14 years ago I picked mailchimp because it could read RSS feeds from my Knights of Columbus blog and send out daily digests.
We had a small form in an iframe allowing people to sign up to get the digests.
This year, something broke in the "detect a human" code for that small form, and I am getting hundreds of thousands of signups of the form "valid email address" "gibberish first name" "gibberish last name" and I can't figure out why.
I don't understand why vertical-axis wind turbines are not more common
Because they are on the ground.
they take less horizontal space
That's outright false.
you can potentially stack shorter pieces as high as you want
Can you stack them high enough that they get into where the wind actually is? And if so, why not just put one windmill where the wind is?
(and use guy lines for stability)
So make them use more horizontal space?
I'm no expert so I guess they have good reason for this race to gigantism, but it seems a bit like the dinosaurs...
Obsolete and dead?
VAWTs make sense only on the tops of lonely hills.
Oh no a single symbol before a variable or array which makes it clear what it is and how it's being used, how will you ever read that code? bububububu
He must have had several cars. None with SatNav, though.
I think Moses needed it more.
Either way, as far as Native American references go, I find the use by the Apache Foundation to be relatively benign.
On one hand, sure, it is that. On the other, it's still cultural appropriation, and the fact that it's using "apache" to refer to something which is "patchy" isn't positive either.
A Skycrane, by contrast, has a maximum range of 370 km with no payload. Need to refuel? First you need to hover and detach your payload, then go over somewhere else to refuel, then re-hitch your payload and continue on.
Yes, but the airplane can't take things to their destinations. They have to deliver them to an airport, then the things need to be transported by truck.
Not just knowingly, deliberately.
The only part of a perl script that necessarily looks like line noise is a perlexp. But regexps look like that no matter what language you use. Just don't write your perl that way and it won't look like that. It takes a lot of lines to do what a complex regexp does without one.
You haven't seen the meat maxi-pads yet?
I recently got a mobility scooter. Its speed is limited to 4mph.
They don't even let you move at a full adult male walking pace? I can go 5 mph without trouble.
Don't see too many cars on walking paths and sidewalks. The number of e-bikes on walking paths and sidewalks has skyrocketed. It's almost as if someone decided being a pedestrian is a sinful activity, and that every walkway must now be infested with morons on wheels.
Then let me get started on mobility scooters.
I'd just like them banned from walking paths. At least once a day I'm getting some crazy asshole ringing his bell as he comes flying up behind me. I'm not a fan of any kind of bike on walking paths, but at least the people on regular bikes have more control. The worst are probably older riders who often seem like they're barely in control. And the three wheeled ones take up outrageous amounts of space on smaller paths, regularly forcing other users on some of the narrower paths I frequent to get to the side of the road.
It's hard to imagine, short of motor vehicles, anything more hazardous to a pedestrian than some stupid prick on an e-bike.
Well, it says in the Bible that Moses came down from Sinai in his Triumph...
He came by Honda. Though he did not speak of it, he came of his own Accord.
Building an EV burns about twice the carbon of making an ICE
So what?
Run the numbers: ramping up EV sales by 10%/year for a decade actually adds ~650 million tonnes of COe from manufacturing
This is bullshit. EVs reach CO2 parity well before 100,000 miles.
and maybe even questioning whether churning out this many new cars is sustainable at all
Yes, that's a valid thing to say. But EVs have lower lifetime emissions than ICEVs because an ICE is so pathetically inefficient. Yeah 40% is possible for some engines some of the time, but more of the time they are around 25%.
ChatGPT's explanation of its mistake was probably the most interesting part of the experiment, because it claimed to be trying to do the right thing--and yet the code failed miserably
That's the weird beauty of hallucination. It's hallucinating both the explanation and the code. It just turns out that there's no part of the explanation that we can't interpret with small changes in it, while there are parts of the code which must be just so to achieve the desired result.
"The identical is equal to itself, since it is different." -- Franco Spisani
