If not code or documentation contributions, then well-written bug reports. Seriously, the quality of bug reports sometimes leaves a lot to be desired. And I don’t necessarily mean a full back-trace attached – and please, if you ever send a back-trace, copy-and-paste the text, never a screenshot – but just details like: system details, OS, version, step-by-step instructions to reproduce that a non-coder could also understand, plus what you expected to happen versus what actually happened.

This stuff (usually) comes naturally to programmers and engineers, but users don’t necessarily see things this way. I sometimes think bug reports need to adopt a “so tell me what happened?” approach, where reporters are encouraged to describe free-form what they think of the software, then providing the specific details that developers need. That at least would collect all the relevant details, plus extra details that no developers thought to ask.

Even just having folks that help gather and distill details from user reporters on a forum is easing a burden off of developers, and that effort should be welcomed by any competently-organized project. Many projects already have a template for reports, although it often gets mistaken for boilerplate. Helping reports recognize that they need to fill in all the details is a useful activity that isn’t code or docs.

Title: A cutting board emerges

I’ve got my work cut out for me

OP has puns. I’m not complaining lol.

The perspective is entirely accidental lol. I just wanted to photograph it from the sides which have the fewest blemishes. I do see now why it might look like it’s 2 meters tall.

In future, I’ll add a banana for scale haha

If there were changes in 2020 to 2024 inclusive, then yes, I’d write it as 2020-2024. But if not inclusive, then I’d write 2021-2023.

I’m not any type of lawyer, especially not a copyright lawyer, though I’ve been informed that the point of having the copyright date is to mark when the work (book, website, photo, etc) was produced and when last edited. Both aspects are important, since the original date is when the copyright clock starts counting, and having it further in the past is useful to prove infringement that occurs later.

Likewise, each update to the work imbues a new copyright on just the updated parts, which starts its own clock, and is again useful to prosecute infringement.

As a result, updating the copyright date is not an exercise of writing today’s year. But rather, it’s adding years to a list, compressing as needed, but never removing any years. For example, if a work was created in 2012 and updated in 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2022, the copyright date could look like:

© 2012, 2013, 2015-2017, 2022

To be clear, I’m not terribly concerned with whether large, institutional copyright holders are able to effectively litigate their IP holdings. Rather, this is advice for small producers of works, like freelancers or folks hosting their own blog. In the age of AI, copyright abuse against small players is now rampant, and a copyright date that is always the current year is ammunition for an AI company’s lawyer to argue that they didn’t plagiarize your work, because your work has a date that came after when they trained their models.

Not that the copyright date is wholly dispositive, but it makes clear from the get-go when a work came unto copyright protection.

AI-managed assist levels to preserve battery life

At some point – and that point may already have passed – the term “AI” will have multiple generally-recognized definitions, the one relevant here being “synonym for computer”. Any semblance of AI being the precursor to general computer intelligence is now, at best, fleeting, swallowed whole by jargon and puffery.

To suggest that AI is aiding with the very specialized yet not world-impacting concept of battery management is either: 1) the peak of marketing nonsense, or 2) a staggering waste of what would be world-changing technology, if AI is the panacea it’s been claimed to be. I’m leaning towards the former.

In that sense, I’m surprised they called the other feature as “auto shifting” and not “AI assisted gear changes”. I can’t wait for my AI-boosted bicycle wheels. /s

Torque sensor and Class 3 speeds (45 kph, 28 mph)? I like that.

Hub-drive motor? Ok, sure

OTA firmware updates??? What on earth would that be for? This ain’t an automobile.

It would be amazing if PCIe lanes becomes the predominant limiting factor, rather than drive cost, for building large storage arrays. What a world it would be, when even Epyc and its lanes-for-days proves to be insufficient for large Chia miners err Plex servers uh, Linux ISO mirrors.

I’m not a physicist. But I did live in an apartment at university, and shortness of funds plus hot weather meant experimenting with various box fan configurations.

What I found most optimal was to open two windows on opposite sides of the dwelling, with the one box fan aimed outward, using cardboard to block the openings around the fan. In my case, the choice of egress (ie air flowing out) window was based on: the window which best fit the box fan’s shape, proximity of noise to the bedroom, and the quality of the window screen.

As for why the fan points outward, this sends the heat of the motor (60-100 W) out of the dwelling, rather than drawing it in. Also, if facing inward, the high airflow at the tips of the fan blades would tend to draw small flies into the dwelling. But if the fan is at the egress window, then the ingress airflow will average out over the full surface area of the ingress window, producing a lower peak airflow rate, akin to a gentle breeze.

If you have a multi-floor unit or house, it would be optimal to place the fan at the highest egress window, to take advantage of heat naturally rising. Opening multiple ingress windows will quickly cool those rooms, while also reducing the peak ingress airflow and resulting drafts (eg blowing papers off tables). Of course, it’s necessary to open all the doors to form a path between the ingress and egress windows.

This isn’t quite an ELI5, but ARRL has a 2004 article on FM fundamentals; it’s five pages intended for a beginner ham radio operator, but applicable to all FM applications nevertheless. It also discusses four different ways to receive FM.

But to answer your question directly:

The frequency of the FM signal at any instant in time is called the instantaneous frequency. The variations back and forth around the carrier frequency are known as deviation

FM can also be detected by a PLL. As shown in Figure 6, the PLL’s natural function of tracking a changing input frequency can be employed to generate a voltage that varies as the input frequency change

In a nutshell, FM only ever has one instantaneous frequency at a time, which dances around the nominal center frequency (aka carrier). So the receiver has to detect the instantaneous frequency, relative to the carrier.

To actually recover the original signal, the receiver must also account for the modulation index used by the transmitter, which describes how much the output will deviate for a given input frequency. The modulation index is usually standardized for the application, such as FM broadcasting, amateur radio FM, walkie talkie FM, etc.

Because a larger modulation index means the same input signal will result in wider deviations, more RF bandwidth is used, spreading the signal wider and generally improving noise immunity.

The original reporting by 404media is excellent in that it covers the background context, links to the actual PDF of the lawsuit, and reaches out to an outside expert to verify information presented in the lawsuit and learned from their research. It’s a worthwhile read, although it’s behind a paywall; archive.ph may be effective though.

For folks that just want to see the lawsuit and its probably-dodgy claims, the most recent First Amended Complaint is available through RECAP here, along with most of the other legal documents in the case. As for how RECAP can store copies of these documents, see this FAQ and consider donating to their cause.

Basically, AXS complains about nine things, generally around: copyright infringement, DMCA violations (ie hacking/reverse engineering), trademark counterfeiting and infringement, various unfair competition statutes, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract (re: terms of service).

I find the civil conspiracy claim to be a bit weird, since it would require proof that the various other ticket websites actually made contact with each other and agreed to do the other eight things that AXS is complaining about. Why would those other websites – who are mutual competitors – do that? Of course, this is just the complaint, so it’s whatever AXS wants to claim under “information and belief”, aka it’s what they think happened, not necessarily with proof yet.

Headlines in the form of “X can/will make Y a thing of the past” are bizarre to me. With the rare exception of direct technological replacements – eg “Fax will make Telex a thing of the past” – it’s just a lay opinion wrapped in the clothing of news.

No doubt that’s indeed an elegant bike trailer in the preview photo, but why add conflict with bikepacking? Why not appreciate that both have their place in this world? The pursuit of one does not take away from the other. It’s not even in tension anyway: this is arguably just a form of larger bikepacking.

The quality of editors writing headlines these days, it leaves much to be desired.

In Australia, you currently need a recreational helicopter pilot’s license to fly this machine – but US owners might not. “It is possible to fly the Pegasus without a pilot’s license,” reads the company website, “if you have successfully completed the FAA private Pilot written examination and have also completed the company-mandated vehicle familiarisation and operator training programs.”

Although somewhat tangential to this community’s intent, I decided to verify this claim, since licensing and registration of an air-and-land machine is likely to be a top question.

Regarding United States aviation, everything revolves around certificates. For individuals, a certificate is a license to pilot or operate particular types of aircraft. For machines, a certificate is the authorization of airworthiness for a particular type of aircraft, allowing it to be used in US airspace. Setting aside the road registration quandary – which is regulated on a state-by-state level – I will focus only on the aviation aspects, since those are controlled mostly by federal law.

For pilot licensing, there are a fair number of those, ranging from the Student Certificate to get into the air under instruction, to the traditional Private Pilot Certificate/License (PPL) for flying solo or cross country, to the Air Transport Certificate to fly paying customers commercially.

Given the description from the company, I would guess that they meant the Light Sport Certificate, which is an abbreviated pilot license to fly smaller aircraft with up to one passenger and weighing less than 1320 pounds (600 kg). This certificate does not require the thorough medical exam of a PPL, if the holder also has a US Driving License. This might sound a bit weird, since why would driving an automobile be indicative of sufficient health to not crash an airplane, but it’s a balancing act given the restrictive set of aircraft types that can be flown with a Light Sport certificate.

So the company’s statement is vaguely, mostly correct, if they meant that the strict requirements of a PPL can be avoided, by instead applying for a Light Sport certificate. Although this still requires 20 hours of flight training beforehand.

As for certificating the aircraft itself, this is fairly straightforward, since the manufacturer just needs to declare that they meet all the requirements in 14 CFR § 1.1. The FAA would then grant the type certificate, allowing this aircraft into the national airspace. The owner would then need to register the aircraft by presenting the type certificate, and then receive a tail number (aka N registration) to attach to the aircraft.

So if a person is in possession of a valid Sport Light certificate, an N registration with the FAA, and this helicopter/go-kart, they should be good to take off, right? Well, mostly, but with a substantial number of caveats.

Firstly, certificated aircraft – even for the Light Sport or Experimental categories – is still strict, and any modifications to the airplane that deviates from the regulations can invalidate the type certificate. Even just basic maintenance must be performed by a certificated mechanic, as well as the mandatory annual inspection. While one could obtain that additional certificate to maintain one’s own Light Sport aircraft, the inspection must take place at a certificated inspection location, which is probably somewhere else.

And then there are the operational limitations. This is less of a problem with the machine itself, since the limits in 14 CFR § 1.1 simply won’t impose a restriction. Rotorcraft don’t usually fly high enough that they need pressurization, and this machine only comes in a one- and two-seat variant. The real issue is the pilot’s license limitations.

With only the Light Sport pilot license, it is Visual Flight Rules (VFR) only. So no flying at night, through or over the clouds, nor into inclement weather where visibility is below 3 miles (5 km). And only Class E and G airspace are permitted, unless having obtained additional endorsements to operate near airports and to communicate using the radio.

This page describes US airspace circa 1997 for ultralights (a category of very light flying machines that the FAA doesn’t even require type certification for), but it does underscore the complexity in determining what airspace is of which class. Ultralights and LSA do tend to use the same airspace, though.

Perhaps you could argue this go-kart/helicopter is only meant for flying close to the surface, so the roughly 700 ft upper bound for Class G airspace would be perfectly sufficient. Maybe. But most urban areas have an airport within 10-15 miles (16-25 km), which may displace the Class G airspace to a 0 ft upper bound, meaning the Class G space is non-existent. That really cuts against using this as an urban commuter.

But maybe it’s meant for rural/suburban commuters who don’t necessarily go into the urban core but travel around it. But now we’ve reduced this machine to a one-trick pony.

Do I think this is an intriguing machine? Yes, absolutely; I wouldn’t have hashed out this long comment if it weren’t at least some food for thought. But do I think this is the future for the masses? Definitely not.

The process to get this legally flying is sufficiently involved that it will never see mass appeal. And I will not even entertain the notion that flying regulations should be relaxed to accommodate this novelty, since we already have an example where lax licensing of heavy machines and grossly insufficient operator training causes thousands of deaths per year needlessly: automobiles.

Most people riding bicycles already deploy their retractable landing gear when preparing to touch down: they’re called legs.

And while maybe there’s an argument to be made that a properly-adjusted bicycle might not allow both feet to touch the ground while still seated, this contraption has some serious limitations. The most egregious is that landing gear – like on aircraft – are only effective when fully extended. But whereas all runways are laterally level, bicycling surfaces offer no such guarantee.

Imagine riding this cargo bicycle on a curve which has a cant (aka superelevation, or banking, or cross slope), then slowing down for a pedestrian or even stopping. A two-wheel bicycle naturally finds the lean angle to balance the centripetal force against the gravitational force, irrespective of the relative angle to the ground surface. But fully-extending landing gear forces the bicycle to be perpendicular to the ground surface, against the mandatory lean angle to balance the forces. And there doesn’t seem to be a provision for partially extending one side of the landing gears to account for the cross slope. If the perpendicular arrangement puts the center of gravity beyond the stubby extended wheels, the bike will fall over.

Tricycles will also force the same perpendicular alignment, but: 1) does so at all times, on straightaways and curves, so this isn’t a surprise to the rider, and 2) tricycle wheels are set wider than these stubby “landing gear” wheels, which is important if the cargo load is substantial (or heavy or too high) and could topple the bicycle when stopping on a curve.

This contraption is akin to bicycle training wheels: too narrow to provide actual safety benefits, while also being outright detrimental towards developing the motor skill necessary to pilot a cargo two-wheeler with its unique qualities.

Sources: Aviation Stack Exchange

If a citation is going to point to any of the Stack Exchange Q&A pages, it is extremely important to specifically cite the exact post or answer, since – not dissimilar to Wikipedia – the quality, consistency, and biases of Stack Exchange answers is paramount for evaluating the information presented, especially factual data to be fed into an infographic.

I personally am intrigued at these $800 economy, ten-hour flights, as well as a total omission of freight cargo in the underbelly. As presented, this flight has 180 passengers and runs for ten hours. This would suggest it’s not a common narrow-body, either the Boeing 737 or an Airbus A320, as even their largest available configurations can’t fit 180 people in a 2 class setup, let alone a 3 class setup. It could possibly be the Airbus A321, though.

My point is that if it’s a widebody aircraft or the A321, not hauling cargo would be some staggering malfeasance for a commercial revenue airliner. But I can’t follow-up on any of these queries, since the sources aren’t properly cited.

Absolutely, it is essential to always run the numbers. I was once offered a sizable rebate if I accepted a non-0% car loan, but no rebate if I paid cash or had my own financing. Since their loan had no early-repayment penalty – and I demanded this in writing – I accepted their loan and paid it off upon the first statement.

My suspicion is that that sort of offer was to boost the commissions earned by the loan brokers, rather than to move cars. Or maybe both. Who knows.

0% interest offers show up fairly frequently in the USA, often as general-purpose credit cards, or for car or furniture payments, in addition to the many buy-now-pay-later services that allow financing almost anything. However, the motives for offering 0% are slightly different for each of these products.

But answering the question directly, a 0% offer is beneficial if you were already going to make the purchase and would finance it. Cheap credit makes it easy to overspend, since the payments will be “tomorrow’s problem”. For people who can afford to pay for something in full, it might still be beneficial to finance with 0% just to conserve cash on hand. But the tradeoff is having to service the debt with regular payments; missing one payment can cause the debt to resume at an exorbitant rate. It takes a decent amount of financial discipline to make a 0% offer work in your favor.

Going back to why 0% offers even exist, I’ll use furniture and cars as they’re the historic examples. Furniture is expensive, whether it’s a sectional sofa or a queen-size bed with frame and storage. There’s also a sizable markup for furniture, and competition between furniture stores is strong. Thus, to help entice people to buy furniture, sellers will offer 0%, outsourced to a loan company, with the loan subsidized by some of the profit margins.

For cars, the equation is slightly different. Sure, cars are an order of magnitude more expensive, but that also means the opportunity cost for dealers to offer 0% is correspondingly larger. Instead, 0% financing for cars is almost always subsidized by the manufacturer, not the dealers. This is a financial and business strategy that allows a car company to create more sales in a given quarter, if perhaps they need to meet certain year-end targets but are reluctant to reduce their list prices.

0% car loans induce more sales fairly quickly, but will draw on the company coffers in the years to come, because the loan company still wants their cut to be paid by someone. Consumers will usually benefit from these offers, as it’s rare for people to buy a new car outright.

It’s my opinion that if a car company has to subsidize loans to move their product, that’s a tacit admission that their product is wrongly priced or the competition is better. I would take this into consideration, although it wouldn’t necessarily carry the day when considering a purchase. After all, car payment interest is not insignificant.

A quick “rule” is to see how old the word/concept is. “plaintiff” would have existed almost as long as the English legal system came into being, or probably even older to the court of Assizes pre-12th century.

Whereas firefighter as a profession might have only become a word after the establishment of fire departments by insurance companies, which I think might have been a 19th century development.

This entire series by Cathode Ray Dude is a wonderful dive into the world of PC boot sequence, for the folks interested in a touch of embedded architecture. His delivery is also on-point, given the complexity and obscurity of the topics.

From this video alone (41:15):

The way this worked was: they installed Xen hypervisor on your PC, put Hyperspace in a VM and Windows in another. Now, you either know what a VM is – and I don’t need to explain why this is terrifying – or you don’t and I need to make you understand so you never independently invent this.

And (43:59):

This is just a bad idea, ok? Virtualization belongs in data centers. Putting some poor bastard’s whole OS in a VM is a prank. It’s some Truman Show shit. It’s disassembling the coach’s car and putting it back together inside the gym. It’s not remotely worth the trouble and it probably didn’t work.

My prior comment on hydrogen mobility:

Hydrogen for mass- or space-constrained mobility (eg bikes, automobile, aircraft) faces all the known problems with storing it inside inconvenient shapes and contending with the losses from liquification. Real Engineering has a video on this aspect (Nebula and YouTube) when compared to simply using battery-electric storage.

With that out of the way, I’m skeptical as to the benefits touted on the HydroRide website. Specifically, the one about storage:

Hydrogen storage offers extended longevity, surpassing 10 years, ensuring reliability and sustainability over time.

This might be true in static conditions, but hydrogen automobiles have to vent some of the hydrogen while parked, simply to deal with the buildup of hydrogen gas, since even with excellent insulation, the liquid hydrogen will eventually get warm and evaporate into gaseous hydrogen, building up pressure. The fact is that automobiles must withstand broad environmental factors, especially temperature. And we expect bicycles to do the same: how the hydrogen tank would behave in warm climates is unclear.

There’s also not that much hydrogen in the tank. The website appears to indicate 20 grams. At 33.6 kWh/kg, the total energy in the tank would be 672 Wh, putting it at par with electric bikes of similar range and speed. Any hydrogen losses would be balanced against battery capacity loss over time.

Overall, as the article states, the target audience of rental operators might still be inclined to go with battery electric bikes rather than hydrogen. Requiring a supply of pure water in addition to electricity at charging locations – compared to just electricity for battery charging – is an extra logistical consideration. The “charge” time of 5 hours for 20 grams of hydrogen is also a potential issue.