robert_tweed
The next year they decided it was premium after all, and wanted to charge £492,000 for renewal. I still have a screenshot of that, although needless to say I don't own the domain anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsGaVrMr9N8&t=480s
The reason I remember this is that it inspired me to spend ages implementing Gouraud shading in my own graphics library (written in assembly language), only to discover that flat polygons look better most of the time.
AFAIK it's the only major implementation of this technique. Most other big sites that provided an RSS feed didn't bother, and most of those RSS feeds are dead now. The BBC one has hardly changed since those days and it still works really well as a dual-delivery system.
Also, is passthrough good enough for things like typing, so you don't get an uncanny valley sense of the keys being just slightly off visually compared to your proprioception & touch?
The article mentions differences between brands, but IDK if there's a specific correlation with quality other than that fake olive oils certainly won't turn red/pink.
My good EV olive oil in a glass bottle goes a sort of pinkish colour. With the natural colour of the oil & the way the glass reflects/refracts light, it makes it look like copper.
I don't get the same effect with cheapo refined olive oil in a plastic bottle. I get a bit of fluorescence - the normal violet colour and much less than say a white piece of paper - but all or most of that is just from the container.
This makes it hard to accidentally forget about a rules that just just put in temporarily. Real colours will always match some design, which will have a carefully-chosen hexcode.
In the game there is a computer, which if you interact with it, allows you to play the entire original Maniac Mansion.
It might get a bit annoying when you want to go to sleep though.
I'm not sure it has anything to do with burning fat stores though, because I don't get the same feeling after say, a 3-day water fast. At that point I'm definitely hungry, but don't have the same insatiable food craving.
In fact, when I was experimenting with extended fasting, the only reason I stopped at 3 days is because I was lifting lighter weights every day and hit a point where my strength was physically depleted. I could only do about 3 reps instead of finding 15+ easy. Hunger wasn't really a problem after the first day of getting used to it.
I believe this could be the main reason why its almost impossible to eat at a caloric defecit (with surplus protein) and train anabolically at the same time. Some people are able to do that, it's just very rare.
Code that never needs to be touched is fine. Although the odds are that such code is either completely trivial or subtly wrong (or both).
Code that is touched every day is likely to be fine as well. It's should get smoothed out naturally, like a pebble in a stream. If not, you probably already have lots of alarm bells telling you it's a problem without the need for any further analysis. It's not the code quality that matters here so much as the test coverage.
The changes you really need to worry about are to code nobody has touched for 3 years and whoever wrote it no longer works for the company. Especially if that code was written with the mindset of "nobody will ever care about this code".
A better metric for deciding where you should focus the most effort on code quality is not frequency of modification, it is frequency of appearance in the runtime call-graph. Each call probably also need a multiplier for how deep in the call-stack it was, since that's where unintended consequences of a small change are likely to have the biggest blast radius.
I've seen some categories of products with lots of obviously fake reviews claiming safety issues. These were on every single product I could find, so clearly all the manufacturers were targeting each other.
The 2-4 star range has historically been the most reliable, but fake review factories got wise to that a few years ago and will now often intentionally leave a minor gripe in their fake positive reviews to make them seem more authentic.
A better solution is to publish the % return rates for products and forget about reviews. You can even normalise that into a 5-star rating by product category, e.g., "Here are the top 5 products similar to this one, with average return rate of 1%. The product you are viewing has a return rate of 15%".
With low-friction return reason categories you could even classify high return rates for things like "doesn't look like the photos", "poor quality", "smaller than expected", etc. Unfortunately Amazon's return reasons are variable-friction, so their data on this will be biased, although it might be consistently biased across product groups.
I do like the word cloud idea - but pulled from optional free-text return reasons instead of reviews.
This doesn't solve the "it broke after 2 years" problem, but neither does the current review system.
Once the user has agreed to that valid use-case, there's not a lot the OS can do to stop the data being logged permanently.
tootbox
toot·box
a place where something, especially music, plays
"do you need a tootbox in your bedroom?"
The whole process for putting an Oculus device in developer mode is incredibly fiddly and annoying. You need a verified developer account. You an app running on a phone, which in turn requires an online login. You can't just do it from a desktop PC and you certainly can't flip a toggle on the device itself.
Ideally, as a follow-up to this, they will release something that allows putting the device into developer mode without requiring any of that. As of now, that does not exist.
This is because loading the ADB requires putting the device in developer mode, which in turn requires an internet connection and an active login to your Oculus developer account. Oculus developer accounts have been deprecated and will stop working in 2023, after which time a Facebook account is required.
FWIW, with the context I would say that I'd find that example quite hard to parse without the IDs (or at least a comment), unless you changed it to have each graph next its own code.
For anyone reading this confusing subthread in the future, here's a permanlink to your post that the parent was replying to:
A clock losing a random number of seconds per day is actually correct more often than a stopped one.