+1 for Fastmail. Very fast, very reliable since I started using it in 2016. Absolutely the best webmail client I have used. UI not too unlike Gmail. The UI is fully keyboard-controllable for almost all tasks. Great search. Great calendar. Good amount of settings & security control for power users. Android app works well.
It pains me that I can’t customize the keyboard shortcuts on Fastmail web client, It made me not switch.
Their mobile app seemed fairly kludgey as well. Certain gestures didn’t really work the way that you would think because they implemented some custom way of handling it which just made the user experience worse.
I work as a researcher and I try to publish full source code for all my publications. On the point of increasing surface for nitpicking, I agree in principle that's a risk, but in practice I have not experienced any such problems in my field. I am in a field of applied natural science where most researchers write terrible code, if any, and so I suppose there are not much expectations or even concepts of coding style.
There is a nice Perspective piece in Science from 2011 [1] touching on the question of cleaning up the code. It suggests basically the same thing as several of the comments in this thread: if you don't have time or motivation to clean up the code, don't.
"even incremental steps would be a vast improvement over the current situation. To this end, I propose the following steps (in order of increasing impact and cost) that individuals and the scientific community can take. First, anyone doing any computing in their research should publish their code. It does not have to be clean or beautiful (13), it just needs to be available. Even without the corresponding data, code can be very informative and can be used to check for problems as well as quickly translate ideas. ... The next step would be to publish a cleaned-up version of the code along with the data sets in a durable non-proprietary format."
I mean, Flappy Bird was popular in late 2013/early 2014, nearly 7 years ago. If you’re a HN reader and currently aged 16 or 17 years old, you would’ve only been 9 or 10 years old at the height of its popularity. Somewhat reasonable to not know about it at that age, so it is entirely possible that some people on HN might not know about it at all.
If you’re willing to put in effort and storage, flashpoint is a good way to play flash games of yore. It’s a pretty large archive, but there are still one or two games from my childhood I haven’t been able to find (or name, what a distraction that feeling is).
Ha, well, thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. But I am 32 and hopeless when it comes to following popular culture. I was probably just focusing my attention on something else. I have a solid track record of not noticing stuff. So the nuance added to xkcd 1053 by this story is that the average value of ten thousand per day is just an average :)
(And another nuance is that I am not in the US and so also not part of the ten thousand per day average.)
Short motivation: I was thinking for a short moment to myself, "how hard could it be to support at least some limited reading and editing of .docx files?"
Now I know that I will probably never know: the "Part 1: Fundamentals and Markup Language Reference" is >5000 pages!
Some comments have already touched on this, but it is important to realize just how much electricity we are talking about. The tl;dr is that replacing US wheat production alone would use five times the current total US electricity consumption. And that's for wheat, occupying about 10% of US cropland.
See p. 12 of the Supporting Information and you'll find the following: 2026647 kg wheat grown using 798417 MWh electricity means an electricity consumption of 0.4 MWh/kg wheat. In the US, the annual wheat harvest is 150-200 kg/capita/yr, which in this hypothetical system would use more than 60 MWh electricity/capita/yr.
For comparison, the US annually uses around 13 MWh electricity/capita.
That is, this hypothetical wheat production in the US would use about five times the _total_ present day electricity use.
Soybeans and maize together occupy more than three times the wheat area in the US, so that (very roughly speaking) adds another annual electricity consumption of ~200 MWh/capita. With just these three major crops, the US would have to increase its total electricity consumption about 20-fold.
Wow, that is a nice little tool. Just installed it and tested on some random files in my current data analysis project.
By the way, I installed it using pipx https://github.com/pipxproject/pipx by running `pipx install visidata`. To also read HDF and Excel files, I added the necessary packages by running `pipx inject visidata h5py openpyxl`.
Thanks @rasmusei! If you are a data scientist you might also be interested in how to work along with Jupyter. Our community has some documentation on our Wiki about that here: https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/wiki/Jupyter
Yes, you seem to be missing the light supply. Plants need a lot of light to grow. In a multi-storey greenhouse, the incoming solar radiation per unit floor area is smaller than in a normal (one-storey) greenhouse. Thus the need for artificial lighting and associated costs, both for hardware and electric power.
Not sure that would work, since pdfs are usually marked or prepended with some metadata about download time and the library upon download. At least that's the case with my uni library.
I sort of understand the design decision in Outlook to make the search folders a separate (and flat?) tree. What behavior would you expect from operations like copy, search if you put a search folder inside another (physical) folder? Anyway, I'm sure there are sensible ways to do what you're asking for, but it opens up questions about what a "folder" is and should be. Very interesting.
Notification settings agreed! I always turned all of the notifications off when I had Outlook.
Portrait mode, OK. Many email clients do give some few options for various horizontal/vertical splits. Are the options in Outlook enough in that respect?
This ended up being quite wordy and I'm still not sure I explained my issue properly. I might need to do a visual mockup of my problem which boils down to "mental disconnect between the source of the data and where you view the data".
I want all Children Folder contents to be visible from a Parent Folder. Actions would still be done to the Child folder the email actually exists inside of - the Parent folder is for presentation purposes only. This is basically how a Search Folder works currently.
Currently if I open up a normal `Parent` folder I will see 0 emails. If I want to see any mail I need to visit a `Parent/Child` folder that the mail is filtered into. But what I really want, sometimes, is to see all of my `Parent/Child` emails in a single, flat view. Folders are great for organizing the past but are really bad for the "now".
To build off my earlier example (re: one distro = five problems) I want to keep these five problems filtered into their own folders for easier organization/finding when other people reference them. However, since I need to solve these problems as they are emailed in I want to watch a `Parent` folder. I can't do this because the `Parent` folder says it has no emails. I can only see email if I look at a `Parent/Child` folder, but now I can't see any email going to the other four `Parent/Child` folders. While watching the `Parent` folder I can see that `Parent/Child` has new unread emails - but now I'm forced to change my folder location panel to the Child folder in order to view and read this unread email. This is different from how a Search Folder works. In a Search Folder, I can continue to see all searched emails while browsing one in the reading panel.
I can see all of them at once by creating a 'Search' folder that searches each `Parent/Child` and displays the result of its search but why can't that Search Folder just be `Parent`? Why does it need to be `/Search Folders/Distro Trasks/`? If `/Parent/` was a search folder that could exist anywhere in the folder tree and works exactly like search folders currently work that'd be perfect.
The TL;DR of the entire problem is that `Parent` should just act like a Search Folder of it's Children instead of being completely useless. I don't want a flat structure - due to organizational/archiving purposes - but I do want a flat structure some of the time for handling email in the present time.
>Portrait mode, OK. Many email clients do give some few options for various horizontal/vertical splits. Are the options in Outlook enough in that respect?
Yes. Existing options that many clients use where the navigation panel and the reading panel are horizontally split instead of vertically split suffice.
> I want all Children Folder contents to be visible from a Parent Folder. Actions would still be done to the Child folder the email actually exists inside of - the Parent folder is for presentation purposes only. This is basically how a Search Folder works currently.
I seem to remember Thunderbird having saved searches that worked as folders, and they should work in this manner. Does Outlook have a way to save a search like that? It's not ideal, as you have to set it up and it isn't necessarily in the same spot as what it's searching to make it obvious what it is, but it might be better than nothing. If you can't set subfolder display order, creating a saved search of all the relevant subfolders as "0 - Combined View" as a subfolder itself that sorts to the top might get you most the way there.
