A lot of wind power is generated in Scotland, for example. The power conduits that transmit power along the country can often not deliver all of that power to the South on a windy day. There is an excess of power in the north but the wind farms cannot deliver it, they are not paid to generate power so they switch their wind turbines off, even though there is wind available to capture.
This new test means that wind farms will not switch off in such conditions and electricity prices will be allowed to fall to zero, but only for those in the local area.
It’s not the same thing. Customers on some of Octopus’ tariffs get occasional zero or negative pricing to spur demand that can help balance the grid or reduce curtailment.
This trial is different. I think the real goal is to incentivise local communities to support the construction of wind farms. If you have a wind farm nearby, surplus generation is used to supply you with free power when otherwise the turbines would have been curtailed.
It works fine for the point that they were making.
Which is that the fact that restaurants have to certify for food safety training and pass regular inspection is perfectly reasonable, and allows those who aren't experts in those areas, or want to continually inspect kitchens to dine out in confidence & conveinience. (or at least vastly reduced risk).
There should be some equivalent, safe, experience in the technology space. Especially given how powerful a tool of liberation it is.
Of course, who controls that, and the ability to turn off those safeguards is important for many many other reasons and... also a question of liberty. And so I think it is a difficult conflict to resolve elegantly.
But it's an interesting thing to raise, because so often when they do enforce those controls - the outcry is 'bank won't let me do what I want with my money!'.
Not such a stones throw from - 'tech company won't let me do what I want with my device!'
Im not making any specific point. But perhaps thats indicative that the solution needs to be holistic, or just that security is hard XD.
Everything in that account has appeared in the last 6mo. Very unnatural commit activity, and clearly contradicts the claim that this is their first OS project. Is linked to a faceless YT channel.
The account is newer because I
only recently started putting my
projects on GitHub. I've been
programming in C and Assembly for
a while before that, just locally
on my machine.
The commit activity might look
unusual because I worked in very
intense 12h/day sprints over
14 days.
As for AI, I'm happy to do a live
walkthrough of any part of the
codebase, explain the design
decisions, or answer any specific
technical questions about the
implementation.
I appreciate the scrutiny though
it keeps the community honest!
> The commit activity might look unusual because I worked in very intense 12h/day sprints over 14 days.
That's a weird way to put it.
The commit activity looks unusual because it's a completed project whose files were individually committed in alphabetical order. There's no development history.
This is quite common already, where they’ll offer a higher performance tier, but that power only comes from the engine control unit, no physical differences.
It makes even more sense in EVs where you don’t have to be concerned with the performance of supporting components to the engine.
The difference here, is that it’s a subscription, not a one time upgrade, and as a result, not an upgrade you can sell on.
> The difference here, is that it’s a subscription, not a one time upgrade, and as a result, not an upgrade you can sell on.
From the article, if you buy "lifetime" subscription, it persists.
> Auto Express, who first reported the story, said a lifetime subscription would be for the car rather than the individual - meaning the upgrade would remain on the car if it was sold on.
I don’t know what it is about how my brain works, but I have absolutely no memory for keybinds (and envy those that do), so I love that it just lays them out in the UI.
Only customisation I make is to turn off the borders.
Would love if built a similar, visually guided, experience for nvim.
> Would love if built a similar, visually guided, experience for nvim.
Definitely would recommend checking out Helix. My brain is similar in that keybindings often don't stick - Helix has a grammar leading to a bit more of a visual interface (you select things first, and then edit, so you can see how things go as you carry out multi-cursor edits etc), but also, it'll show pop-up menus for shortcuts.
In normal mode for instance, "g" is "goto", pressing g also displays a little window that shows the different options and their keys. It's easy to ignore when you know what your doing, and super helpful when you can't remember something!
Should say that it's really similar to the tmux/zellij distinction, in that, helix works nicely out the box, but is a lot more opinionated, there's LSP support for pretty much all languages you'll use, but no plugin eco-system, so if you have a really customised, or AI based workflow for instance, your kinda stuck.
At least LazyVim[1] that I use does have visual help for key shortcuts - I can either press the first key (often prefix aka space) and get a popup of continuation keys, or use <space>sk to search keys.
Interesting. Coming from Spring to Ktor, being able to easily inspect the internal workings has been one of my favourite bits!
It’s ‘advanced’ kotlin in there for sure, and takes some learning of the internal plumbing, but having everything not hidden behind annotations has been great.
Just a CMD+click on whatever Ktor DSL/plugin API your using and you can immediately start to follow along / debug what it’s actually doing.
Oh absolutely. I admittedly haven't used Spring beyond trying it out for a couple hours and deciding never again, but I can easily imagine Ktor being an improvement over Spring. When I wrote my comment, I was more thinking about it in comparison to Netty and Java-Websockets (relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43800784), rather than as a web framework, though I have used it as such.
Netty is also a struggle to inspect so perhaps I just struggle with deep abstraction in general? I find code to be far better documentation than actual documentation, particularly when so much of it is along these lines:
/**
* Gets the next string.
*
* @return Returns the next string, or null.
*/
public abstract @Nullable String getNextString();
This documentation is entirely unnecessary because everything it says is present within the method signature. But say you have an abstract method that users override to handle incoming data, often documentation will not contain things like: whether the ByteBuffer is a slice or the whole buffer at a particular offset; or whether the buffer is a copy or a view; etc. So I end up doing a lot of defensive copying which is possibly unnecessary, but because it's very difficult to figure out where that buffer is coming from without first trudging through a seemingly endless forest of abstractions first.
reply