Carrots will be sweeter if you let them grow for a full season, then harvest shortly before, during, or shortly after winter. They stock up on sugars to reduce the risk of freezing, which makes them sweeter.
Carrots will be sweeter if you let them grow for a full season, then harvest shortly before, during, or shortly after winter. They stock up on sugars to reduce the risk of freezing, which makes them sweeter.
I ran out of crtcs, but I wanted another monitor. I widened a virtual display, and drew the left portion of it on one monitor, like regular. Then I had a crown job that would copy chunks of it into the frame buffer of a USB to DVI-d adapter. It could do 5 fps redrawing the whole screen, but I chose things to put there where it wouldn’t matter too much. The only painful thing was arranging the windows on that monitor, with the mouse updating very infrequently, and routinely being drawn 2 or more places in the frame buffer.
Have you tried turning them off, then turning them on again?
I think we’re still headed up the peak of inflated expectations. Quantum computing may be better at a category of problems that do a significant amount of math on a small amount of data. Traditional computing is likely to stay better at anything that requires a large amount of input data, or a large amount of output data, or only uses a small amount of math to transform the inputs to the outputs.
Anything you do with SQL, spreadsheets, images, music and video, and basically anything involved in rendering is pretty much untouchable. On the other hand, a limited number of use cases (cryptography, cryptocurrencies, maybe even AI/ML) might be much cheaper and fasrer with a quantum computer. There are possible military applications, so countries with big militaries are spending until they know whether that’s a weakness or not. If it turns out they can’t do any of the things that looked possible from the expectation peak, the whole industry will fizzle.
As for my opinion, comparing QC to early silicon computers is very misleading, because early computers improved by becoming way smaller. QC is far closer to the minimum possible size already, so there won’t be a comparable, “then grow the circuit size by a factor of ten million” step. I think they probably can’t do anything world shaking.
You can buy high (97-99) CRI LEDs for things like the film industry, where it really does matter. They are very expensive, but can pay for themselves with longer service life, and lower power draw for long term installations.
The CRI on regular LED bulbs was climbing for a long time, but it seems as though 90ish is “good enough” most of the time.
If you take the sun out of the equation, the planets fly apart in all directions. Hope that helps ;)
You can just issue new certificates one per year, and otherwise keep your personal root CA encrypted. If someone is into your system to the point they can get the key as you use it, there are bigger things to worry about than them impersonating your own services to you.
A lot of businesses use the last 4 digits separately for some purposes, which means that even if it’s salted, you are only getting 110,000 total options, which is trivial to run through.
Modern operating systems have made it take very little knowledge to connect to WiFi and browse the internet. If you want to use your computer for more than that, it can still take a longer learning process. I download 3D models for printing, and wanted an image for each model so I could find things more easily. In Linux, I can make such images with only about a hundred characters in the terminal. In Windows, I would either need to learn powershell, or make an image from each file by hand.
The way I understand “learning Linux” these days is reimagining what a computer can do for you to include the rich powers of open source software, so that when you have a problem that computers are very good at, you recognize that there’s an obvious solution on Linux that Windows doesn’t have.
Don’t joke about this, the college professors will hear you.
My strategy is still working, though, and you’ve now (all but) guaranteed that my answer is the closest to the correct answer.
The game theory one is easy. Put down 999,999,999,999 factorial. Then everyone got it wrong, and the curve will reflect that.
I think you’re reading more into the statement than is there. Their studio was founded the same year this game released, with only one of the two founders described as a programmer. I’m pretty sure they mean “we” as in “the two guys that founded the studio”.
I wanted to know how important this really would be. Human reaction times among gamers are on the order of 150-300 ms, and professional gamers mostly manage 150-200 ms. A view refreshing 700 times per second gives a new frame every 1.4 ms, while a view refreshing 60 times per second gives a new frame every 16.6 ms.
In a reaction timing heavy game, this would not be enough to bridge the gap between the fastest in the world and the slowest professionals, but it’s on the right order of magnitude to make a difference in professional level play, up against a 60 Hz display. On the other hand, it’s only a marginal step up from a 240 Hz display, and the loss in resolution must have an effect at some point.
There’s probably games where this is better, but only when the difference is small, or the other display is handicapped.
Maranatha, we long for your nuggies. Maranatha, we long for your sauce.
He only believes in the first 22 words of the first amendment. If you want to speak about what he has done, or (far worse) gather with others that share your beliefs to speak extra loud… straight to jail.
In 2003 (or thereabouts) I was a paying user of an Apple music product. They deliberately broke the way that I used their product, then once someone found a workaround, they broke that, too.
I tried to be their customer, and they kicked me out for not using Windows or MacOS. Now I’m emotionally invested in not giving them any money, ever.
(reminder don’t take dietary advice from internet strangers)
Here’s my fact based advice: on average, people that eat food sometimes live longer than people that do not eat food. You should sometimes eat food.
Ignore my advice at your own peril.
I’d describe it as sort of 3 layers. The first is practical/everyday things, which are mostly much nicer than being alone, but require attentiveness and communication (learn what your SO doesn’t like doing, and do it. Learn what things are work together projects, and what things are stay out of my way type things for each of you, probably other aspects too) - but once you know how to take care of each other, almost everything is less work, takes less time, and costs less money. Cooking, laundry, cleaning, gardening, repairing things, painting the house are all improved. Decorating and having guests over are harder, at least for me. You have to not fall into the trap of taking the things they do for granted, even when those things are routine.
The second layer I’d describe is lust/romance, which is sort of easier, except that you must avoid letting things coast too long. You have to dedicate time and effort to discovering new things about each other, and new things you enjoy together. You should still be dating, no matter how long it’s been, and ideally you should both be planning things most of the time. In my relationship, this is usually 1-2 things per month, each.
The final layer is the emotional/support layer. Almost any time, my wife can seek comfort and support from me in a variety of ways for all kinds of things, and I get the same from her. All the big problems in life are easier when you can share them, so here the benefits are huge. This is the only thing I got basically none of from having roommates or a best friend, or dating. For my situation, there’s basically no downside to this.
Brain one way, but other brain other way. Chemical stuff is making brain stuff happen. Makes see different.