I've only been here 8 years but it seems like there has always been such a topic sucking the air from the room at any given era.
This inevitably results in even the completely unrelated topics constantly becoming a reference to that conversation.
That has it's own wake of someone discussing how it's brought into every conversation by those that either love/hate - further making it suck even more air out of the room.
At this point the ink catches up with itself while folks such as folks like Danny Spencer occasionally deliver us the quick doomscrolling hit we were all really here for.
? I'm not any of the previous people talking about why you night have commented. I'm talking to your above note about bringing sarcastic comments about AI into this post not previously about AI. That said, sure - I'm probably not the best sarcasm detector myself anyhow :).
I.e. AI is such the main topic here that we still have some type of comment (sarcastic or not) bringing it up in the few posts unrelated to it. It's truly sadly inescapable on more than one level, as will be whatever the next hot topic is in a few years.
For the benefit of anyone else trying to read along, it ?seems? there are 2 separate re-releases being referred to.
The first was the Rockstar Classics, which were slightly more modern repackagings of GTA and GTA 2 in the early 2000s https://www.ebay.com/itm/168127378760 which came out around the time gp also got their discs for San Andreas and Vice City
The second was The Trilogy, a much more current and deeper remaster of GTA III as well as those latter two OG games gp had (Vice City and San Andreas) which is actively distributed https://store.steampowered.com/sub/817628/
Speaking of all of these re-releases, I'm surprised Rockstar hasn't re-released GTA 4 recently. There are community made ways to make it run miraculously better on modern PCs as noted in https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV but I'm sure many would pay for something prepackaged (and maybe one or two other improvements). I guess they are too busy printing money with GTA V and hoping the next one will be the same :).
I did start trying to replay GTA4 recently, and although I loved playing it the first time, this time I couldn't stop noticing that each mission's Niko/NPC dialog feels very forcefully-timed to match almost to the second how long it takes to drive to the first objective. I found it really immersion-breaking.
PCGW sez “Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties” but IMO if one wants to reinstall, use FusionFix and Radio Restoration mods and no need for anything else. No packaged GTA4 re-release from Rockstar would be good enough to re-license all the removed songs anyway if the GTA Trilogy Definitive Edition is any indication: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/333629-grand-theft-auto...
If they really wanted to get my money they would re-release Midnight Club Los Angeles on PC instead :)
If you do ever sign up with RIPE remember you can get a free /24 if it's the first one on your account. If you just buy one to start you've paid to lose that privilege.
I have both my own multihomed ASN and operate my own nameservers. The latter has usually been about as fast for failover overall in practice. BGP may look to converge near instantly from your 2-3 peer outbound perspective but the inbound convergence from the 100k networks on the rest of the internet is much slower and has a long tail very akin to trying to set your DNS TTL to 0 and having the rest of the internet decide to do it slower for cache/churn reasons anyways.
The bigger problem, and where BGP multihoming is most handy, is it's just so much easier to get a holistic in+out failover where nothing really changes vs in DNS where it's more about getting the future inbound stuff to change where it goes. E.g. it's a pain to break an active session because the address had to change, even if DNS can update where the new service is quickly.
The long tail of routers receiving your update doesn’t matter. Once the common transit networks get it, that’s where the rest would dump the traffic to reach you anyway. The only time slow propagation to the edges matters is the first time announcing a prefix after it has been fully withdrawn.
Using the wrong route to get the packet in your general direction still gets you the packet as long as it hits an ISP along the way that got the update.
We could fully drain traffic from a transit provider in <60s with a withdrawal with all of the major providers you get at the internet exchanges. If you weren’t seeing that your upstream ISPs may have penalized you for flapping too much and put in explicit delays.
<60s sounds about right as a general safe estimate. I just mean people should expect 1-2ish orders of magnitude more than <1s from a downed link with internet BGP upstreams in a multihomed situation.
If it were flap suppression/slow peer detection/"the dunce bucket" there wouldn't be a long tail of convergence - it'd just be nothing until all at once. This also isn't something I've only seen on my personal AS alone, it's what I've come to expect in many enterprise cutovers while previously working at a network VAR. The personal AS is however much more carefree to move around to different random providers on a whimthough of course :).
I found some data from an oldish post by benjojo https://blog.benjojo.co.uk/post/speed-of-bgp-network-propaga... which confirm various tirr 1s do propagate updates across their networks very fast (<2ish seconds) while others certainly do not. Notably, Level 3 (now Lumen) is the largest BGP presence by prefix count and was the worst tested in the list - starting to apply at ~20s after to finishing at ~50s after. This was for announce specifically, which should be the clearer case.
Thanks for this, it gave me many good chuckles. I feel like I see these kinds of lists less often lately. Does anyone know of some more recent good ones?
I'd really recommend not. It's 75% one guy running AI agents talking like it's his project, 24% shitposting about AI, and 1% anything else.
You'll get a much better view about what it does and doesn't do by spending same amount of time looking at it yourself and maybe trying to take that back to the comments here where there is a decent chance at least a massively larger portion of the comments aren't bots or memes.
Despite your objection to looking, I did. What you're saying doesn't seem to check out. For example, hellow world not compiling seems like a significant issue and at first glance seems genuine even if there is some anti ai banter in the thread.
Between all of the "banter" (which is from more than just the anti-AI folks) you may not have caught I was one of the first 10 comments on that very issue 3 days ago https://github.com/anthropics/claudes-c-compiler/issues/1#is.... Not to imply there are no issues or it's a good compiler, the README.md says as much, but I found in practice you can get to CCC compiling a version of the Linux kernel in the amount of time it takes to go through that thread about hello world.
Of course - you do you, not everyone is the same. If that kind of discussion piques your interest or feels easier to consume then there is plenty more to be found there. At least that guy's bot spamming 75% of the issues board has closed them all now (though the comments are still there in responses other issues) so it's a little cleaner.
N.b. for anyone seeing "root@main" in the above link - that's just an ephemeral rootless container instance on a dev VM host from a template named "main" I spun up to mess with CCC. I.e. "don't let the prompt imply I recommend using actual root on your actual main box to do much of anything, let alone run random projects from GitHub" :).
I think it's just because the image is used in the common navbax for the "Колонизация космоса" category many of those pages belong to (roughly "Space Colonization" according to some random translation tools).
Blame is easy to assign to parents but if you do mean real accountability it is seemingly impossible beyond the most basic things such as student attendance.
Even taking a non-cynical look at certain parents' level of interest/ability/care/etc, we go as far as taking students and teachers out of the rest of the workforce for the express purpose of being able to assign them accountability for education instead. There just aren't levers like that available on the parental side to try to trigger meaningful actions with, nor is there anything close to consensus on how those might be put into place to begin the debate on what parents should be made accountable for with them.
The best chance I've seen to increase the amount of involvement from parents in their child's education is to try to have enhanced their own childhood education well enough to see why it's so important they be actively involved.
I think we just have different understandings of accountability but, perhaps, the same end desires. I absolutely agree if it's meant to be about also measuring the impact of the parents.
To me, accountability requires an added component of being held answerable for said impact. E.g. "John was held accountable for the damage to the car" would mean John had to answer for the damage, not just "the damage John had was measured" or "John's actions were found to cause the damage". This answerability to the impact is the only part of accountability which I think we can't realistically do with parents as we are able to for students or educators.
I'm unsure manufacturer's press kits are to be taken as an honest source of information : the goal of the authors is to make people love a brand, buy a product... but not to educate, share objective information or strategic choices.
Very peculiarly, everyone seems to actually agree the handles are a little more aerodynamic. It's the possibility the manufacturer's teams (except marketing, apparently) could ever have also considered this as one of several benefits when choosing the design which is at such levels of doubt. Moreso, people are willing to dismiss it saying they'd want a certain type of source instead rather than just seeing whether that kind of source does also agree.
> Conventional door handle designs typically have less than desirable aerodynamics due to protrusion of the exterior door handle from the surface of the door and the recessed area over which it spans. As the vehicle moves, these conventional door handles interrupt the smooth surface of the door and thereby increase the overall drag of the vehicle. Depending on the size, depth, and overall shape of the recessed area, for example, the corresponding area under the door handle further contributes to reduced aerodynamics of the vehicle. Designers have not focused on improving aerodynamics in this area as the exterior door handle seems relatively small and inconsequential.
> 104 in the retracted position provides both a smooth appearance and advantageous aerodynamic qualities when the vehicle is in motion
I'm starting to wonder if an interview with David Wheeler (what a name for a car patent) et al would even be believed here at this point.
If you read this thread, no one has claimed flush handles aren't more aerodynamic. What was claimed is that the aerodynamic benefits are negligible and as a result, that's not actually a serious consideration in choosing them.
Even the aero study done by range rover doesn't claim they're a meaningful improvement. It claims the handles came from the product design vision first.
> Depending on the size, depth, and overall shape of the recessed area, for example, the corresponding area under the door handle further contributes to reduced aerodynamics of the vehicle. Designers have not focused on improving aerodynamics in this area as the exterior door handle seems relatively small and inconsequential.
Aerodynamics is complicated. You should measure the actual impact rather than guess. "just make it smooth" is a rule of thumb, not a law. If we're following rules of thumb, my copy of Theory and Applications of Aerodynamics for Ground Vehicles specifically says this on the subject:
The door handle does not need to be flush with the car body to be aerodynamically beneficial; it only needs to blend with the car body in the same way that the posts blend with the side glass.
This is after the section where it recommends flush, airplane style handles as optimal, because again the original claim is that the magnitude of the improvement is negligible.
> If you read this thread, no one has claimed flush handles aren't more aerodynamic. What was claimed is that the aerodynamic benefits are negligible and as a result, that's not actually a serious consideration in choosing them.
I'm not sure how this differs from when I had previously started "Very peculiarly, everyone seems to actually agree the handles are a little more aerodynamic. It's the possibility the manufacturer's teams (except marketing, apparently) could ever have also considered this as one of several benefits when choosing the design which is at such levels of doubt".
Regardless, I continue to find myself in complete agreement w.r.t. this.
> Even the aero study done by range rover doesn't claim they're a meaningful improvement. It claims the handles came from the product design vision first.
My argument remains flush handles in the automotive industry are about more than just one thing alone (more specifically, that drag is indeed also one of those things). Hence I find myself rather lost as to how lack of being the first reason for Range Rover should strike drag as having already been shown as one of their other listed reasons. As far as I can conceive, being about more than one thing alone inherently necessitates some of those reasons are not always to be given as a first reason. Similarly, I don't follow why only the first reason might be held as non-negligible.
> Aerodynamics is complicated. You should measure the actual impact rather than guess. "just make it smooth" is a rule of thumb, not a law.
Other engineers in the field are well aware aerodynamics is a fickle beast and they are not commonly guessing their vehicle aerodynamics by rule of thumb, as you already seem to be very familiar with based on mentioning the Range Rover aero study. Of course, I don't like to leave such a claim uncited or unsourced (regardless how familiar it seems to all already) so here is an SAE paper backing claims Tesla did indeed extensively test the aerodynamics of every external component (for the same vehicle the patent is referring to) rather than guess the impact of exterior elements by rule of thumb https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Palin/publicatio...:
"Aerodynamic optimization is a major contributor to the overall efficiency of an electric vehicle and the close integration of the Design and Engineering groups at Tesla Motors was specifically arranged to process design iterations quickly and enable the fully informed development of the exterior surfaces at a very rapid pace... Following aerodynamic optimization at the overall shape level, focus switched to optimization of production parts, and every external component of the Model S has been examined in great detail searching for aerodynamic performance, since
areas that may seem insignificant in isolation can rapidly accumulate to have a substantial impact on the whole."
> If we're following rules of thumb, my copy of Theory and Applications of Aerodynamics for Ground Vehicles specifically says this on the subject...
We're not just following rule of thumb, but everything in the comments prior still appears to align with this passage anyways. One indeed does not need to make the door handle optimally flush to make a design choice which is aerodynamically beneficial. Clearly, however, the additional possible efficiency is not completely negligible (or an ignored factor) in flush door handle design consideration by many manufacturers in order to make exclusive way for reasons other than drag. One does not even need to conclude this from any of the evidence, to repeat the relevant portion of the prior citation instead:
"Following aerodynamic optimization at the overall shape level, focus switched to optimization of production parts, and every external component of the Model S has been examined in great detail searching for aerodynamic performance, since areas that may seem insignificant in isolation can rapidly accumulate to have a substantial impact on the whole."
.
Again, I'm not trying to argue drag is the only reason (or even that it's the primary reason). Just that claims the additional drag is negligible or saying that flush handles aren't about drag does not redefine what the auto makers themselves say about drag being a reason.
They're not, but range rover actually published an aerodynamic study in SAE mobilus recently. They mention the door handles as part of the product design vision and offhandedly mention it's one of multiple changes that help ensure the flows coming off the front arches don't break up as they move down. They don't bother to single it out though, or even give numbers for the effect of the group (unlike more significant improvements).
They’re also selling a massive vehicle which was designed for macho aesthetics rather than performance. Bragging about minor aerodynamic tweaks is how they convince buyers that it’s okay to spend even more money to take the edge off of that fashion decision. It’s like the places which brag about their single use plastic using some recycled material because they don’t want to say it’d be even better if you bought something which could be reused many times instead.
Context: You can use this to make a fully up to date Windows 10/11 ISO but most seem to use it for making ISOs for the latest pre-release versions since Microsoft does not always publish ISOs for those (expecting you'll just upgrade to the latest post install).
Those two things probably cover 99% of the usage by volume.
This inevitably results in even the completely unrelated topics constantly becoming a reference to that conversation.
That has it's own wake of someone discussing how it's brought into every conversation by those that either love/hate - further making it suck even more air out of the room.
At this point the ink catches up with itself while folks such as folks like Danny Spencer occasionally deliver us the quick doomscrolling hit we were all really here for.
reply