You can/could also find Coffee HOWTO in your distro’s HOWTO package. (I found a reference back to v0.5 of the document in 1998.)

Has simple schematics to get you started for the hardware, using the parallel port to toggle relays.

It’s a very neat little document, and inspired me to write a simple kernel module so I could echo 1 | sudo tee /sys/whatever/coffee0 to turn pin 0 high on the parallel port. (This is silly, and it’s much easier to just do things in user space!)

…and regular old murder for ReiserFS.

Not sure what it is about filesystem maintainers…

Having kids has made random conversations somewhat frequent for me.

The dot-com bubble burst, but…well, it got better.

Of course there were some casualties (famously pets.com), but Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, Amazon…yeah they got their clock cleaned at the time, but long term they were pretty successful.

For all the problems with tech companies, having a chunk of compensation be in the form of RSUs isn’t the worst idea ever. (I know it’s not specific to tech companies, but it’s generally a very prominent aspect of tech company compensation, Netflix notwithstanding.)

To those asking “who celebrated”…Linux was not always well supported by Flash. The promise of HTML5, with first class Linux support, was very appealing.

https://shallowsky.com/blog/linux/flash-installer-confusion.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3620537

After reading a few of these I feel like I was either a very boring grad student, or my professors were all very chill. (Or maybe just subject to male privilege.)

A few run-ins with IT, but I don’t think I ever got nasty letters from professors…

Link(s) in post contain punctuation and break, at least on my client. Here’s the codeberg link (working);

https://codeberg.org/BobbyLLM/llama-conductor

Indeed. The quoted passage made it sound like this was unique naval terminology, as opposed to standard nautical terminology. It’s not wrong, I just thought it was worded peculiarly.

(It’s not just the Navy — they’re called “heads” on recreational vessels, too.)

https://www.superbowl-ads.com/1997-tabasco-mosquito/

Best ad ever IMHO (sorry for funky link, YouTube if you prefer).

No dialog, no rampant consumerism (hot sauce is a necessary food), no sex/sexism, no emotional manipulation.

Also, 1.21GW is famously used in Back to the Future.

From link:

NOTE: The script is broken, DO NOT ATTEMPT TO USE THE SCRIPT NOW. Attempting to run it may get your account flagged stopping you from trying face verification either temporarily or permanently, forcing you to use your ID.

pr: https://github.com/xyzeva/k-id-age-verifier/pull/12

That almost makes sense, but pi radians = 180°

Right, a triangle “has 180deg,” like I said.

in which case π÷n is infinitesimally small. In other words, substituting infinity for n would be incalculable

That’s not how limits work. Substitution is not the same as taking the limit.

infinite and infinitesimal numbers are impossible to express rationally.

That’s not true at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/2_%2B_1/4_%2B_1/8_%2B_1/16_%2B_⋯

It’s not about colloquialism or language

Having one word (or phrase) with two meanings is a property of language.

That’s exactly my point, there are two different colloquial ways of talking about angles. I am not claiming there is a mathematical inconsistency.

Colloquially, a “triangle has 180 degrees” and a “circle has 360 degrees.” Maybe that’s different in different education systems, but certainly in the US that’s how things are taught at the introductory level.

The sum of internal angles for a regular polygon with n sides is (n-2)×pi. In the limit of n going to infinity, a regular polygon is a circle. From above it’s clear that the sum of the internal angles also goes to infinity (wheres for n=3 it’s pi radians, as expected for a triangle).

There is no mystery here, I am just complaining about sloppy colloquial language that, in my opinion, doesn’t foster good geometric intuition, especially as one is learning geometry.

I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing.

If you take a circle to be the limit of a polygon as the number of sides goes to infinity, then you have infinite interior angles, with each angle approaching 180deg, as the edges become infinitely short and approach being parallel. The sum of the angles is infinite in this case.

If you reduce this to three sides instead of infinite, then you get a triangle with a sum of interior angles of 180deg which we know and love.

On the other hand, any closed shape (Euclidean, blah blah), from the inside, is 360deg basically by definition.

It’s just a different meaning of angle.

See, for example, the internal angle sum, which is unbounded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_polygon

Triangle, “has 180 degrees,” subtends 360 degrees.

Circle, “has 360 degrees,” the sum of the interior angles is infinite.

(I’m not actually confused, it’s just that “a circle has 360 degrees” and “a triangle has 180 degrees” is a little annoying in that they use different definitions.)

Where energy efficiency isn’t a concern (maybe a blender or a toaster) this sounds nice, but otherwise…well…lots of wasted energy.

(Of course, it all has to be balanced against the cost of manufacturing/disposing.)

Heat pumps want low temperature differences, so I’m not sure you’re going to have much luck getting a heat pump oven to 475F/~250C.

Or, malicious compliance by someone with a moral compass. Best is to somehow leak documents wholesale. But if that’s not possible, I think the next best way to all but guarantee that the information gets out is to do a lousy job censoring, and let “The Internet” do the rest. It also makes the administration look even more stupid, especially in the eyes of technically minded folks.

But yeah, not the best and brightest, that’s certainly a possibility.