While intuitive, I’m not so sure. I look at the center line and slowly cross my eyes until the 3rd image slides into place and then I get focus lock. At no time do I feel my eyes uncross and go the other way. Hmm!
I spent my 30s in a VLCOL (very low cost of living) city. I’m now in my 40s and each year my sentimental feelings somehow keep growing. The small things in life: a local art museum, the local YMCA and its pickleball playing seniors, sauna, inline skating around lake paths, road cycling, local coffee roasters, a small upstart Italian restaurant, and of course my young kids. I’m absolutely in love with these things in a way that isn’t directly coming from them or a product or service… it’s coming from within me. Deep satisfaction. Not necessarily happiness. Somehow, these things define me in ways my business never can/could. I’m a participant in my community and it feels SO GOOD. I could optimize for something else … something “out there” but then what?
While I’m curious of this design, can someone tell me why my cafelat robot is inferior? It’s performed for years with zero maintenance and minimal cleaning. It pulls excellent shots. It takes up minimal counter space. The only downside I can think of is it’s not ergonomic - disabled or less strong individuals may not be comfortable with its physical operation. But short of that … it’s perfect. It is my peak coffee optimization (not one narrow measure of perfection). What am I missing?
“Inferior” is a bit silly in a comparison to this, considering this entire hobby is about small quirks and incremental changes. They seem to have similar offerings except for the big difference that this one has a pump. If you don’t care about a pump, a robot will do fine for the rest of your life. I’m personally bored of lever pulling multiple shots, but my counter space is limited, and I’m interested in purchasing, after seeing a review.
It's not inferior, it's just a different kind of machine!
The main advantages are in the workflow - heating, brewing, cleaning, etc are all done by pressing a button, and the pressure itself is going to stay at exactly what you set it to.
This comment feels disingenuous. You're comparing a manual machine. You obviously know a decent amount about the topic if you ended up with a cafelat robot and reached "peak optimization", but here you are acting confused and incredulous. I'd rather read an account of how a manual machine stacks up against a normal one in your experience than whatever this is.
Sorry, my point is I’m not in the market for new/shiny and I’m wondering what I’m missing. Nothing against new tech, that’s why I’m here. But if we can satisfy our personal espresso needs with something non-electronic, I think that’s worth discussing.
I enjoy coffee and espresso, I don't enjoy the ritual of making it. I don't want to have to stand and focus on getting my pressure correct on the leaver in the morning when I'm half awake. I want to dump premeasured beans into a grinder, then dump them into a machine and press a single button. I realize this machine would require more work then just that but it's still less then a leaver machine.
Leaving the flashlight on annoys me but nothing beats an AirPod in the case that’s not charging. That one drives me nuts. If I’m not listening to anything and one of the two AirPods is charging then they really should be able to detect that and alert me. Especially with all of the find my features.
After 3 years my Apple Watch needed a battery replacement. I went a week without it. There were times I missed an important call or text because I don’t have any habit of checking my phone and I refuse to use audible alerts.
Overall, the Apple watch is less distracting because you can quickly glance and ignore most notifications, or filter notifications based on who it is, time, etc.
But if I had to think harder … another reason I love the Apple Watch is getting stripe sales notifications. Someone halfway around the world buys a thing of yours and you get a tap on the wrist as a reward. I’m not sure I’ll ever turn that off.
While owning a printer is still a curse (1), and software continues a cloudward spiral (2) I’ve made solid progress on a local-first indie barefoot app for designing and printing labels. I just shipped a new feature where you can use modern JS to build logic for each label, modifying variables, hiding and showing objects, formatting dates, etc. More at https://label.live/guides/add-logic-with-script-variables
As the writer says, you’re not alone if you have customers cheering/jeering you on. If you’re lucky you’ll even have customers throwing money at you while lamenting their fears of having to settle for an incumbent.
> The most surreal part of implementing the new calendar came in October 1582, when 10 days were dropped from the calendar to bring the vernal equinox from March 11 back to March 21. The church had chosen October to avoid skipping any major Christian festivals.
The "original" Julian calendar was indifferent to year number systems. The Romans typically used the consular year, although Marcus Terentius Varro "introduced" the ab urbe condita (AUC) system in the 1st century BC, which was used until the Middle Ages. From the 5th to the 7th century, the anno Diocletiani (also called anno martyrum) after emperor Diocletian was used primarily in the eastern empire (Alexandria), or the anno mundi (after the creation of the world). It was Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century, who replaced the anno Diocletiani era with the Anno Domini era. His system become popular in the West, but it took a long time until it also was adopted in the East. Its application to years before the birth of Christ is very late: we come across it first in the 15th century, but it was not widespread before the 17th century.
All these systems used the Julian system for months and days, but differed in terms of the year and (partialy) in the first day of the year.
The century in which the switch occurred (which was different in different countries) was shorter than the others. As were the decade, year, and month in which the switch occurred.
No, the first century began Jan 1, 0000. Whether that year actually existed or not is irrelevant - we shouldn't change our counting system in the years 100, 200 etc.
There is no year zero according to first-order pedants. Second-order pedants know that there is a year zero in both the astronomical year numbering system and in ISO 8601, so whether or not there is a year zero depends on context.
It's ultimately up to us to decide how to project our relatively young calendar system way back into the past before it was invented. Year zero makes everything nice. Be like astronomers and be like ISO. Choose year zero.
Yes but, is there such a thing as a zeroth-order pedant, someone not pedantic about year ordinality? As a first-order meta-pedant, this would be my claim.
Moreover, I definitely find the ordinality of pedantry more interesting than the pedantry of ordinality.
> It's ultimately up to us to decide how to project our relatively young calendar system way back into the past before it was invented. Year zero makes everything nice. Be like astronomers and be like ISO. Choose year zero.
Or, just to add more fuel to the fire, we could use the Holocene/Human year numbering system to have a year zero and avoid any ambiguity between Gregorian and ISO dates.
If only—I think most US citizens who actually work with units of measurement on a daily basis would love to switch to the metric system. Unfortunately, everyone else wants to keep our “freedom units” (and pennies)
We are all defacto ISO adherents by virtue of our lives being so highly computer-mediated and standardized. I’m fully on board with stating that there absolutely was a year zero, and translating from legacy calendars where necessary.
I vote for a year zero and for using two's complement for representing years before zero (because it makes computing durations that span zero a little easier).
What does that even mean? Do we allow for the distortion due to the shift from the Julian to Gregorian calendars, such that the nth year is 11 days earlier? Of course not, because that would be stupid. Instead, we accept that the start point was arbitrary and reference to our normal counting system rather than getting hung up about the precise number of days since some arbitrary epoch.
It means just what it says. In the common calendar, the year after 1 BC (or BCE in the new notation) was 1 AD (or CE in the new notation). There was no "January 1, 0000".
