Thanks for creating this. However, I was a bit puzzled when I found a packages.json
and then saw that all the heavy lifting is done from bash. I don't understand the need for having to install Yarn for just running a bunch of bash scripts. IMHO, after seeing the size and the amount of logic within the scripts, I think you could have made it more ergonomic by just building a bash script that takes parameters and that's it.
I'm working on a side project which is a Python library that provides of an abstraction layer to manage infrastructure in cloud providers by interacting with their APIs. This is something I've been developing every now and then for the last months after years of working with Terraform and getting tired of the limitations of it's DSL (yeah, Pullumi is better but I just simply want a generic library with classes representing services in the cloud I can call natively in Python without having to deal with a 3rd party application like Pullumi is!).
I can relate to this. I used to be on call for many years and honestly, it destroyed my mental health. In the last company I did it, it felt like falling in a meat grinder for a week. I remember once spending a whole weekend giving support on an bug that was introduced by a recent release. 72 hours of working non stop. Because of that among others, I got a severe burnt out that took me to the deepest dark place I've ever been.
To this day, I simply refuse to do on call. There's no enough money you can pay me that would make me to suffer that again.
I hate flying with passion and get extremely scared when flying through turbulences but, there was a journalist in my country, that also had experience as a pilot and said once on TV that during turbulences, is one of the safest moments in a plane. I don't remember the reasons but is there anybody in here with knowledge in the field that could confirm/deny this?
That's just not true. No turbulence is better than turbulence.
That said, experiencing light chop on a modern large airplane presents no danger to the airframe or properly secured passengers. You really should be strapped in, though, especially if you're on a small plane. Wake turbulence, for example, actually does present a significant risk to smaller aircraft.
It is safe because you are flying. Airplanes almost never have issues at altitude. Problems occur when closer to the ground. Landing/takeoff are the most dangerous times, the transitions between flying and not flying.
My first guess is that during turbulence everyone has their seatbelt on. No one is walking around the cabin. It’s only at the start of unexpected turbulence that anyone should get hurt. Once your seatbelt is on things have to get pretty bad to get hurt.
The standard that you must meet to get a pilots license is being able to hold your altitude within 100 feet in a 360* turn. A 40 foot
He's not saying the drop was 40 feet instantaneously, he's saying the turbulence and the subsequent recovery only caused a 40 foot deviation from the assigned altitude.
Just for reference, a descent rate on a standard flight is pretty normal at 40 feet per second. Some descent profiles can double that. The NCAA diver will hit the water at 46 feet per second.
I agree. It’s funny to think of the gap between safety and scary when talking about turbulence. Large planes can take an absolute beating and be completely fine, but it could feel like the end of the world inside.
A modern airliner is rated to something like 3-4G's including the safety factor, probably much more if it's not at max takeoff weight. I'm sure you could do a Mythbusters-style test but I'd assume most passengers would pass out from the negative and positive G forces long before the aircraft structurally failed.
You'd lose that bet. The wings would fail long before people blacked out. They're only required to withstand 2.5g positive. Blacking out takes more like 6. We can see from various crashes that that sort of G load does in fact cause most wings to fail.
Aircraft have to be built light for the sake of efficiency (or even, just, being able to get off the ground.
There are certainly factors of safety... but not 3x+. Probably closer to 1.5.
"(b) The positive limit maneuvering load factor n for any speed up to Vn may not be less than 2.1 + 24,000/ (W + 10,000) except that n may not be less than 2.5 and need not be greater than 3.8—where W is the design maximum takeoff weight.
(c) The negative limit maneuvering load factor—
(1) May not be less than −1.0 at speeds up to VC; and
"
The 2.5 number is important. That right there is the +2.5 to -1.0 requirments for transport (i.e. seating more than 19 passengers) category aircraft.
Here's a quote from Boeing: "Our airplanes are built to withstand 3.75 G load before there is any kind of damage — that's almost four times gravity,” said Doug Alder, a spokesman for Boeing. “Some of the worst turbulence gets in the range of 2 to 2.5 G's, well below the damage tolerance.”
3.75 is not nearly enough to cause a blackout. It's also exactly 1.5 (typical airplane factor of safety) times 2.5
I feel the same way about flying but a boating enthusiast friend bought up an interesting analogy. He asked me if I enjoyed boating and I said yes. Then he asked me if it was fun when you run over waves bouncing around and I said yes. Then he said that is exactly what turbulence is - wakes and waves in the air the plane is bouncing on so relax and enjoy the ride. Kinda made me feel a little better since I could now visualize what is going on but still - eh, Id rather be on terra firma.
If you've ever sailed, a more apt analogy would be heeling over extensively (and potentially capsizing) due to a gale. You could be sailing along just fine and then all of a sudden you're overpowered. A sail, after all (at least when sailing towards the wind) acts just like a wing of a plane.
Same thing happened to me when I moved to the UK: I went to the supermarket, bought one jar or Marmite, went back home, had a toast with it expecting to have some sweet-close-to-chocolate flavour and then I was shocked. I have to admit that I actually liked although I don't eat it regularly these days because that wild amount of salt cannot be healthy in any manner.
I like its simplicity and the straight forward workflow it provides. Years ago, I used to use KDE and enjoyed it but these days, I want something that is functional while being vanilla and standard as possible and personally, that's what GNOME gives me.
Fair enough. I guess I have a hard time understanding why you wouldn't be interested to make the workflow fit better for yourself on a device you spend hours per day using.
It's just a personal thing. I try to stick to using tools that provide me the best defaults + being open source. I don't want to spend time customizing my desktop or getting overwhelmed by the amount of different choices I have available. Don't get me wrong, KDE is a beautiful and great project, it's just that, a very personal thing.
I can't agree with this more and that's the beauty of KDE. If I'm sitting down using this thing 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, little niceties and optimizations go a long way to making me happy and productive. And it doesn't take very long to make these little tweaks.
You install a distro that includes Gnome. Did your distro choose not to package a taskbar extension? That’s a good hint your distro is not intended to be an end user distro.
My conclusion is that this "chaotic scenario" happens when humans work in big groups. It's extremely hard/pretty much impossible to coordinate big group of humans and made them to work efficiently. In fact, this is one of the reasons by which nowadays, I personally prefer to work on a small start up environment instead of a big corporation.
It is possible, they just need to spend more than half of the work day in coordination meetings and doing paperwork.
And not many organization are willing to pay thousands of people to do paperwork to help other departments do their paperwork more effectively and so on.
Or somehow they found a group of extremely trustworthy and reliable employees who will never fudge the truth even at the cost of their jobs/reputation/etc...
Would be this something that can be avoided by setting up BitLocker with the encryption password to be provided at boot time by the user? Because that's the way I've always configured it when I've used Windows in the past, due to me being paranoid and suspicious about the default "key saved on TPM" approach.
Yes, if the key isn't in the TPM then it can't be sniffed. Secure boot would need to be enabled to protect against the threat model bitlocker is only good for here. Alternatively using a PIN would mean the key is only exposed once the PIN is typed (still vulnerable to a hardware attack, but requires physical modification).
I've never used it although I've been aware of its existence for a long time. It's great to see a tool actively developed that uses a boring-yet-great-and-well-known framework (Django + Templates). Ironically, it's refreshing to see that stack in a world of JS frameworks, microservices and what not.
