IMO once you look past the fact that they are both cursive and elegant, they are many differences. Taylor Swift’s signature has some very distinctive features, and none of them can be found in the brand’s logo, which is in a much more generic cursive style.
But I suppose the claim isn’t outlandish either, just seems very petty and either insecure or greedy.
In general terms, it isn’t really. Or at least it is a controversial topic still subject to discussion.
https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source
As to this specific topic, the fact that all of the code has to be open source is part of the 10 criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
As such, you can’t consider open source the public domain portions of a codebase that also has proprietary portions.
They’re more efficient than old school ac-dc linear supplies (of which an ac transformer is just a part of). However if you just want to step up or down ac voltage, transformers are quite efficient.
He had to relinquish his title! The horror! Have you no sympathy?
Ah yes. I knew I wasn’t going to make many friends with that comment but I think it’s an honest appraisal of what both sides think of each other. 😆
Kdr?
No worries 😉
Please note that I’m not the guy who snarkily posted that he « sees computer inside ». Also note that I expressed no opinion on the choice of name, which is in my opinion is very appropriate.
I was just replying to the guy who stated that LMNC used « only analog circuits » which is completely false.
When we’re talking electronic circuits, analog/digital does not mean computer-less/computer, you seem to be reasonably clear on this. And when it comes to the audio world, it’s the same. I can have a DAW-less 100% digital production rig : digital synths into a digital mixer, tracked to digital tape (or whatever other digital medium), using digital outboard fx.
Now yes, you are right, in laymen terms, LMNC does not use a computer (well he probably does to edit his videos but whatever XD), I think I was quite clear about this in my comment. But claiming that LMNC does use computers is not false per say either - although definitely snarky or pedantic.
Lemmy.world is a den full of libs who will wholeheartedly approve of any meager band-aid solutions over the festering wounds of our western economic systems, even if it continues to make it worse, provided it’s not quite as terrible as whatever the fascists over the other side of the aisle propose.
Lemmy.ml is a den full of marxist-leninist tankies who will wholeheartedly support any authoritarian and imperialist regime provided it’s an enemy of most imperialist state of them all : the USA.
Of course he doesn’t have an actual PC running Windows, masOS or Linux but he absolutely has some digital circuitry in his rig, and some of it probably fit the normal definition of a computer (a cpu with some ram running a program saved in memory).
That LCD for example… analog lcd drivers just don’t exist.
Not controversial topics but apparently some random tokens can make LLMs go berserk
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8viQEp8KBg2QSW4Yc/solidgoldmagikarp-iii-glitch-token-archaeology
IMHO mathematicians go into the madman category.
We actually have a decent idea, around 219,890 tons.
Do people struggle that much more to divide dollars compared to feet?
I mean I totally get that base 12 is pretty cool for calculator-less maths (though not as cool for base 60) but ultimately, we still have a base 10 numbering system.
So yea, base 10 units for base 10 numbers. Using the same all the way down makes it easier to learn how to handle the more complicated divisions in all cases, you don’t have to switch logic if you see what I mean.
Of course, to each their own. The best case for metric remains that it’s the system everyone else has agreed on.
So the rich are so rich that they create inflation, just not because of literal hoarding, got it.
Is efficiency really the reason behind dams being somewhat intermittent? Rather than just the fact that we might not need them on all the time (needs vary), or that we just can’t leave them on all the time (not enough water flowing in), and that yes, under these conditions, operators will direct power sources in the most efficient way possible.
What I mean is like, I get that leaving a dam off 50% of the time will have it generate more power once you turn it on. But over the whole period of time, assuming enough water upstream to replenish it in either case, is it actually going to generate more electricity than leaving it on 100% of the time?
I guess what I’m asking is, rather than them being more efficient, isn’t intermittent operation of dams due to the fact that we can’t just leave them on 100% in the first place?
« Authorities have confiscated crew members’ passports to restrict travel, the sources said. They are allowed to move freely around Baltimore, but require the FBI’s permission to travel to other states.
“I’ve never seen this [detainment] before,” said a source. “It’s very unusual. But nobody wants to get into a shouting match with the FBI »
FBI can do whatever the fuck they want apparently because you know… it’s not appropriate to tell them not to
Yes, and no I did not expect further details. You seem to have been much more successful than I was at getting your point across.
I suppose I did not explicitly state what actually triggered my response, nor, in hindsight, actually specifically discussed it, my bad, sorry for that.
What did, was you stating you expected self-learning of others, which seems unfair. I suppose we all, or nearly all, do have some amount of capability for that. Yet, some people are more empowered to do so than others, and this, is either due to external circumstances (which seems unfair to expect that people at large have been subject to the same), or either to higher capability (which seems unfair to expect everyone to have higher capability because then it would just be average right?).
Furthermore, some specific things come easier to others. It’s not because you were interested in the lawn-mower and watched attentively your dad start it, that another kid will not rather be interested in the plants or the butterflies in the garden and remain rather impervious to his dad’s lawn-mower. For you it might have been easy as pie, but another kid might still need actual explanations, not because he’s stupid (although he might be), or less curious (he was interested in the butterflies) or distracted (he was concentrated on something else) or whatever else, but just because he’s wired differently (he did not find the lawn-mower interesting).
Further food for thought : Some kids are not taught that books are a worthwhile thing. Some kids have worse education than others and get very little out of school, sometimes due to their fault, but sometimes not really - teachers and classmates play a huge role. Some kids don’t really have someone doing interesting things that lets them watch, or maybe their parents stuck them in front of the TV all the time. Some people don’t have technically-minded friends with which to discuss maintenance things. Some people never had enough positive reinforcement to gain the confidence needed to say : hey, I don’t know how to do this but I can surely figure it out myself.
All in all, there’s so many external factors, that one’s ability to learn on his own is ultimately highly dependent on the other people around him. (The point of my initial reply)
logic OR, sure, at least on the basic truth-table kind of way. I think I have an idea of what you are implying but I might be too thick to properly understand. Care to expand? ;)
Yes, but we never needed to tell cats what to do, we just needed them to stick around and do what they do naturally : catch mice