leetnewb

I don't disagree, but assuming V2H is vaporware...10kWh home battery with ATS and capacity to saturate the house surge and noise, solar panels to run house / recharge battery, EV 120V to steadily feed the house battery to supplement solar.

What about using a step up transformer to send 240V to your panel from the 120V output from some EVs?

Homes in cold climates using heat pumps for heat have a similar issue. No grid power means no heat, no heat means frozen pipes and mortal risk to vulnerable people. There is a decision cycle to it too. Central air dies, you replace with a modern heat pump. Then the boiler dies and it becomes difficult to justify replacing it, except the boiler is more practical to run off a battery in a power outage.

The local illicit drug dealer comparison doesn't apply because you can't simply ignore the development time and cost of FDA approved drugs. My post was about allocating limited capital to pharmaceutical research, and maximizing benefit.

Again, if your choice is improving quality of care for 100 conditions or trying to moonshot your way to curing one disease, more patients benefit from the former even if pharma also profits more.

Imagine your role is allocating spending on $10B/year of medical research and you are presented with two strategies: spend everything searching for the cure for one poorly understood condition, or allocate to treatments improving standard of care for 100 conditions.

Improving standard of care for 100 is less risky/more profitable because you have more shots at an expensive process with a high failure rate. And it is a lower bar to improve patient care than to permanently fix a medical mystery. But there is another factor. Focusing on treatment/management over cure most likely maximizes the positive impact on patients within the the constraints you work under.

There have been at least three new major treatments for a chronic thing I have that received FDA approval over my lifetime. Those treatments have had a massive impact on my quality of life, ability to have a career, etc. I don't believe that happens for me if we allocate to cures.

Most users don't need every single one of those features. It reminds me of the conversations about lemmy and the fediverse after the reddit api uproar. The alternative link aggregators didn't need to do everything well, just the core things well enough to build a community that sustains engagement and becomes discoverable. But it failed at the major pieces: performance, scalability, media handling, moderation, governance, and federation. In contrast, I would argue xmpp covers a strong subset of commonly used discord features well enough to provide the chat/social component to many existing communities.

Isn't this the sort of moment that pushes users off of Discord into alternatives? Maybe pragmatic/opportunistic users should establish new channels or servers and advertise them when the shoe drops on Discord.

Hasn't social media like HN, Reddit, fediverse, etc. become the real clearinghouse of information about those sorts of questions? I can see how it would be nice for xmpp.org to be an authoritative source of truth, but user response/consensus seems more relevant these days, at least to me.

In addition to Dino, you could use movim as a PWA.

Probably not exclusive to open source, but at least some projects are running into issues publishing to the Play Store with little/no explanation.

I have an x86 HP tablet that dual boots Windows 11 and Linux. I don't have specific numbers, but battery life is better on the Linux side.

Funding and centralization.

Matrix has a for-profit, venture funded company (Element) that is effectively behind the reference/flagship server and client implementations.

xmpp is far less centralized. Virtually all of the modern clients are single developer projects that live off day jobs and grants.

There are different ways to look at it. Matrix has done a great job at organizing resources to push the platform forward. xmpp has an impressive ecosystem and some incredible client implementations on a shoe string budget, that would probably look/function better and have lots more features given funding parity.

I think as we've seen with other projects like Immich, organizing and recruiting resources is an important part of delivering the modern experiences that users expect today from open source projects. Open source and self-hostable can't be an excuse for missing features.

What do you think of a system like Delta Chat built on top?

From what I remember, exact audio copy could not complete the rip on the final track or two.

I bought a new album on CD a couple of years ago. Badly scratched straight out of the case. Guess that wasn't really the right comparison though.

There was a period of time when our university help desk was installing and recommending Firefox for students and faculty to use over ie6.

Not just moving very fast. Mobile is bigger than desktop, Google owns the platform, defaults probably matter more, and control is tighter.

T2D is not limited to "old, fat overeaters".

One thing I would note on the client side of xmpp - there does seem to be a lot of work happening under the surface. Snikket is working on an SDK to streamline modern client development. There are a couple of alpha stage clients written on it already, and maturatoin of the SDK should lower the bar for pushing clients forward.

Also independently, Movim keeps advancing and Libervia is doing a ton of cool work. I'm sure I am missing others.

From my reading, the new API seems like a move in the right direction. But either way, Google is asking Nextcloud to silently break backup/sync-ing until users grant permission, and my guess is that many users won't notice until they discover data loss - the damage to trust and brand would be substantial. And I don't think it is fair for Google to demand in this case when the consequences are almost entirely felt by the users.

People in the Symfony camp want less magic. There is also a lot of activity around Tempest.

Laravel seems to get a lot of hate from within the PHP community as well. I suppose every framework in use has its detractors.

I think this could be a double edged sword. Slowing down new browser feature/"standards" could allow browser competition, yes. On the other hand, people don't explicitly need a web browser in 2025 like they did in 2015 - many operate mobile-only. Let's say browser features additions fall drastically behind native mobile, and content publishers progressively limit access to native clients only. The web browser market might be more free/open/competitive, but it doesn't mean much if the market just moves beyond the web.

Does the concept of an interoperable world wide web fade into obscurity? In other words, does separating Chrome from Google make the web better, or is Google's investment in the web holding back the death of the web?

I don't think those are either/or scenarios.

Firefox can't compete with iOS or Android for what should be obvious reasons - it is structurally impossible. Also, the competing browsers are way better today than in Firefox's heyday. There is very little reason to use Firefox today outside of ideological.

I picked up php a couple of months back after 30 years of ignoring it, mostly after reading a comment somewhere about using php for shell scripting. Very easy to read the language documentation on php.net and get moving. Powerful standard library. I haven't found another language (not an exhaustive claim) that offers language documentation as helpful as php's for a beginner.

Just thinking through this now, but the ease of authoring content on the web started very early on, whereas publishing new mobile apps on the dominant platforms is highly technical and exclusionary many years in.

Web - available in 1993, content authoring/hosting become available through blogger, wordpress, etc, in about 7-10 years. Authoring tools Frontpage and ColdFusion were available in 1995, Netscape Composer in 1997. In other words, one could build a basic website with a bare minimum of technical knowledge with the help of widely available tools within 5 years of the web becoming available (it would take many more years for the web to become pervasive).

Mobile - It has been 17 years since the iphone was launched, 19 years since Google acquired Android. To my knowledge, there are no easy ways for a non-technical person to author a basic app, let alone one that runs on both platforms.

Yes and no. The web may exist, but there is a viable digital alternative to it today, which didn't exist before Chrome - the mobile and app ecosystem. Virtually everybody who uses the web also uses mobile apps, but there are people who only ever use Android or iOS on a handheld device. It is also possible that in losing Chrome, Google will neglect its web properties and focus exclusively on access to services through mobile apps.

Obviously subject to conversation with their doctor, but my endocrinologist suggested against this class of drugs for blood sugar control.

Just a narrow comment, but type 2 diabetes certainly isn't limited to the obese. Many lean people develop issues with blood sugar that can't be controlled with diet alone.