads of about 550 MB/sec, fairly close to the 600 MB/sec line rate of SATA 3.

The NVMe device can do about 1.3 GB/sec, faster than physically possible for SATA 3.

I suspect a combination of 1) the US military having extensively studied this problem already. 2) that they did it a very long time ago.

If you think "I'd be better off if I pretended to be trans by putting on a dress" is the wrong reading, then, what do you think the correct reading is?

And in the old days you could get your number unlisted if you didn't want it published.

Shockingly, they don't (yet) appear to have added mandatory arbitration or barred class actions in their EULA: https://cricut.com/en_us/legal

Think of an inside-out refrigerator.

A fridge moves a certain amount of heat energy from the inside to the outside, but that doesn't come for free. You have to put extra energy into the system to make that happen. The hot side of the fridge gets the "moved" heat plus the heat from the work you had to do to move the heat. The work heat is waste.

If what you're trying to do is make something hot, you're moving heat energy from the outside to where you want it to be hot. That makes it hotter, but it requires work. In this case, since you want to make things hot anyway, that work heat is extra bonus heat.