rusk

50 ms·

721.
by rusk 5y ago
About 10 years or so ago … google was ridiculously good. The web practically jumped out of the screen at you. It’s been piss poor for like the last 5 years or so though.
722.
by rusk 5y ago
No, turbo specifically draws more fuel. You’re using an elastic definition of efficieny that I’m not gona jive with as energy supply from wind is constant. EDIT it’s more like gearing.
723.
by rusk 5y ago
Not the same way as you do with turbo
724.
by rusk 5y ago
It’s gearing. Albeit elaborate. Intuitively what’s difficult to get the head around is sailing directly into the wind. However the penny dropped when somebody says it’s like sailing into the wind and that basically the propellers act like t
725.
by rusk 5y ago
This seems to be highly domain specific though. It’s reading to me like an example of what you can do when you have highly advanced knowledge of a domain to the point where you can do stuff that looks like magic, specifically because it app
726.
by rusk 5y ago
Okay so in this case the people mover is drawing the additional energy. Additional energy is being provided from somewhere i.e a diesel generator somewhere up stream has had to increase her fuel consumption to maintain the power on the netw
727.
by rusk 5y ago
Sounds to me like it improves efficiency rather than consumes more
728.
by rusk 5y ago
A turbo charger increases fuel consumption though. You can’t just consume more wind.
729.
by rusk 5y ago
This apparently violates conservation of energy as you’re claiming to take energy from one source, put it through some apparatus (i.e two skateboards) to produce more energy without putting anything additional in. Can you account for this?
730.
by rusk 5y ago
> How would you describe or recommend that process to someone in a technical non-dev role that has never used source control? That’s the audience though. I know technical non-devs in various roles that would kill for the kind of features
731.
by rusk 5y ago
Maybe actually, or at the very least it could explain the confusion. Better than some of the other explanations I’ve heard for sure.
732.
by rusk 5y ago
Main Internet, across main Internet, between networks, intra-domain. Intra-station. Anything that joins it all together that isn’t “front facing” i.e wireless network towards handsets
733.
by rusk 5y ago
In telecoms they call all the backend infrastructure “back haul” and have never read a satisfactory explanation. I’m convinced that somebody once coined “back hall” with the intention of invoking the image of service passages like what you
734.
by rusk 5y ago
Which is about as close to modern English as modern Irish is.
735.
by rusk 5y ago
Specifically not English I would have thought …
736.
by rusk 5y ago
It’s like skeumorphism. It’s not ideal, but it’s a common or goal reference point that doesn’t need exhaustive explanation.
737.
by rusk 5y ago
Depends on where the “terrible” is. People are happy to work around UI/UX issues so long as they can get the job done (chronic ergonomic issues notwithstanding perhaps) but anything “back end” or “low level” can have catastrophic impli
738.
by rusk 5y ago
Once I realised this, Blur’s ”Country House” took on a whole new meaning …
739.
by rusk 5y ago
Interesting maybe that Coinín (sp?) is rabbit in modern Irish/Gaeilge and is pronounced in the former manner. Presumably it has some indo European roots, that didn’t spread into common English usage.
740.
by rusk 5y ago
There really needs to be a third way … how are Linux smart phones looking? No hope of getting WhatsApp etc presumably but at the very least a fairly solid browser should be possible …
741.
by rusk 5y ago
If that’s what you think then you haven’t been paying attention
742.
by rusk 5y ago
Not arguing with that. Special cases don’t invalidate a rule though. Kirchhoff’s circuit laws continue to be a thing even if they break down at higher frequencies and give way to radio …
743.
by rusk 5y ago
And you end up right back where you started. Day to day, for most people in most cases what goes up must come down. That there are “special cases” such as “flight”, “parachutes” and “space travel” doesn’t invalidate the fact that - notwiths
744.
by rusk 5y ago
> Of course if you’re just running a website and you’ve got a nice network effect going on, or you’ve got your customers locked into contracts It’s perfectly fine as a rule of thumb and regardless of how the software comes to be in your
745.
by rusk 5y ago
As a practicing engineer this should be readily observable in our day to day lives. Defects escape, and the further they go the more hassle it is. Only people who haven’t experienced this would need it “validated” and I think this type of t
746.
by rusk 5y ago
What goes up must come down.
747.
by rusk 5y ago
Does this even need a study? Isn’t it simply obvious? Perhaps less so with online applications and continuous updates but in the classical model of software development that most of the industry still depends on the costs and hassles of fix
748.
by rusk 5y ago
I worked in very busy bars for a number of years. It’s hard sometimes back breaking work but it was certainly much more “fun”. Up until the point where you end up working for penny pinching gradgrinds who see your “fun” as an externality to
749.
by rusk 5y ago
Maybe a cut in VAT would help? Although that probably doesn’t help in the states …
750.
by rusk 5y ago
No it’s not and this comparison is facetious. Nobody practices alchemy as a mainstream science in 2021. There are plenty of people doing astrology for instance but in a clinical setting? In funded university programs? Producing papers that

More ›