jyxent

Do you mean that this is technically possible, or that this is a feature that will be supported? I've preordered the Time 2, so having the ability to configure it that way to significantly extend the battery life of the ring could be interesting. On the other hand, using it standalone might be fine for me. I wouldn't really know how fast I might go through the battery without using it for a while.

Bluesky has also added 1m new users for each of the past 2 days.

It says that lead fumes are unlikely to be generated:

Based on standard soldering iron temperatures of 620°F-700°F and the melting point of lead (621°F), it is unlikely that lead fume will be generated during electronic soldering, unless the solder is heated to lead’s vaporization temperature of 3182°F.

I've been learning BCC / bpftrace recently to debug a memory leak issue on a customer's system, and it has been super useful.

I think XY actually has better resolution depending on your perspective. I agree that the minimum extrusion is approximately a line width circle. But that circle can move less than the line width for features on larger surfaces. For example, if you emboss something on the side of an object with 0.3mm depth using a 0.4mm nozzle / line-width, it will work fine.

Anybody who lives in a rural area with a well could have higher levels of natural occuring fluoride in their water too.

How is this Elon-hate? Is a founder someone who founded a company or someone who joined it later? Calling someone not a founder doesn't change their contributions to the company.

Not defending them, but that would explain why they thought it was 2 years old.

If it is happening all the time, providers of generative AI should be emphasizing a whole lot more that they can just make up information.

ChatGPT currently has this message in small text below the message prompt, but I'm not sure how long it has been there: "ChatGPT can make mistakes. Consider checking important information."

But I think that message is kind of underplaying it. The fact that it can make mistakes doesn't necessarily mean that the average person will think it is completely making something up.

And you downplay evidence of fraud. You mentioned studies where 1/3 to 1/2 of reviewed papers are found to not be replicable and say they get similar but weaker results. This is evidence of p-hacking or data manipulation. You should expect far less papers to not be replicable given proper statistics.

You misunderstand. The issue is that many more papers should be retracted. A paper this major that couldn't be replicated still took another decade to be retracted.

There are many more papers that are less cited that will never get looked at in enough detail to discover fraud.

You're missing the 'and their output.'

The licenses for the three libraries / software they mention are MIT or BSD. They don't need to make it open source.