I used to have a very common name (before getting married and took my wife's last name). Imagine that I have firstname.lastname@gmail and somebody was genius to take firstname.lastnam@gmail.
I felt this was so stupid, that i quickly lost any willingness to try to relay the emails to their original owner, as the other person had zero interest to change their address to be harder to mistype.
Apparently; I wasn't aware. But unlike Zig this doesn't work with FFI ... everything has to be Go code ... cross compilation works by compiling the library code for the target and caching it ... but if you need anything outside of that you're out of luck ... or maybe not ... I ran across this tidbit:
"When a Go project utilizes CGo to interact with C code, standard Go cross-compilation might require additional steps. This is because Go can cross-compile Go code but not C code directly, necessitating the availability of target system libraries on the development machine. Tools like Zig can be used as a C compiler (zcc) to facilitate cross-compilation for CGo-dependent projects by providing the necessary cross-compilation capabilities for the C code."
I'm curious to understand the need to have names for such many different colors and I'd love to hear your take! A naive reasoning would say that names are useful if at least two different persons know the meaning for a name and thus it will help communication.
Now I'm not sure how many colors are there in that list, but it feels like there are too many to be practically useful. How do you see this?
I build a lot of tools that generate colorpalettes and I wanted a wide range of nice-sounding names that feel evocative of the colors they represent. I see it as an API between a program and a human.
I started with about 1,600 names scraped from Wikipedia, but with only that many, there were a lot of redundancies and when you disallow duplicates, you end up with colors being labeled as “orange” even though they don’t actually look orange. On top of that many of the names were racist or at least questionable (so are many names on colornames.org)
Other large lists like the Pantone one, don't have a permissive license.
So for the past ten years or so, I’ve been collecting color names in a very unscientific way. It slowly turned into a hobby—something I often do on vacation, especially when I’m surrounded by unfamiliar places, dishes, or objects where color is used in unexpected ways.
Would you? I think that EU mandates a mobile connect for emergency services (eCall), but can you point out a legislation which forbits the owner to disable it in the vehicle they own?
The EU-wide "911 eCall" system records your location at all times and has a cellular modem connected to government systems. It is illegal to disable this system. If you still do so, there are fines, and your insurance is no longer considered fully valid in case of an accident.
You asked for specific legislation. For the Netherlands and our "APK" system, the relevant rule is under "Geluidssignaalinrichtingen en eCall", article 5.2.71 of the APK handboek, issued by our Rijksdienst voor het Wegverkeer.
In the EU, automatic surveillance cameras on the side of the road enforce this APK system, so if you do disable the eCall system, you will fail your APK, and you will automatically receive a fine. Even if you don't leave your driveway, the government is working hard to keep you safe; government camera surveillance cars drive around constantly, scanning your license plates, cross-referencing surveillance images with other government databases to automatically issue fines if you step out of line.
I really don't think there's anything to worry about, though; to quote another comment of mine:
>Thankfully, we're safe. Car software is notoriously high quality and rarely hacked. All governments are fully trustworthy, especially around espionage and privacy, and have a perfect track record of never lying to the public.
>Look, the European Commission stated that it cannot be hacked; "hackers cannot take control of it", from ec.europa.eu. They built an unhackable device. I am not sure what you could be worried about. If the government tells you something cannot be hacked, then it cannot be hacked. Furthermore, none of the EU member states have been found using other infrastructure to violate privacy laws.
HCL is so annoying as it tries so much to prevent user to "do too complex things" and thus it doesn't have proper iterators other similar concepts, which would be very useful when defining infrastructure as xode.
This has resulted bunch of hacks (such as the count directive on terraform) so that the end result is a frustrating mess.
What dictates that certificate update needs to have a manual change process? I'd bet that it's just legal team saying that "this is how it's always been" instead of adjusting their interpretation as the environment around changes.
The references I'd direct you to are NIST 800-53r5 controls CM-3 (Configuration Change Control) and CM-4 (Impact Analyses) along with their enhancements, require that configuration changes go through documented approval, security impact analysis, and testing before implementation. A certificate change is unfortunately consider a configuration change to the services.
Each change needs a documented approval trail. While you can get pre-approval for automated rotations as a class of changes, many auditors interpret the controls conservatively and want to see individual change tickets for each cert rotation, even routine ones.
In some regulated places, someone is legally responsible for authorizing a change in production.
If it fails, that person's on the hook.
So the usual way is to have a manual authorization for every change.
Yes, it's a PITA.
One place I've worked changed their process to automatically allow changes in some specific parts for a specific period during the development of a new app.
And for some magical reasons, the person usually associated with such legal responsibility are the one that don't trust automatic process.
10ft is definitely not enough for practical use. In order to heat a rural house with a heatpump connected to geothermal you need in order of 200-300ft deep hole, at least here in Finland.
For ground source heat pumps you have two approaches. Either you have deep hole. Or you have a large field. In later case not as much depth is needed, but you do need much larger area.
I joined my local Maker's Space specifically for the machine shop. They had a CNC machine that I took the classes on to be certified. I designed my first simple plate design piece for cinema camera support gear in the CAD software they had connected to the machine. There was even a bit of software that generates the G-code with a simulator to check for head crashes. However, every time I went up there to actually try to build the piece the unit was down because someone crashed the head and destroyed bits. Instead, I wound up using the regular metal working machines to hand make the first piece. It ended with square corners instead of rounded, and some of the hole alignment wasn't as precise as intended. I wish I would have known of one of these types of sites to have the piece still CNC'd instead.
I'd love to find a tool which could recognise a few different speakers so that I could automatically dictate 1:1 sessions. In addition, I definitively would want to feed that to an LLM to cleanup the notes (to remove all "umm" and similar nonsense) and to do context aware spell checking.
The LLM part should be very much doable, but I'm not sure if speaker recognition exists in a sufficiently working state?
Speaker "diarization" is what you're looking for, and currently the most popular solution is pyannote.audio.
Eventually I'm trying to get around to using it in conjunction with a fine-tuned whisper model to make transcriptions. Just haven't found the time yet.
I felt this was so stupid, that i quickly lost any willingness to try to relay the emails to their original owner, as the other person had zero interest to change their address to be harder to mistype.
reply