I think there’s a place for “we did 99% of the work here, but we want you to be able to tweak things if you need, read the code, and compile it for new systems without us in the loop.”
In that case I see no problem with the main sponsor company not wanting just anyone to come and make money off their work. They might accept contributions if offered up, but they are not hoping to gain much from them.
That’s in stark contrast to a project like Linux where it much more heavily relies on outside people getting into the development cycle.
To your point actually, I think it can be sticky for an open source maintainer of a small project when someone comes along and tries to be a more active contributor and treat your project like the latter when you’re really intending it to be more like the former. There’s no great signal of what type of open source you’re intending to create apart from saying “I don’t really want significant contributions” in your readme.
10% per year does add up, particularly if you don’t upgrade every year. I think if you get some decent lifetime out of your computer you have a good chance of still getting a significant speed boost when you upgrade.
I have a Ryzen 3950X and I suspect even now there’s a noticeable speed improvement at the top end, and I don’t feel like upgrading yet. That was still a big improvement over the Intel 3930K (?) I had before, even though sandy bridge was when progression started to show a slowdown.
I do think it’s perhaps easier to buy a computer with some weird bottleneck (crappy storage and the like) which will present day-to-day performance on par with your outgoing computer. Day-to-day high performance is seemingly hard to get right even if you can crunch numbers faster. Sort of a latency vs throughput problem.
I’ve always thought of it like the law of conservation of energy.
Money is “energy,” your physical and mental health/stamina are, your time is, your knowledge is a store of energy, your connections can be a store of energy, the risk you take can even been seen as an energy in a way.
Then it’s just an optimization problem, there are certainly more and less efficient mixes of these energies, but there is likely a minimum amount of energy you’ll have to expend to reach the goal.
Unlike in engineering, it’s often a lot harder to quantify the values here, so I suspect honing an eye for it is critical to success in life.
I’m in the same camp. If I do something I find interesting and make it open source, it’s because I’d like to do this work out in the open, or someone might benefit from it, not that I am necessarily seeking out collaborators.
Plus if you do GPL, accepting that first contribution is giving away the easy path should you want to relicense in the future.
Depends on your car. If you have a particularly inefficient/large EV then maybe, but if your car can do 3mi/kwh then you’ll get a little over 3 miles of charge per hour. That doesn’t sound like much but it’ll get you 36 miles in 12 hours, so could work for short commutes or if you have a hybrid WFH position it’d almost certainly be fine.
I only ever charge on 120V personally and have no problem, though anyone who was going to buy an EV planning on charging that way should run the numbers with the EV they’re looking at. ABRP can do a pretty good job of it.
I can respect that “one size fits all” office setups giving way to more varied conditions is a positive. However it must be said that it’s very ‘convenient’ for companies that this is a cheap way to squeeze more out of cramped and more worker-hostile office spaces.
I personally hate to give this so much credit knowing what it represents, that we move further away from humane spaces to work.
Narrator: But most of all, I remember The Desk Warrior. The man we called "Max." To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time... when the world was powered by the green rectangles... and the desert sprouted great towers of carpet and fluorescents. Gone now... swept away.
It’s interesting, because I admittedly don’t drive so consistently, I do 80 miles round trip a couple times a week and might not drive at all on off days, but I’ve found 120V 12A to be completely sufficient. That’s true even with the charge limit typically set to 85% SoC. Of course, if I drive a bunch and then drive again the next day it’s not full, but it’s no big problem once the initial range anxiety wears off.
I'd be less perplexed if I heard comments like yours from people: It's enough for me. But I've not encountered many (any?) other regular 120v charger users.
I only have L1 / 120V charging at home. Have never used any other charging method for my Nissan Leaf, which I've owned for two years. I have a 20 mile (total) commute, and really only charge every other day or so. I've never reset the efficiency calculator, and the average report is 4.3 miles/kwh. I don't think I really engage in any hyper-miling behavior, but I might drive more efficiently than most.
I suppose parks (national, provincial/state, or just local) and libraries are neutral.
Perhaps this was always true, but it seems for a brief time places like shopping malls were not as concerned as much somehow with having purely immediately profitable people inside and that’s why they were able to be that third place.
Hopefully in time a new generation of voters will want to fund more third places with taxes, because that seems to be the way to get long lasting third places that really do serve their purpose without an agenda.
The depreciation we’re seeing may genuinely be wealth gap related. The people on one side of the gap want a new Tesla rather than a used one, and on the other side you may not have stable charging infrastructure i.e. in an apartment, don’t want to pay an electrician to upfit their house, or are just straight up hanging back on older cars.
I, for one, bought a used electric car recently for over half off the MSRP and it’s been an excellent car. It’s quiet, it’s fast, if I sit in my garage for 5 minutes when I arrive and answer a text message blowing the air conditioning that’s fine. I even just charge with the 120V outlet. But if you don’t have the ability to charge at home or work, it’s going to be more annoying than visiting a gas station, so likely better to stick with ICE for now.
In that case I see no problem with the main sponsor company not wanting just anyone to come and make money off their work. They might accept contributions if offered up, but they are not hoping to gain much from them.
That’s in stark contrast to a project like Linux where it much more heavily relies on outside people getting into the development cycle.
To your point actually, I think it can be sticky for an open source maintainer of a small project when someone comes along and tries to be a more active contributor and treat your project like the latter when you’re really intending it to be more like the former. There’s no great signal of what type of open source you’re intending to create apart from saying “I don’t really want significant contributions” in your readme.
reply