The real problem that needs solving and that is worth addressing is finding good recipes that you enjoy. They have to hit your taste buds right and provide the perfect level of instructions for your cooking skills and confidence.
The best way to achieve this right now is to find one good cook and hand pick the material they have and that you enjoy. Going through other cooks they shoutout to is also worth.
Right now, I read undejeunerdesoleil.com (fr/it) weekly and copy what I like to Trello. I also infrequently read other blogs and do the same. Ingredients are checklists, instructions in the description, one column is used for shopping, one for what I can cook with what I bought and one for holding recipes. A little automation to reset checklists.
I have hundreds of recipes. It’s still hard or time consuming finding good recipes.
The pilot said "[...] un problème de commandes de vol, l'avion a fait à peu près n'importe quoi [...]" and it translates as "[...] flight controls issue, the plane did just about whatever [...]".
To add a bit more, it's interesting to note that at several points in the recording the pilots can be heard fighting the controls and apparently requiring force for that (https://youtu.be/VzCNKhFOPqU?t=25 for example). I know the two ariplanes are unrelated but this was also the case for 737 Max IIRC.
It disengages when you fight it. With the associated and very recognizable autopilot disengage sound. I'm sure there is more to this story than "crew mistake" as some seem to imply here.
To be fair, the "some seem to imply" is directly sourced from the analysis of a 777 pilot. Do you have a source for the "it disengages when you fight it" assertion? You're kinda calling the 777 pilot a liar ;-)
I'm absolutely not knowledgeable on this topic so double check everything I say.
I think the issue on the 737 Max was that there's been a known and studied system (called the MCAS IIRC) on Boeing planes that overrides pilot controls under some specific pre-determined circumstances and that system had been buffed to compensate for design flaws that were discovered too late to be corrected. On top of being faulty, that buffed system was also way outside of its initial intent and purpose (or rather the parameters guiding its operation were changed so much that it should have been addressed as a separate system and mandated specific training while they were trying to portray the plane as a simple evolution requiring no pilot re-training from earlier versions of the 737).
So, to me, it looks like yet another issue with a system overriding pilot controls for whatever reason.
More generally, this falls into that weird pattern of relying on external sensors which starts a chain of bad decisions leading to accidents (this was also a sensor issue with the Air France 447, although the chain was largely human this time, the pilots realizing way too late their repeated mistake).
This is a B777-300, which does not have MCAS. The 737-Max had MCAS added because of the larger engines on that model than prior 737s. This is not an issue "on [all] Boeing planes" (which, to be fair you didn't directly say, but what you did say was pretty ambiguous and could easily [perhaps even most naturally] be read to have meant that).
Sorry, this happens a lot to me. For the record I'm not trying to discredit Boeing. I do have issues organizing and expressing my thoughts which results in less than ideal communication.
It's the tradeoff of having such low orbits that a StarLink customer might be closer to a satellite than a terrestrial ISP's nearest node. Lower orbit means less surface coverage, so you need more satellites. That's why old-school satellite internet providers put them 20,000+ miles out and have pings pushing or exceeding one second.
The 22,236 mile figure comes from the desire for a geosynchronous orbit. Not a desire for increased coverage.
Many satellites at that altitude use specialized antennas to limit their coverage to specific areas of the earth. There is no sense in wasting the little available energy on a satellite in sending RF to places where you don't intend to provide coverage.
It is just the tip of the iceberg. They have FCC approval and plans for nearly 12,000 (as of 2019), and are considering a possible later extension to 42,000.
It depends. I could see myself using this for niche applications such as visually marking certain terminals.
When you work on multiple remote hosts, it's common practice to use different profiles to visually identify hosts. Say your local machine has your standard and preferred colorscheme but staging machines have a green background and customer-facing machines have a red background. Indeed, it's a manual process but I've seen people use it in most places where a substantial amount of work is done on remote hosts (I still use it today if/when I need to access remote hosts).
It's happen to all of us frankly. Now I also keep the default shell on remote machines. I guess it's a cognitive trick where I feel uneasy at the different prompt and key bindings (I use zsh with bindkey -v locally).
I haven't registered and downloaded the software from their website but I doubt it would come with any licensing or OSS mention. The marketing doesn't mention OSS either.
There's at least one thread asking for clarification on the subject which, as far as I can tell, is not formaly answered.
The repo you linked is 13 months old but it's informative nonetheless:
> Do not distribute the presets that come with the free version of Vital. They're under a separate license that does not allow redistribution.
So my best guess is that the author is granting himself an exemption and distributing that software as a closed source software. Which is legal, it certainly helps that there's only one author.
If we really wanted to know what's going on exactly, we should download the software from their website. If it's advertised as being OSS and under the GPL, we should ask for a copy of the source code of the distributed software, as provided by the GPL.
It's universally accepted that aggregating free software with non-free data does not make the software non-free. The explanation in the repo about the licensing is correct and perfectly okay from an OSS perspective.
The software's copyright holder cannot infringe his own copyright by distributing the software from his own website, even if he also offers a GPL license. If he were accepting contributions from other people you might have a case, but he says he isn't.
The GP isn't saying that the author is making the software unfree by mixing it with commercial software.
The GP is saying that author is distributing that software as unfree with a different license since as copyright holder, the author can do whatever they wish. QT, for example, is distributed as GPL or with a commercial license.
Which is to say the GP is correct this is possible and it's a sleazy maneuver.
Which is unfortunate since I actually am playing with Linux audio software and I'd love to find a good free software synthesizer. LMMS is OK but this does seem pretty impressive.
Oh, because the distributed binaries aren't really open-source because they're made from a different version of the source? That's true, and it might come back to bite the author.
What do you think of Vitalium? I don't know enough about synthesizers to have an informed opinion.
I'm only getting my feet wet on synthesizers but it gives the impression that it has a lot of cool and unique features, even compared to commercial synthesizers or LMMS, the synthesizer I've looked at the most .
The problem is these people saying they're open source then playing game pisses me off much more than if they said they were commercial with a free version.
So I'm torn on trying them. And I can't get the github code to compile on Ubuntu 20.
Google handles GMT and UTC but doesn't handle offsets from there and, frankly, it's understandable and I wouldn't bother either. What it does handle though is countries and their DST settings:
But we're way past decorators and comprehensions. I don't understand why people focus on these 2 features to fuel the debate here.
Point is Python used to be a complete yet simple language with few constructs. It more or less followed the path of least surprise and people revered it for that. For several years, it feels like PEPs just add more and more clutter to that foundation.
It sort of looks like an arms race and I just don't get why or what's going on. Certainly, Python doesn't feel the same anymore.
Python has turned into the C++ of dynamic languages, but without the speed. My feeling is that Python is suffering the same fate as Pascal, where a "teaching and prototyping language" is used for things it was not intended for. Programmers that grew up with Python want more features, not thinking about the next generation of programmers.
The best way to achieve this right now is to find one good cook and hand pick the material they have and that you enjoy. Going through other cooks they shoutout to is also worth.
Right now, I read undejeunerdesoleil.com (fr/it) weekly and copy what I like to Trello. I also infrequently read other blogs and do the same. Ingredients are checklists, instructions in the description, one column is used for shopping, one for what I can cook with what I bought and one for holding recipes. A little automation to reset checklists.
I have hundreds of recipes. It’s still hard or time consuming finding good recipes.