The friction to try it out is already really low, I like that! But it could be even lower if instead of an image the interactive version is served right on the landing page. Great project!
- In terms of data, this is nothing compared to any site serving a bunch of images. The compute would differ, but loading speed shouldn't be an issue if you can render the HTML first, and hydrate it after page load. This static HTML would then also serve as fallback when Javascript is disabled.
- For a quick demo, I doubt you will lose people by embedding an older version. Serving a version of a few months ago seems like 80% of the work, with 20% of the effort, in terms of deployment.
Anyhow, nice to see government funds put to a good cause!
I use Firefox as my daily browser. If i have a website that fails to work, I might try chrome maybe once every two months. And then it usually also doesn't work. So for all browsing I do on the internet, Firefox works like a charm
Get the OneTab extension. It'll save and close all those tabs. That way you won't have Firefox crashing during startup once you exceed the number of tabs it can handle (a few thousand).
Tip: the crashing is caused by certain extensions such as OneTab and All Tabs Helper which for some reason seem to cause all the tabs to load, just when restoring a session. Temporarily disable these extensions before restoring, then you can reenable.
The reasoning is these trucks make no practical or economic sense in Europe. They are not allowed to be sold, because they are dangerous to bystanders, are polluting and oversized. Only through some loophole quite a few have been imported, which is very frustrating to all of us that are intimidated and appalled by seeing these on our roads.
These trucs signal that the driver does not care about other people, environment, climate, etc. Because they are dangerous, obnoxious and polluting. And instead of calling these things trucks, I think Kindercrusher is a perfectly apt description.
If you haven't been to a school recently where >99% of kids all direct >99% percent of their attention during breaks I can see where you are coming from. But I was at a highschool with a lax phone policy (allowed in breaks etc), and I was amazed and appalled. A no-phones policy is really important to me, because there seems to be no middle ground possible.
Alternatively, you can get a plug-in battery with solar input and AC outlet for pretty cheap. In normal times, the battery is only connected to an AC socket, and tries to balance out my daily usage (includes a power usage monitoring device in the breaker box).
If/when the fan is hit with brown stuff, I can plug a few of my solar panels into the battery directly (they are now wired to my basic inverter without island mode), and then I still have some backup power.
It is not a solution for everyone, but redoing all my electricity hook-up, getting a whole-house battery and a three phase backup option would easily cost 20k. And it would cost a tonne of space, cause all this battery and inverter stuff needs to be close to the main connection (where I don't have space). The solution I chose was only 1200 for a 2kWh battery with built in inverter for 4 panels. And the battery is actually portable, I could technically use it for camping. Output is limited to 1200W AC from battery, or 2000W AC when there is enough solar input. To me spending 1200 Euro to have some electricity in case of WW III (or some significant sabotage) felt worthwhile
Plastic can't be recycled at all, that is a complete myth. The only thing one can practically do is down cycle it, and even that costs more than virgin plastic so is uneconomical.
Of course theoretically perfectly clean and pure singly type plastic can be recycled, but that is something very different from post-consumer waste
"PET bottles on the Dutch market averaging 44% recycled PET content in 2023".
Also, many other products:
Fleece jackets are made out of bottles. That's up-cycling, afaik.
And lots of packaging materials (bags, shampoo bottles, etc).
If it is economical depends on many factors, and can be different in each country. Landfill may be cheap in the US, but extremely expensive in European countries, because there's no un-used land.
but yes, what can't be recycled is epoxy (also a plastic).
But nearly all plastic recycling companies in the Netherlands have gone bankrupt recently. Unfortunately it is usually best to just burn the plastic for energy.
For the case of PET bottles, recycling is possible if:
- products are made from a single sort of plastic with the intent of recycling
- can be collected as a dedicated waste stream
- are not contaminated in a way that is not easily cleaned
- there are rules and regulations to offset the added costs
As all these conditions have to be met, one might as well use reusable bottles instead of recycling altogether, like we do with glass beer bottles. But then why were plastics used in the first place, as there is then hardly any advantage?
d2 = x^2+y^2
-- 6 / pi = 1.909859317102744
angle = 6 + 1.909859317102744 * atan(x, y)
if z ~= 0 or d2 > 20 then return EMPTY end
if d2 < 11 then return GREEN end
if angle > t then return PURPLE end
-- ugly special case because reference isn't smooth at 13
if t == 13 or angle + 12 > t then return RED end
return PURPLE
> I wish there were some OSS type license for Parasolid. It could be treated like the Linux kernel.
> Whatever replaces Parasolid and friends, should be treated like the Linux kernel.
So much this! But the undertaking is so daunting, how do we get there? A capable, OSS CAD kernel would provide so much value to the world. I whish e.g. the EU could just "nationalise" such important, crucial software and redistribute it openly. Or that through some Chinese effort a newer and better kernel just lands out of nowhere and disrupt the field, like with DeepSeek.
The world has benefitted so immensely from Linux being freely available, has anyone even tried to put a price on the benefit to humanity? Imagine being stuck in a world where on big corporations can have proper OS-es, and everyone else is stuck with some anaemic locked down kernel...
Did you check the sea levels back then? It is estimated to be 100m higher than now. And you know around half of the earths population live on land that would be sea in that case? So yes the earth can survive higher CO2 levels and higher sea levels, especially if the changes are gradual (over millions of years).
But the chances you will personally be adverse affected by anthropogenic climate change in your lifetime is pretty damn high. Humanity will survive, but many humans will die in horrible conditions
reply