prime_number_314159

I think the last 4 words of the top comment are throwing us off.

Here's my best recounting:

Angels have eye spots to avoid becoming a tasty meal for a human. When an angel meets a human, the angel's eye spots will scare the human, causing them to flee. In order to talk to a human, it was necessary for the angel to reassure them, "be not afraid".

Most of the "3D" we see is made up by our brains. For evidence of this, look at a photograph, and look at how far away things are.

Having eyes spaced apart does help us to tell the distance to things that are close to us, but that is only useful for a short distance. Our brains also track the parallax and occlusion of numerous objects, which helps over longer distances, but works just fine with 1 eye.

I think there are two ways eyes could work in higher spacial dimensions, you could either have an n dimensional eye, which percieves an n-1 dimensional image, and then an understanding of "distance" is used to fill in the remaining information, or (which may just be my own 3D-ness showing) you could have several 3D eyes in different directions, each percieving different 2D images, with enough overlap to fully see the n-dimensional space. That would take n-1 eyes to properly see.

You are definitely misreading what they said. The meaning you attribute doesn't make any sense in the context of the post and the remainder of their comment.

"Nobody I know doesn't eat onions." is equivalent to "Everybody I know does eat onions." but not to "Everybody I know eats nothing except onions."

In your first comment, in this thread, you asked "you've never met anyone in your life who uses pet names for their SO?"

I (and I believe the other people responding to you) don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of the comment you were responding to.

The top comment (with the double negative removed for clarity) said that Every couple that commenter knows in real life does use each others' legal names. This does not suggest that those couples do not also use pet names, but your question implies that you think it does. This implication is what other commenters are responding to.

I've heard this comparison so many times I ran some experiments. A number 8 1.5" coated decking screw inserted into two one by pine boards through the grain by a hammer holds about half as well as one inserted using a screwdriver. One hit to drive the screw is better than several, but a two hit approach (one to set the angle of the screw tip, the second to send it home) was most reliable. Drilling a pilot hole before hammering improves things pretty significantly, up towards 3/4 of the holding power of a driver driven screw.

On the other hand, even very slight misalignment between the hammer swing and the screw can result in failure, and the board was always more damaged by a hammer inserted screw.

The rubber band trick is great, and very low effort/cost. I want to say, though, that it can take substantially more force than it looks like it should on small screws like this. You also don't have to use something shaped for the original driver of the screw. With the rubber to help it, a round cylinder a little smaller than the head of the screw can work very well.

I ran out of crtcs, but I wanted another monitor. I widened a virtual display, and drew the left portion of it on one monitor, like regular. Then I had a crown job that would copy chunks of it into the frame buffer of a USB to DVI-d adapter. It could do 5 fps redrawing the whole screen, but I chose things to put there where it wouldn't matter too much. The only painful thing was arranging the windows on that monitor, with the mouse updating very infrequently, and routinely being drawn 2 or more places in the frame buffer.

Have you tried turning them off, then turning them on again?

I've seen a few projects rename during major version upgrades, when everyone has to read the release notes and make changes, anyways.

Plenty of old deployed systems may continue using master/slave terminology, and of course some projects will stick to that language even decades in the future, but it was once more prevalent than it is now, and that declining trend looks like it will continue.

I think we're still headed up the peak of inflated expectations. Quantum computing may be better at a category of problems that do a significant amount of math on a small amount of data. Traditional computing is likely to stay better at anything that requires a large amount of input data, or a large amount of output data, or only uses a small amount of math to transform the inputs to the outputs.

Anything you do with SQL, spreadsheets, images, music and video, and basically anything involved in rendering is pretty much untouchable. On the other hand, a limited number of use cases (cryptography, cryptocurrencies, maybe even AI/ML) might be much cheaper and fasrer with a quantum computer. There are possible military applications, so countries with big militaries are spending until they know whether that's a weakness or not. If it turns out they can't do any of the things that looked possible from the expectation peak, the whole industry will fizzle.

As for my opinion, comparing QC to early silicon computers is very misleading, because early computers improved by becoming way smaller. QC is far closer to the minimum possible size already, so there won't be a comparable, "then grow the circuit size by a factor of ten million" step. I think they probably can't do anything world shaking.

I think very few people mind changing it, and a few people want it changed, so it's slowly shifting across various use cases. I've only discussed the change from master/slave terminology with one person that affirmatively supported the change, and they didn't know that there's still slavery in the world today.

I don't know what to make of that, other than to say ending human slavery ought to be a higher priority than ending references to it.

You can buy high (97-99) CRI LEDs for things like the film industry, where it really does matter. They are very expensive, but can pay for themselves with longer service life, and lower power draw for long term installations.

The CRI on regular LED bulbs was climbing for a long time, but it seems as though 90ish is "good enough" most of the time.