Why?

Because it's literally the least impressive thing you can build and in a world where I don't write the code anyway, a "hello world" example has lost its place (at least for human viewers).

It demonstrates CRUD at a small scale and is familiar, so we don't need to figure out what it's trying to demonstrate. It allows us to see how large the final product is and how much memory and CPU it uses.

It's not meant to be a showcase of what you can build with it; it's meant to give you the smallest complete application so you can get a good idea of what you need to know.

The thing that's meant to be a showcase is usually referred to as a Showcase or a Gallery.

Can't vouch for that but I can vouch for `Dreyer's English` as both hilarious (if you're the sort of person who relishes finding le mot juste, like me) and excellent as a style guide.

There are two visually similar sails. Some are rotating tubes that generate lift via the Magnus effect and even though they create low pressure zones, those are not “suction sails”, strictly speaking.

A suction sail is a more or less conventional airfoil that houses an axial compressor to basically suck in air which causes the boundary layer to stay attached which generates lift via the same mechanisms as an aircraft wing.

From a distance and to a casual observer they’re pretty similar.

The article did mention suction sails for the Maersk Tankers, but it does seem like the bulk of the article was about the rotating tubes.

TFA is the aerospace equivalent of rolling your own crypto. Outsiders often don’t know what they don’t know, resulting in fatally-naive “solutions” to the problems.

No it's not. It's an interesting article on how to use scikit-decide to optimise a problem. Nothing more.

Rolling your own crypto is considered bad practice because there are countless battle proven open source alternatives. Where are the open source alternatives for aircraft route optimisation that the article could talk about instead? And it would be a totally different article if it was talking about how to use them. This is an article about using optimisation tools to target a specific problem. Aircraft routing is just the example.

Hello I have a question, and my question is what the fuck

That's not even a number.

In some bases it is. Numberwang!

With All Due Love,

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar, Esq.

In some bases, that's a forbidden number containing the recipe for the atom bomb

You reckless fool

Congratulations, you are one of today's 10,000!

> 10,000

I feel like this has only been Numberwang once when I've played with friends. Am I playing it wrong?

At last, the feature Windows has had since XP: separate volume for different audio sources (alarms and ring tones).

Embarrassing.

An immutable linux base, like Flatcar, combined with dockerized apps for isolation and easy per-container updates could come pretty close if some engineering were put into UX.

You'd need to have unattended upgrades, or perhaps a companion app where you can send the user a push notification to say "hey bruh update your shit". Would also need engineers to support those updates.

Tailscale pretty much solved NAT traversal.

The containerizing is almost a capability based security system. Instead of adding that layer to block everything except a certain resource, why not change the defaults in the OS so that it defaults to NO access instead? Saves resources, provides much better security.

>This looks great.

>"Unbundling BI" is absolutely where things are headed now that more people have agents, coding agents, agent computers to help with work.

Agreed. Coupled with bento[0] for slide decks, I think this type of project is a very welcome development, helping us move away from walled gardens and proprietary software suites.

[0] https://github.com/nyblnet/bento

Thanks for sharing this too. It reminds me of GistDeck a super old project that turned a gist into slides. Infinitely better than powerpoint or GSlides.

https://github.com/nzoschke/gistdeck

It’s a better lisp, too. Elisp really sucks and is my least favourite part of emacs, which I use daily.

I'm not a Lisp connoisseur, but the parts of GNU Emacs that bothers me are more all a) the C-based glue... single-threaded single process monolith b) giant ball of mutable state that seems to let anything step on anything else and break things in confusing ways.

IMHO there should ideally be a minimal shared transactional blackboard space that processes can coordinate in and then each buffer should be its own isolated process/thread -- like a chromium tab.

> I plan to personally use it to encrypt and backup some of my GPG keys offline, then burn them onto M-DISC discs and store them in a bank safe

Won’t that make it difficult to rotate your keys?

Keys should be something you don’t hesitate to throw away and rotate at the first hint of a compromise.

My GPG key is renewed expire date every 2 years, and the main key and sub key are separated (the main key is stored offline, and the sub key is on YubiKey). The private key does not need to be updated regularly, so it can be directly encrypted and saved in the backup.

I think this is a good balance point, and I estimate that if we want to rotate the keys completely in the future, we should start using new key algorithms. (I estimate it will take another 5-8 years)

> Keys should be something you don’t hesitate to throw away and rotate at the first hint of a compromise.

Yes, when certain situations arise, it is necessary to rotate the keys as soon as possible, but in the absence of such situations, losing key backups can be catastrophic.