Yep, urlwatch is a good one too. This category clearly has a strong self-hosted tradition. With Site Spy, what I’m trying to make much easier is the browser-first flow: pick the exact part of a page visually, then follow changes through diffs, history, RSS, and alerts with very little setup
A question I ask rather here than on that old thread: Is it possible to attach a monitor, mouse and keyboard to a jolla phone with sailfish and run a linux desktop?
And that's precisely why I'm neither a blockbuster director nor a massively paid "chief scientist", LOL.
As for the strange sentences? Before the web turned everything into paperless, infinite scrolls, people actually cared deeply about printed materials. With that came the strict requirement for pagination rules, widows, orphans, and deterministic behavior for margins. In fact, one of my favorite pieces of tech was built exactly around solving the discrepancy between display and print: NeXTSTEP with its Display PostScript technology.
To answer your question about the subtle difference between a line and paragraph break: mathematically, they trigger completely different layout states in a typesetting engine. A line break (soft return) just wraps text to the next line while preserving the current block's alignment and justification math. A paragraph break (hard return) ends the semantic block entirely, triggering top/bottom margins, evaluating widow/orphan rules for the previous block, and resetting the layout cursor for the next.
I had to build an engine that deeply understands this difference because in the film industry, screenplays are still written in Courier with strictly measured spatial margins and peculiar contextual rules on how blocks of dialogue break across pages. So this tool is basically my homage to an era long gone...
How long does data export usually take for three years of medium usage? I started it eight hours ago, got a confirmation email that export had started but so far no email with a download link.
To the best of my knowledge, traditional confessions have always been processed locally, not sent upstream¹.
AFAICT, it is much harder to get a priest to reveal your confession than it is to get a log of your ChatGPT sessions.
¹) I first wrote "not sent to the cloud", but if God is all-knowing, records of all sins are already in the cloud, just not accessible by support staff.
The system in question is a distributed system, an interaction within that system such as "confession" involves ridiculous amounts of distributed processing, far beyond two nodes that were participating in that original exchange.
FWIW, there's also happened quite a lot of research on latency in academia - which that page seems to completely ignore.
My group has been looking into that topic, too¹.
One of our most interesting findings (IMHO) was that for many USB devices, input latency does not follow a normal distribution but that each device has its own distribution of latencies for input events, including funny gaps².
However, with gaming hardware supporting 1000+ Hz polling, the effect of input latency should be negligible nowadays.
I recall reading about a study years ago that showed while response times are limited to around 150ms between stimulus and say moving a finger, the participants could consistently time movements with an accuracy of less than 10 ms or so (I forgot the exact number).
Which I assume explains why consistent input lag is much better than variable input lag.
According to the article, onboarding speed is measured as “time to the 10th Pull Request (PR).”
As we have seen on public GitHub projects, LLMs have made it really easy to submit a large number of low-effort pull requests without having any understanding of a project.
Obviously, such a kind of higher onboarding speed is not necessarily good for an organization.
Huh, I thought that the MS tutorial was older. The blurry screenshot in it is from 2023.
And there ist another website with the same content (including the sloppy diagram). I had assumed that they just plagiarized the MS tutorials.
Maybe the vendor who did the MS tutorial just plagiarized (or re-published) this one?:
- the apples example on the right side ("Short code") ist significantly longer than the equivalent "Long code" example on the left side (which might also be because that code example omits the necessary for loop).
- The headings don't provide structure. "Checking Each Apple" and "Only Red Apples!" sounds like opposites, but the code does more or less the same in both cases.
reply