Slackware was my first linux distribution, and one that I used continuously before moving to Arch.
As it happens, I think Arch embodies many of the original Slackware principles, but its focus on more modern hardware led to it growing a larger community - one that includes great documentation.
The Arch Wiki is a treasure, I used it when setting up Slackware on a MacBook Pro because it had the most comprehensive description of the caveats and gotchas for the laptop of anywhere on the WWW.
If you are happy with Arch, keep using Arch. My persnickety criteria shouldn't affect others' distro choice. But Arch's maintainers left simplicity on the table a long time ago, with a few annoying symptoms, notably:
1) Arch changes shit in massive ways resulting in huge flag days. Once every few years may be tolerable, but they tended to happen alarmingly often, requiring me to check the wiki and manually recombobulate the system. Arch's policy is pretty much update every day, and unless you hit a very narrow window to update, or even if you do, check the wiki every day and be prepared to manually recombobulate per our instructions. I'm old and cranky and my daily driver distro shouldn't need that much care. Void is designed how Arch used to be, which means I may not need to recombobulate at all, sometimes with a year or two between updates, and if I do it's much easier to do under Void.
2) Systemd. Frickin' systemd. Void is the first distro to switch from systemd to something else (runit).
I hear good things about Void, but last time I tried to install it, the mirror I was pulling from had the download time estimate at a couple of days, and I didn't have time to muck about that day.
Might be time to try it again - or a different mirror
That drama has ended, he was demoted from dictator. Now things are chugging along with multiple contributors like most other projects.
For me Void seems like a very good distro, I think of it as a naked kernel with runnit init and xbps as the package manager, nothing gets in the way. It also has the nice property where the git repo is the distro in every sense.
While the problem wasn’t unique, the hostile takeover of the project was. The honorable and legal course of action would be to fork.
The owner had built the distro single-handed over ten years, and GitHub and Freenode helped to eject him from his own project, over his eventual strenuous objections.
Even that link doesn’t give a balanced story. You have to track down the founder’s posts to hear his side and to understand why he had stopped contributing for awhile.
TLDR; If you're looking to reduce the risk of contamination, consider purchasing whole chickens or, at least, skin-on, bone-in, cuts.
This is because the risk is substantially higher if you purchase skinless or deboned chicken - most contamination is on the surface of the chicken, and is easily killed during cooking.
However, during processing, the tooling used to debone or deskin the chicken may get contaminated, and necessarily pierces the flesh of the meat. This tooling isn't usually disinfected between chickens (cost prohibitive). As a result, if one of the birds has surface contamination, this contamination will remain on the outside of the instrument, grow, and subsequently infect the inside of all the other birds.
This is important, because direct heat is actually pretty good at killing bacteria. However, if the bacteria are able to penetrate to the inside of the chicken, there's a substantially greater likelihood that the temperature (and duration) on the inside of the chicken are insufficient to kill disease causing bacteria.
Note: The overall idea is to recognize that surface bacterial contamination can be killed with sufficient temperature over a sufficient duration of time, recognizing that the lowest overall temperature will be in the thickest part of the meat, and ensuring that there isn't a mechanical mechanism that will introduce contamination in that area.
We use kicad for the design of a 28 layer PCB that includes a number of high speed (>10Gbps) impedance controlled lanes, including 25Gbps signal lines, and implementing three DDR4 banks, with a varying number of discrete chips, and breaking out from a large pin BGA, using a number of HDI features (blind/buried vias, etc).
We've been closely tracking the releases, and, at this point, our layout tech prefers using Kicad over another (proprietary) tool for the majority of layouts - so much so that's she's pushing for us to port all our designs to it.
Curious how long did that take and what iteration made it to production? What CAD was used for prior designs? Can you give an example of a "minority layout" that your tech deemed unfavorable?
I really want to believe KiCAD is there...but when billable labor rates are $150+/hr, and a single iteration of that complexity can easily burn US$10k+/ea in one-off prototype quantities + 4-6 month slip for manufacturing, assembly, reintegration, and verification testing, all of a sudden (free == cost-effective ?) becomes a very real risk consideration...never mind that I've yet to engage a customer that was willing to subsidize my development budget based on technical decision to assume a tool risk because it makes the cost of doing business marginally cheaper for me.
One shouldn't lay all of those costs on a tool just because a design needs an iteration to be correct. That happens even with expensive tools. The only question is weather there are any hindrances to doing the design as best as the humans know how.
That is stack up dependant - we work the board house on that, depending on geometery and material. Once they give us a ballpark, we will adjust our widths and clearances to something reasonable, recognizing that fab will adjust the traces and arcs to whatever spec we subsequently need.
I don't entirely understand this; could you provide a concrete example, or actual trades, that could be involved in such a position? (I'm just curious how it would actually look like in practice.)
CME: short $1m BTC futures (which are dollar settled and thus BTC/USD)
On Binance you are long BTC, and short USDT. On CME you are short BTC and long USD (implicitly on the fiat legs).
So if we add that up, the BTC positions net off and you’re just left with short USDT and long USD which is the desired outcome.
In practice, if Tether implodes I would expect everyone to sell Tether (by buying crypto with it) and then due to panic, to send that crypto to exchanges with fiat off ramps where they will then sell it. So the price of BTC on Binance goes to the moon, and the price on CME collapses. You will likely lose whatever money you had on Binance (your profit is denominated in worthless USDT and Binance is probably bankrupt at this point) however you should make multiples of that with your CME short.
This is all of course not investment advice and extremely hypothetical.
I'm not quite sure I follow - in the event that Tether implodes, if you expect the long $1m BTC/USDT exposure to be worthless (assuming you lose the money you had on Binance, and Binance goes under), and your short BTC/USD exposure to make money (since it's a short position, you can only make 100% gain at maximum), doesn't that net out to zero PnL (-$1m loss in long BTC/USDT, and +1m gain in short BTC/USD)?
The difficult part seems to be getting someone lending you $1m in USDT, isn't it? From their POV, you're getting exposed to BTC volatility, and the collateral is likely to be too high to make this practical.
Basically, how do you buy $1m worth of BTC/USDT perps without depositing $1m of USD into Binance? Let's say if we put in $100k USD with a 1:10 leverage, it means the position on Binance is wiped out if BTC drops by more than 10%. So the only way for this to work is to deposit $1mil of USD into Binance and opening the position. But this means we lost a whole $1m when Binance implodes, cancelling our gain in the short position.
Otherwise, we need to borrow $1mil of USDT to open the Binance BTC/USDT position.
On May 19th, Binance froze up and prevented people from adding margin. Lawsuit about it now. The claims are that Binance was insolvent and redid the trades to stabilize themselves. See Frances Kim for info or an FT article about the lawsuit.
Whatever the reason, no guarantee you can deposit collateral.
I completely agree - the IKEA dill mustard is quite delicious: the flavour is remarkably well balanced, and the mustard itself is creamy but still has a bit of bite to it.
My overall favourite mustard is Löwensenf extra sharf (extra hot) mustard. It's the one in the red bottle, and it's a good hot mustard - I find it's really hard to get a good hot mustard in North America, so that's my go to.
I did not find it outside of Hungary, yet, but there they have a mustard mixed with horseradish[1].
Since this type of mustard is unknown where I live, I tried to recreate it, but never achieved the same balance as in the commercial product, which is sad, because, in my opinion, it's a match made in heaven! It may be, that they use a milder mustard, than average, to balance out the hotness of the horseradish.
Thanks! We plan to launch new artists every 3 months. If there is a huge demand, I think I would like to increase the rotation so that there are more frequent runs.
They aren't perfectly usable if they've been used. Semiconductors are kind of like toothpaste - if they've been used, you don't really want to buy them.
This is largely because the cost of any individual component is so much less than the cost of a finished assembly, or the cost of a defective assembly. Inserting used components into your manufacturing process (unless they're very high value or rare parts), is asking for trouble.
These components need to be stored properly to be effectively assembled, and you'd never be sure of why the used one were thrown out. Especially as many types of damage or degradation would either require very substantial and specific testing rigs, or else be challenging to identify in the first place.
Putting them inside a vehicle isn't a viable option from an safety or economic perspective.
My understanding is that most of the cost of analog chips is the time in the testing machines to characterize and bin them. I assume the same is still somewhat true for CPUs, etc.
If you were somehow to acquire old CPUs that were up to the task in old modules, you'd have to remove them, clean up the leads or solder bumps, and then test/bin them before you could trust them enough to send to manufacture.
Which, do you know how much way more advanced science go on inside of those chips in order to create them? The issues you mention are a logistical nightmare, and due to the costs involved it currently isn't lucrative to reclaim them from built devices. Let's say that someone was willing to pay $1,000 for one entirely boring, through-hole 74-series logic chip. Would that change the calculus on it being "too hard" to put them back in the supply chain? Junk VCRs in the garage would suddenly be potentially worth a several thousand dollars each! At a thousand dollars per chip, it would be worth my time,
personally, to do the testing and clean up, and for someone at the other end to verify I've actually done that, and that the chips are functional.
That astronomical price is obvious fantasy, but it's not too difficult as a task, it's that capitalism can't and won't care about the environment until after it's too late (which, it might already be).
What I actually learned is that if something is right, it’s right. Context makes a slight difference but fundamental principles hold true. There are laws of nature.
The article isn't suggesting militarizing start ups - it's providing some context on which elements of the military officer selection process are transferable to the start up co-founder selection process.
As this seems to be something that's given quite a bit of thought, do you have an idea on what the maximum diameter hole through the fuselage to safely maintain sufficient cabin pressure during cruise flight at, say, PL390? More specifically, what's the maximum rate of pressurization that the cabin pressurization system is designed to support?
I have no idea, as I didn't work with the tin benders (structures guys).
But I do know that there can be a hole the size of a quarter and nobody will notice a pressure drop. You're not going to knock an airliner down by punching holes in the fuselage, either (some people think a bullet hole will cause it to pop like a balloon, nothing of the sort will happen).
The concerns raised in this article do not speak to the efficacy of candidate vaccines using Ad5 vectors. Rather, they discuss the potential impact Antibody-dependent enhancement might have on at risk groups, and, as a consequence, for the design of clinical trials using those vectors.
As it happens, I think Arch embodies many of the original Slackware principles, but its focus on more modern hardware led to it growing a larger community - one that includes great documentation.