roesel

Until the micro/nano-patterned surface gets dirty at least.

No one wants _buggy slop code_ for their game, but ultimately no one cares whether is has been hand crafted or vibe-coded.

As proof, ask yourself which of the following two options you would prefer:

1. buggy code that was hand-written 2. optimized code that was vibe-coded

I'll bet most people will choose 2.

Except in Slow Horses, most of them are exceptional at least in some way. Many of them are too difficult to work with, yes, but they do excel at _something_. That is very different from being _all around mediocre_.

It might have to do with the fact that (at least on iOS), you can participate in a Google Meet call with just the Gmail app, as well as authenticate sign-ins, and who know what more.

Could the main issue be Google is shipping apps within apps?

Have you tried Ctrl+Enter?

I would love to do: - set aperture priority (fully open for most cases) - set shutter speed to AUTO with a limit (never open for longer than 1/100 s) - set ISO to AUTO with a limit (never go above 6400)

If there is insufficient light, then by all means, the camera should adjust the shutter speed past the limit, but not until it has used all the available "reasonable" ISO range.

It's a shame I have to wrestle my Sony a6400 to get something even remotely close to this.

If I set aperture priority to "maximum possible light in", I often have an issue that when there is insufficient light, the camera decreases shutter speed instead of cranking up the ISO (to the set upper limit), which would be much more desireable. This results in blurry images due to the longer exposure. I would much more prefer a grainy image over a blurred one in this case.

Do you know if there is any option of setting a limit on shutter speed while in aperture mode?

(I understand I can go full manual, but that just doesn't allow for the same point-and-shoot experience in changing light conditions.)

The pixel 4a battery life saga was what made both me and my entire extended family never even consider buying a pixel phone again (and move to Samsung or iPhones).

Google denied the issues existed forever, then shipped a fix that somehow made them even worse, and made the phone unusable for years. I hope we were not the only ones.

Cool to see the growth. I have a minor suggestion: while the spinning counter showing "Estimated growth: 123.5 users since last update" is cool, it would make more sense to only show an integer here, since users can presumably only join in increments of 1 and not fractions.

I still miss the icons for items in the hamburger menu, this was one of the worst changes ever for me personally.

More streamlined menus that reduce visual clutter

If this means the same as for Thunderbird, I'm going to have to switch after 20 years...

I realize my experiences are anecdotal to the two Pixel 4a phones in my family, but the numerous reddit threads about the Adaptive Battery issue (4a) and the later unexplained stand-by battery drain (4a & 7) seem to show that I have at least not been the only one experiencing this.

This is a laudable effort, but maybe the Pixel team should first focus on feature updates not completely messing up their phones for months at a time?

Owning a Pixel 4a has been great until the first major Android update, which made the "Adaptive battery" feature discharge the phone within two hours in standby. The fix didn't come for more then a year (!). A very similar thing then repeated with the next major update. One would think buying a phone from the main developer of the OS would come with more stability, reliability, and attention to detail, considering the argument of "oh, but it has to support a hundreds of thousands of phone models, not just 3 a year like Apple" is moot.

What good does 8 years of support do if the phone is borked after 3?

3500 is way too much when trying to introduce a new platform. I guess that's the cost of the display (two apple watches) and the chips (a Macbook and a half). But still.

Doesn't Jackett still need trackers such as Rarbg to function?

I sure hope the knight is not called "calvary" in that many countries as suggested by the legend in the second map. Unless there is a connection between the knight's movements and crucifixion?

Heureka/Toppreise/... is nice if you know which model you want exactly and you are looking for the lowest price with shipping. But if you're for example searching for a new laptop or dishwasher, having a website with a clean interface, fast response times, good filters, and consistent item classification/description is priceless. And that is exactly what galaxus/digitec is.

(It doesn't hurt that they also very often have close to the lowest price in Switzerland, or only a few CHF more than the absolute lowest, which often made it worth it for me just to have "most of my orders in one place" and know that I will have a good RMA experience if it comes to that.)

This might be true, but both czc and alza have much to learn from digitec/galaxus regarding their website useability/cleanliness/etc. Alza nowadays is closer to Aliexpress than anything else with their endless dark patterns/spam/clutter.

I wish we had something like Digitec/Galaxus in Czechia. Mironet is probably the closest, but their product range is limited and they're still not quite there.

It looks like good competition on the high end, but these numbers would indicate AMD is not much ahead of Intel in performance/price around the 12600k tier. Alder Lake i3/i5 buyers in the last year are probably pretty happy with their purchases.

And this would be a great way to explain how optically active materials [1] work.

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

I think using the term "re-emit" is a mistake on my part. I fully agree that the photons are not absorbed and re-emitted.

However, their speed of propagation in the material, and their properties can be altered by the interaction with dipole moments of the material. Therefore, photons do indeed "go trough without collision" but not without interaction. The dipoles in a dielectric material such as glass need to take the energy to oscillate from the field, and then they give it back to the field by radiating it out again.

I agree that this is not "re-emission" in the absorption/emission diagram sense, and I understand that the field in a material cannot be separated into the material portion and the vacuum portion, since it is both at any given time, but what I have tried to outline in the previous comment is still a useful representation of the role of the material which the original article chose to leave out. I should have used "radiate" and "dipole" instead of "emit" and "electron" to make it a bit clearer.

In my opinion, this question is impossible to properly answer in the framework of Maxwell's equations / field representation, since it cannot be defined in those terms.

If I were to answer this question in terms of photons as small amounts of field oscillations, I would argue that these are "new" photons, due to the fact that the "old" ones induced oscillations in the dipole moment of the material, which then in turn radiated energy out as the "new" photons.

But you can just as easily think of it as the material "suggesting" a better direction to the field propagating through it, and thus reorienting it. This is just very difficult to imagine and describe, at least for me.

I have used the word "re-emit" in the sense of the Maxwell equations description of electromagnetic fields. You are right that the light definitely does not get absorbed and then re-emitted in the sense you mean. In such a case, everything you wrote would be correct. (I probably should have used a term like "radiate" and perhaps dipoles instead of electrons to be more clear.)

I was trying to describe the propagation of light in a material, where the optical field induces oscillations in the dipoles of the material, and these dipoles in turn excite the optical field. This happens constantly in every nanometer of the material, and it is difficult to experimentally separate the field into the "material" portion and the "vacuum" portion, because it exists as an everchanging mixture as long as there are dipoles around.

As for the "rails", the way I've had it explained to me is that in one direction of a polarizer, electrons are free to move, so they fully absorb the light polarized in that direction. In the perpendicular direction, they are bound, and the best they can do in reaction to a field is oscillate back and forth a tiny bit. These oscillations excite an optical field again and it propagates further until it finds another dipole to excite. I like to crudely imagine a polarizer as the grid of a nanoscopic egg slicer :D. Field oscillations will get absorbed along the metal wires, but in the perpendicular direction, it will just excite vibrations in the wires, which will radiate them out again, sort of like a guitar string.

Let me know if this was helpful, or if I've made a mistake somewhere :).

The magnitue drop is reasonably simple to understand in terms of fields. The oscillating optical field might be less effective at exciting material oscillations in the middle filter due to a mismatch in polarization, but it still does so at the same frequency. You can think of it as multiple photons (incoming field) collectively exciting the same electron on the same frequency but with reduced efficiency. The electron then re-emits fewer photons (outgoing field) of the same wavelength, leading to a lower light intensity detected after the filter.

While this explanation is very nice, it still does not actually explain what is happening on a material level.

The light does not "pass" through the middle filter, but it excites oscillations in the material, which effectively re-emits the light with different properties. The incoming light polarized at 0° induces oscillations in electrons which are "bound to a rail" in the material, which allows them to only oscillate in the direction of 45° (and all oscillations in the direction of -45° are absorbed). Therefore, a portion of the incoming field essentially gets re-emitted by the middle filter linearly polarized at 45°.

This representation is much less helpful if you think of the light in terms of individual photons rather than fields of course, but it is not worse than the article in this regard either.

The one where waves in the sea look like long-exposure photos of a waterfall are also pretty clearly wrong to the observer. It's funny that there is such a fundamental disconnect between the lifetime of the waves and the scene, similarly to the wrong reflections.

There will always be jobs, their nature will just be different. Even if you make the machines, someone has to design them, program them and set them up. And even if we automate the automating, we will still be able to create art and as long as it brings any value to others, it will be worth paying for, making it good old work.

What if you're simultaneously working on two projects with different version requirements and don't want to rm -rf and reinstall every day?

Perhaps the rising popularity (and recent discounts) of Sea of Thieves?

But how many times do you have to spam-press that button to heat a decent meal properly? I'd rather have a dial than having to press a single button 8 times for 4 minutes of heating.

Beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep.

Some basic plots would go a really long way to make the results more understandable at a glance.