Why didn’t you like Hashicorps Vault? I want to know for my own edification.

I hope so. I don’t want to manage two different address spaces in my head. I prefer if one standard is just the standard.

I was talking about meat replacements but I put tofu in that category as well because I don’t have a lot of experience with tofu outside of “we have this instead of meat”.

Vegan food is cheaper in America, for sure. Beans, veg (some) and rice are cheap. However fruit is expensive.

But the alternatives to meat are not cheap: tofu is like $5/lb compared to chicken which can be as low as $2.99/lb. Steak is expensive in America, but it can be close to the cost of tofu. It’s definitely cheaper than the steak-alternatives like beyond meat.

While you might find meat replacements to be unnecessary, most Americans (myself included) struggle. 90% of the meals I used to eat were some variation of: protein (meat/chicken/fish), plus a veggie, plus a carb (rice/bread). That was the basic dinner. It has a nice ratio of protein to carb. It was tasty (to me at least) and the cost wasn’t too bad.

I’m guessing I’m not alone, culturally. It’s not like you can fry up two slabs of tofu and just call it a day. Tofu is just different. It doesn’t cook the same and it doesn’t taste the same. I cook tofu at least once a week, but I treat it very differently.

It’s just not easy for Americans to justify going vegan. It’s culturally very different and - if you want to stay within the culture - it’s expensive.

But that’s why I always advocate for meat reduction, not replacement. Eat more vegetables. Try other dinners. Etc. But most Americans are remiss to be told what to do.

There in lies the rub, though. Most vegans are vegan for a moral reason that they believe applies to you:

• Animals deserve life / don’t deserve livestock conditions
• “Growing” meat is speeding up global warming compared to growing crop

There are more fringe reasons for veganism such as: diet, health, etc. But those aren’t relevant to the point I’m making.

“Live and let live” doesn’t apply to situations where we’re talking about global warming or the abuse of animals. Most vegans are trying to educate others and - yeah - they probably vote for things that would result in more expensive meat or less meat being available in your local markets. I believe most vegans are hoping their efforts will slow global warming and provide better living conditions for livestock.

I’m not trying to sit on a moral podium here and judge. I eat meat too. I’m not vegan. Though I’ve tried to reduce how much meat I eat in yet another small, feckless, civilian effort to slow global warming. All I’m saying is: I sympathize with people who want to improve the world and I understand why they spend time and effort talking about being vegan.

But meat in america is cheaper than the vegan stuff and definitely tastier. So it’s hard for us to meaningfully change.

What about ketosis? Are ketones a legit way to remove fat?

Yeah my plan (dream) has always been like this:

• Use the internet while I have it (assuming people just all disappear suddenly) to download survival guides, solar panel repair/installation PDFs, maps, etc. Anything I can think of, I’ll download
• Gas only lasts so long. I can use chemicals that extend it, but it’s definitely limited. I’d start with a gas powered truck and eventually move into electric vehicles. Batteries aren’t forever either… But I’d try.
• I’d move to a warm, temperate climate
• I’d find a building that claims it is powered by solar panels most of the year. I’d use that as my home
• I’d immediately begin trying to farm. I have a black thumb so this would take me some years to get done correctly. But I’d hopefully have some potatoes and grain growing by the end of a year
• In the meantime, I might find things to occupy my time such as: finding videogames to play, raising chickens, fishing, collecting guns/ammo, collecting books to preserve, storing solar panels, backup equipment, etc.

My end goal would be to survive as long as I’m happy. I’m pretty introverted so that would last a while. I’d use animals to keep me company. I believe nature would take us over pretty quickly. It would be hard to maintain the house, solar, etc. forever. But if I could, I would.

My wife and I already do a lot of foraging in our area and we have several guides for edible food. We also do some canning and prepping for disasters.

I don’t think a disaster would be a picnic. People are the problem. But if they disappeared suddenly, I think it would be pretty livable.

Oh that’s kind of cool.

I know 7 is traditionally a lucky number, but is there any other reason the writers chose 7?

Maybe 1, 1, 1 -> 49, 48, 47 is a better example though. But same thing.

But not too much practice

That theorem basically says any problem can be solved computationally in a reasonable amount of time.

The P versus NP problem is a major unsolved problem in theoretical computer science. In informal terms, it asks whether every problem whose solution can be quickly verified can also be quickly solved.

The informal term quickly, used above, means the existence of an algorithm solving the task that runs in polynomial time, such that the time to complete the task varies as a polynomial function on the size of the input to the algorithm (as opposed to, say, exponential time).

If you prove P is not equal to NP, then we can probably assume the simulation isn’t being run.

But that assumes a lot. Who is to say how a universe outside our universe might behave? Maybe they aren’t constrained in the same ways we are for some unfathomable reason.

It’s not that different. But you’re mentally mapping a UTC offset to your local time as well? Doesn’t that mean you have to do something like:

1. Does this time work for me? (Map offset to my time)
2. Does this time work for them? (Map offset to their time)

Genuine question here. Seems like you’re doing twice the time-conversions when using UTC.

Yeah but in your example, you wouldn’t need to look anything up either. You’re presumably very familiar with the offset of your time to their time? You’d also become familiar with their “universal time” versus your time. You’d just know what hours they’d be awake and asleep because you will have done the translation a few times.

In addition, I - personally - would find it easier to memorize times in a single system: e.g. remembering that people in China are awake from 9pm to 8am is easier for me to remember. I typically already do this in my own head. I’ll convert times to my own local time and then memorize that. Do other people not do that? I find it much easier to look at my own clock and know if I can reach out to someone internationally.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was essentially just a common result of refactoring code. Rust might help compile to more efficient C than the stuff people write on their own? But my code is always more performant after a refactor. Surely writing this in another language would cause someone to look deeper at the choices being made during development. Even the scheduler might have some technical debt.

deleted by creator

TL;DR it worked but was often considered a poor, synthetic, replacement for the real world scents. Some people liked it, but most seemed to dislike it.

Why? Cause I’m a loser

Time is relative. So, the electrons might experience a different “time” because they are moving closer to the speed of light, but they cannot traverse further in time. The twin paradox is interesting because humans change as time goes on. The internal changes a human experiences as they experience time dilation is what we really are measuring. If the twins were both frozen in time, we wouldn’t really care that they experienced different time references during their trip.

The electrons are basically “frozen in time” in this regard. The information they carry isn’t changing in their relative frame. So the end result isn’t super interesting. If the electron changed over time - and we moved it close to the speed of light - that change would be relative. The information we sent would be different than when it arrived.

In other words, they do experience different time frames than something 0.00000001c, but since they don’t change at all it’s not really meaningful that they are - perhaps - less “aged” by the time they reach their destination than we are.

Off lights let you know if it’s broken. If it’s on, it’s obviously working. If it’s off and the light is on, it’s getting power. If it’s off and plugged in, but not displaying the light - that indicates it’s broken or not getting power.

I’ve always assumed it’s something in the engine. But I also wonder if it’s some sort of friction based math? I have heard most cars are most fuel efficient at 55mph or so. My town has a large hill which my car can “coast” down with no gas required. However, like you, it stops increasing its speed around 55mph. It doesn’t seem to go any faster without me stepping on the gas. I don’t notice anything different about the car. It just seems to stop accelerating.

And if I hit the gas, it seems to re-settle back to 55mph.

I sometimes wonder if fuel efficiency being at 55mph is tied to friction of tires on asphalt. And maybe even on a steep hill, typical cars just cant overcome the kinetic friction to continue speeding up. Obviously the steepness of the hill matters, but roads have pretty stringent rules about grades. So we have an upper bound of what’s “reasonable” based on whatever the steepest allowable grade is.

I’ve also had this question. I’d love to know the answer!