I setup coder self-hosted on a hetzner server, and it was great (and cheap). pair that with a vpn and pihole (same server), and you have a great home-base machine to do all your heavy lifting on.
It was especially cool connecting my ipad and having the ability to work (although somewhat impractical without a separate keyboard).
I would connect to the server as my VPN host, so all my traffic was routed through it. With it running the Pi-Hole ad blocking, I had much faster general web performance.
That had nothing to do with CodeServer except that it was all running on the same box. So access to my code server was limited only to VPN clients, making it more secure; and I only had to connect to one place with my tablet and laptop.
Of course, any services on the server which would make remote requests would also get filtered through the Pi-Hole, so they too might be sped up a bit as any ad gabage would be stripped away.
Y'all are starting to make me more sympathetic to Apple. Their biggest misstep was making these announcements simultaneously without foreseeing how many people would (willingly or otherwise) conflate them.
This is not true. There were multiple features announced. iMessage data is not being scanned by most phones. The ONLY CSAM detection that happens is on photos being uploaded to iCloud Photos.
The only phones where iMessage photo scanning happens are those for children under a certain age (maybe 13?) whose parents who have opted into child protection where the phone scans for nude photos and notifies the parents.
People are conflating these two _different_ but _related_ features and their goals and limits.
At 12km/h it requires 5.59KW of sun energy to fall on the car (in total, not per sq meter as in original comment).
Actual figure given on website is 5m2 of panels on car. Assume 1Kw per m2 of sun power (near equator, no cloud, midday) @ 22% conversion efficiency gives 1.1kw electrical output from panels.
So one needs 5.59KW sun power input for 1.1kw output.
i am analyzing charging rates. they cite charge rate in km/h for an outlet providing 1.3KW and they cite a charge rate for solar, from which we can work out the power they expect to get from solar
I see, but that does not answer my question though. How is my math wrong? the expected range from solar in 1 hour equates to 996 Wh. You suggest they need 5.6kW of solar to achieve this?
No, you must not. The energy required for the car to drive 12kms is 996 Wh. let's round to 1kWh.
Solar is DC. for instance Tesla powerwall is 97% efficiency for DC/DC conversion for charging its battery. So you need basically 1kW of solar to produce the needed energy to drive 12km (per hour). I think you are off by at least a factor of 3.
edit: at 20% solar efficiency that would require 5m^2.
No, my claim is that their solar claim is not ridiculous ;)
Also, if I do the math on their AC charging. 35km/h gained --> 2905Wh energy. Standard 230AC, 16 amps is 3680W. So I guess the number there is also correct? Take about 85% efficiency, then you have 3000Wh in one hour from 230V AC
I hear some models they have a nice little door but some models involve a lot more frankensteining. At least on macbook's its been impossible for a while.
I suppose so. I don't know much about eGPUs. I see the cheapest one available on the Apple store is $700 which includes a Radeon Pro 580 (appears to be the same card offered on the top of line iMac from today?). With SSDs on the Mini being as expensive as they are ($800 to upgrade to 1TB), I'd probably want an external HD as well, so minimum 3 boxes on my desk and more chords to deal with.
It would meet my needs and I might reluctantly get one.
The 27" iMac used to have upgradable RAM, but the text for the new version says "configurable to 64 GB", not "upgradable" like it used to. I'd love to be proven wrong, though, I'm considering getting an iMac.
Unless something changed with today's update, it should be upgradeable via a hatch on the back of the machine. I upgraded my 2018 model to 40GB less than a year ago.
Could you go more into detail how these story points would work. It seems like in the end a story point would always be associated with a number of days (or hours).
I measure effort, complexity, risk, and dependencies all with one number. If you don't
Things that affect story point values for me. Note that some are more about quantifying "risk" than "how long will it take?".
- how "big" is the change?
- how many parts will be changed?
- are the exit criteria vague or open to interpretation?
- is the change easy to test?
- do we have sample inputs and outputs?
- will we have to design for a tricky deployment?
- will we have to design for a tricky rollback?
- will it be hard to peer review?
- if this feature is impossible or more expensive than we thought, will we know early or late?
- is any of the code being changed extra finicky?
- do I need lots of help? code from other teams? approvals? new software installed? new hardware?
- can I iterate on this code? or does it really need to be perfect the first time?
- will we have developer 'concurrency' or 'parallelism' issues? can anyone chip in and help whenever? or is one distracted expert the only one that can do this?
...for me it's an intuitive guess at a number that flattens all that into something we can use to prioritize work and decide that work needs to be broken down more. What exactly is on that list will vary, certainly, but I would put on anything that could cause bugs, make you wait, or make you underestimate a task.
