sjburt

The leap day system handles the mean, the leap seconds handle the variance around the mean. The need for leap seconds is not predictable—they zero out accumulated error.

My attitude has always been that code review is best thought of as the gate where code goes from being owned by the author to being owned by the team or project. The code I'm reviewing is not your code, it is code that is about to become our code.

Maintainability is a major factor in that, of course.

The diffraction limit (under 1.22 h* lambda/d) of a 1m optic at 250km in visible light is about 17cm. How can you achieve 10cm resolution?

On the Jane Goodall page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Goodall#Gary_Larson_carto...

At least a few years ago (~2014), the fare search was actually nearly instant, but all major airfare search sites added a delay because customers had the impression they were getting a better deal when they had to wait. It seems like the delay has been dialed back lately.

I’m not sure why people are making a big deal of it. At my gym it took maybe 3 minutes. You tie a knot and show you know how to take up slack. And it only needs to be done once.

There is a second test for lead but most people take a class and get the lead card during the class.

When you are modifying a long closure and don’t notice that you are shadowing a variable that is used later.

I know “use shorter functions” but tell that to my coworkers.

The worst part is that the sales person has to go back and pitch their team on whether it’s worth their time to get back to you.

Really curious about this:

If you have access to a program named 'Purify' ... learn how to use it.

Anyone know what this was or use it?

“10x price hike” would have been totally clear. “Factor of 10 price hike” would probably be a formal way to say it.

The Debian images (https://raspi.debian.net/) haven't been updated recently and don't support the Pi 5 at all. And support for other hardware is inconsistent.

How is this any different from going into a Panda Express and trying to order in Mandarin?

https://x.com/fulligin/status/1841022534848036949/photo/1

As of 12:30am PST I have located the Box and successfully executed a Rickroll Injection Attack on the target system. Out of respect for the artist I will not be revealing the Box's location, but for any veteran Mission resident only a couple obvious locations exist.

I think it helps that the technical concept that drove the main plot was a very real and still-present risk to public key encryption systems.

In benchmarks, branch predictors guess correctly 90-95% of the time.

It seems like every article about nix goes on and on about DLL hell. I've been using Debian/Ubuntu for 15+ years and never really experienced dependency hell. I guess maybe this is thanks to hard work by Debian maintainers and rarely needing to run a bleeding edge library, but also, why do we need to run bleeding edge versions of everything and then invent an incredibly complicated scheme to keep multiple copies of each library, most of which are completely compatible with each other?

And then when there's a security problem, who goes and checks that every version of every dependency of every application has actually been patched and updated? Why would I want to roll a system back to an (definitely insecure) state of a few months ago?

What problem does Nix solve that SO numbers (properly used) doesn't?

I have many of the same questions about Snap and even Docker.

Note that his tweets indicate that he does not believe it to be an ASAT test.

https://x.com/planet4589/status/1806333953617334688

I think the problem is that often the order you want it in a clean history is not exactly the chronological order it was developed. Eg you may build out a feature vertically, tweaking the interfaces between the components as you go along. But a clean, atomic git history would probably introduce each component in a finished state in separate commits.

The main issue is that on a longer branch, you have to fix all the rebase conflicts on the oldest commit. Then, if you changed something in the conflict zone, you fix it again on the next commit, because the next commit used to be based on something else. Sometimes git rerere can help with this, but I find it fairly unreliable (could be user error!) If you do a merge, you only need to resolve it all once.

Otherwise I tend to prefer rebase.

Moon phase is caused by moon position.

if you don't know what commit is good, just go way way way back. Go back 10,000 commits instead of 1,000. The magic of bisection search is that opening your search window by 10x only adds 3 (well, 3.332) extra bisections.

Fuel mass is very much the limiting factor. "Electric" or "ion" propulsion of this general type are used on satellites for things like orbit raising or orbit maintenance. They don't provide very much thrust, but they provide a very high ISP (often 10x what would be possible for a chemical reaction propellant), which typically translates to a longer lifespan for a vehicle or the ability to carry less reaction mass and more payload.

This is exactly right, except that whenever there is a deviation there is a side channel conversation of "How can we fix this without needing to do all this paperwork, while still complying with the regulations?" between the factory floor, quality, and the engineers.

For example perhaps a rule says "you need to do an inspection when a panel is removed" so the engineers and quality will get together and say "what if we just have the technician remove a couple screws on the panel and peek under it, then the panel hasn't technically been removed so we don't need to do the inspection". And then it turns out they remove all but one screw and twist the panel completely away so it's basically open but not "removed". And, it's all there in the work instructions, exactly what they did, but if anyone asks they can say "oh no, we didn't REMOVE the panel". And of course, the actual work instructions are only viewable in some 1970s green screen terminal or an all-caps printout thereof that comes in a multi-binder acceptance packet.

It's a suspicious claim as well, a perfect score on GRE math is only 94th percentile.

Am I wrong in understanding that this rewrite is what produced Gecko, which is still one of the top browser engines a quarter of a century later? I really think Joel called this one wrong.

I had an employer that would do 10% margin on cost plus. Fixed price they would shoot for 300% or 400%, and if they were getting close to losing money they would start begging for more before delivery. They only time they really lost money is when they were trying to get into a new line of business and wanted to build heritage.

If they ever needed to compete on price, they just wouldn’t. Usually their competitors wouldn’t either, there were only a few.

Starting in 2014, trucks with a larger size were subject to less strict fuel efficiency requirements. This was because American automakers (who sell a lot more trucks) were unable to compete with foreign automakers that sold a lot of passenger cars that could bring their CAFE down.

However, the government screwed up the scaling factor and it basically became impossible to build a small truck, while larger trucks had much easier-to-meet requirements. That led to automakers basically abandoning the passenger car market, and upsizing trucks significantly.

At least with regard to 1099 vs W-2, a huge amount of this is due to IRS rules.

Interesting. This is a Formula Student car, the european version of the Formula SAE. Powered ground effects were banned a long time ago in Formula SAE, but it seems like Formula Student does allow them.

What a weird defense; Grant Ave/North Beach is nowhere near Outside Lands (in Golden Gate Park).