cflat
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
3.5" have a more durable design - the hard plastic, the spring loaded shield and, most importantly, the center disk that rested on the enclosure housing that prevented the magnetic medium from sagging.
When 5.25" disks are stored on end, they sag over time causing them to physically be unreadable. You have to store them flat. 3.5" are (mostly) resistant to this sag and therefore will be more likely to survive long term.
HTTP caches were always problematic from a business perspective. Great for downloading large binaries (installs) but problematic when they don’t expire as expected, or if content needs to change for contractual reasons.
Google wants all the click data and the click through navigation data about users (by way of passive logs) so they can sell more ads.
There are no other real world problems that web bundles solve.
[1] https://calendar.perfplanet.com/2017/animated-gif-without-th... [2] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=791658
Let that sink in.
Many diabetics suffer from 'random' lows or highs that can't be explained. Not because they aren't doing the right things - because they are - but more likely because their body is bringing islet cells online, producing extra insulin, then the immune system promptly kills them and knocks off the extra production. It's a war within the body!
This is why Loop is sooo amazing and needed. You need a closed loop system that monitors and calibrates to these kinds of bio and environmental changes. Unexpected sprint for two blocks to get to class in time? no problem. Unexpected insulin production in the blood stream? no problem. This project is truly hero work.
As a spouse to a T1D, life is sometimes scary. I, like many partners always have a backup plan in the back of our minds for that that fateful day of an extreme low will not be caught in time. It's scary.
I for one, look forward to life with a bionic partner.
This is such an amazing story of classical "hacking". This is what makes technology fun.
It’s also incrementalism at its finest. “We already shipped av1, adding a single frame decode is minor overhead” is the likely rationale. But it misses the point that images are gazed at while video is moving and can get away with a lot of quality sins that you can’t with images. But worse is that av1 is full of optional features. Sure the client could implement it, but how can you know? Even the lauded animated avif is horribly broken across the ecosystem because of this optionality — and there isn’t any way to tell a priori if the browser can support animated avif. Or 444 avif. Or ycocg avif. It’s just down right broken as an image format falling to the lowest common denominator.