Read-only, or the ability to edit filenames & upload files?

Read only: as per other answers here, basically any HTTP server. The easiest one I know would be darkhttpd, because it requires no config files and can be run without root.

Read write: I like WFM https://github.com/tenox7/wfm

+/-1 least significant digit at a minimum.

“I’m sorry frog, but you might actually weigh 0”. Little buddy noooo

Really, Penfold.

Every news website is covering it. I think I’ve spotted most of 10 articles around the place.

The law of well-marketed unreleased goods dictates that this vehicle is not going to meet any of the promises mentioned in the articles. I hope to be proven wrong, but just like video games: don’t pre-order, wait for it to come out and be reviewed.

That’s a CH340G, it has an in-built 3.3V regulator. But there is no external regulator on the board.

Maybe the chip is running off its internal 3.3V, but the board designers put a tie-up resistor on one of its pins to 5V, which results in the weird 3.9V. Dunno. Try attaching a 1K resistor between that pin a GND, see if that makes the problem disappear.

The 5.3V is from your computer, that’s not the fault of the USB UART.

3.2V is perfectly acceptable for a 3.3V rail.

The 3.9V is a bit weird. Can you post a photo of your USB UART board? Maybe the main chip has an inbuilt 3.3V regulator separate to the external one.

Changing virtual desktops works for me, no patches needed. I have to use it often because of how many games don’t understand multiple monitors.

Technically they have some differences, but the biggest from a user’s perspective is how they are delivered and by whom. Wine is manually installed by you from your distro’s package repo. Proton is provided by steam when you install a windows game on a Linux steam instance. If one breaks then you complain to the relevant party.

Triangle is an amplifier and rectangle is a black box (“don’t worry what’s in here, we promise it’s not gremlins”).

I suspect that the box might be a biasing array for driving the two output transistors, but then I would also expect two wires to come out of it (one for each transistor) rather than a single combined wire.

Broadcom’s datasheet for their version of the part seems to be more akin to what I’m thinking:

Could be either. You’d have to decap the chip to find out, the datasheet writers thought these details were not important.

I have no idea why two of the output pins are tied together. They’re not using many of the pins on this package so maybe they thought “why not”. I’ve also seen dual-optocouplers in this same 8 pin package where pins 6 & 7 are the outputs of the two separate couplers.

It’s a gorgeous game experience. Not to mention they put so many other gamedevs to shame with their technical accomplishments (especially in the expansion – flooding waves in a ringworld!).

Don’t look up spoilers. Get yourself a copy and play it. Find somewhere to land your spaceship :)

Atomic wafers made by the techo-church-state? Or have I got this back to front and this is how the non-technical society irradiates its children?

“Aint webassy we doms?”

Perhaps the software OP is using has a second layer of generation (with a different network) that focuses on details like eyes. It might not even know the input prompt (and if it does then it might not have the training background to reward keeping things pixelated).

File I’m printing: A4 PDF
Default printer setting in Windows: A4
Default setting on printer itself: A4
Setting that gets chosen automatically in the print dialog: Letter

year 2038 problem?

secretly hopes 2032 isn’t too bad of a year

Alternative:

Ctrl-z  
kill -9 %1   # Shell keeps track of job pids for you, job 1 is %1, job 2 is %2, etc
fg  # Not technically necessary, but it's fun to see the corpse

Projects that attempt to put things in the road tend to fail to be economical or practical. It’s almost always better putting the same (or less) investment into something equivalent that sits next to the road rather than inside it.

The key features of roads that make them so economically successful are:

1. They are very cheap per km to build
2. They are very cheap to maintain (they’re fully recyclable, they get remelted during resurfacing).

Installing anything in the road surface completely voids these two points.

Detailed problems:

• You will need a pickup device on the bottom of your car. To make it efficient you will need it as close to the road surface as possible.
• Roads are dirty and covered in debris. Your pickup device will get torn and worn.
• You will need a LOT of road installed with this, which makes it intrinsically much more expensive than roadside chargers. 10 mins of charging at a standstill requires one charger, 10 mins of charging at 40kmph is about 7km of underroad chargers. Intersections might do better, but they’re intermittent and provide unreliable charging opportunities. Even 1km (6kmph*10min) is silly expensive compared to a cluster of roadside chargers.
• The charging coils underneath the road will need to be as close to the road surface as possible (to make it efficient).
• Worn or buckled (from truck braking) road surfaces will require specialised work and extended road shutdowns to repair.
• You can’t ignore this costly maintenance: exposed electronics (even if isolated) will have inconsistent traction and may damage tires.
• Under-road assets such as communication wires (even just for traffic lights, let alone internet infrastructure), power cables (11kV and up), water, sewage, stormwater and gas will be much more expensive, slow and complicated to install and maintain. More and longer road shutdowns will result.

The fundamental, core problem of all of these “put solar panels in roads” or “put chargers in roads” projects is that they are romantically and narratively attractive. Roads are ugly wasted space, but if we could put them to better use then wouldn’t it be magic? Sadly this never works. Roads are ugly and wastes of space because nothing else works as well for transport infrastructure (other than railways).

How old?

Early 1900’s: Yes. Metal panels had the same problem, timber panels did not (their thickness stops them from flapping).

Late 1900’s: I don’t think anyone used flat? There were definitely designs intended to look flat (esp 80’s and early 90’s), but there were still subtle curves to those panels to bias them and stop them flapping, as far as I recall.

Happy to be proven wrong :)

Inspired by the ABC Article “North Korea was floundering under sanctions. Now it’s making billions from stolen cryptocurrency” I thought it would be nice to cast Santa and Kim Jong Un as friends. My biggest worry about this picture is that it portrays crypto in a positive light, that’s probably not as light hearted as I intended.

Bing Dall-E. Prompt: “Santa Claus has a manic smile as he helps the Supreme Leader of North Korea count their bitcoin.” Bing blacklists the words “Jim Jong Un” but this synonym seems to work.

Other manufacturers of all manner of stainless products seem to have figured out a solution to the problem.

Two design choices together probably make the problem multiplicatively worse:

1. Flat panels are not anywhere as stiff as curved panels.
2. Mechanical parameters of the stainless alloy they’re using (eg it might retain the coiled shape more than some other plain steel alloys).

I can’t get over the flatness… those panels surely rattle too? Or do they void-fill the doors and body with something?