teunispeters

SAE-J2847 includes "how to convert your building side to supporting BPT grid works, and pairs well - it looks - with ISO 15118-20 BPT. (and reasonably well with ISO-15118-2 and the BPT extensions in SAE-J2847). Anyway, supporting AC grids requires some additional electronics both in battery systems and in the local hookups.

I haven't explored the actual space much, as I work on ISO 15118-20 for busses, and a bus as a local grid backup scales pretty well. (and even then, I work protocol level, not electrical).

The rise of slop (answers made to look good, not be correct, and the bonus to the poster) - was really the start of the slide down. And this started happening more than a decade ago.

I really like SO. I couldn't post answers much, because I had to vet anything I could have said past management. But it was a favoured place to find how to solve questions I didn't deal with daily - up until the slop grew too much.

Oh I'm not really blaming the "slop" on anyone (although it feeds heavily into why AI produces such slop) - it was just connected with the rise of popularity worldwide, and gamed by people wanting to improve their perceived prestige, to open more doors. And, once upon a time, stackoverflow DID open more doors, for a lot of people.

"agents" are useful for people operating in domains they don't know or understand, and not for people who do. Or at least I've never seen a task in a field I'm comfortable in, improved by either "AI" or "an AI agent". Made worse, yes, but not improved.

But I don't mind "agentic development" to help a person learn to code in a domain. As kind of a tutorial, both on "how things can work" and "how to spot the mistakes". "Agents" and "AI" always make a LOT of mistakes, especially in fields of domain specialization.

I have yet to find a reason to switch away from emacs as my primary work flow editor. I've been using it for at least 30 years now.

Why do I prefer it to (say) Turbo Pascal or Borland C++? Both of whom "Visual Studio" style environments have inherited a lot from? Well, those two worked well when one didn't have multiple consoles or terminals, and on a single tasking OS (DOS).

I do not want or need my editor to be my whole UI. (I know Emacs can do it, it's just not something I either want or need). And I am not comfortable with a UI that demands changes from Emacs in order to function, as any such UI suffers from blocking effective development, especially for (say) embedded code spaces.

Can there be better than Emacs? Yeah, probably. It's certainly not the most intuitive interface, for instance.

Is there?

No.

I like this observation: "The idea of it being a pain killer for birth but requiring a vibrator is interesting, because I don’t think any culture developed clitoris stimulation as a child birth helper. If it did help I would expect it to change birth outcomes and thus being a source of positive selection."

except ... well, "women's mysteries" often either didn't get recorded at all, or were excluded in far too many histories. So "we don't know if this was used" would be my assumption. (I am fascinated by histories and read far too many history papers and records, that said, professionals would be able to answer, maybe).

Well, one can design in ways to reduce attack surfaces. But then it also helps if your tools and infrastructure support that. PHP for instance, is famously unhelpful and often hostile to this, though.

The point of engineering is measuring and confirming errors, and designing to mitigate them. Exploits are errors.

Complexity does not lead directly to exploits, letting errors be ignored does. At what level an error can be ignored - that's quality control. And one can tell poor quality software by how exploitable it is.

That's bad designs for you. Assume that just because it's widely visible, must mean it has exploits. (this is the only point on that list I'll call "that's bad logic" on).

1. yes. Although I can get distracted when playing so it's harder to play the songs in my head.

2. I have a "movement map" of where and how I'd move to match the same, and sometimes even how muscles feel. But no I cannot picture "a person". But I can map where and how to move to avoid conflicting, if we were in the same space. (I did a lot of dance in the past).

3. no. Colours aren't there without a visual reference.

I can only remember a colour if it's a key in the story. Ditto anything spacial - unless it matters, it's gone. Don't ask me what a colour is either, I can only tell if there's something in front of me of that colour, otherwise no idea. I mean I have a map of "colour relationships" in my head which helps me remember the words and how they might correlate to reality.

But according to people who have this giant library of colours in their head, I often get the associations wrong or wrong-ish, because my ability to even care about colours is pretty low.

"none of the above". Without a picture, I have no idea what the difference between a "Shiba Inu" and er a Doberman Pinscher is, except they probably have different texture fur and er ... different sizes, maybe? I remember "dog words". (and some textures and smells, but I don't remember ones for those two).

Schematic conceptual, and several other modes not listed. I only do verbal with concentration, and never photo.

NOT a picture, I'm aphantasiac. Map, maybe, sort of works. But mapping (mathematics concept) works in some ways superior to the idea of "2d map". GIS associations for instance are intuitive and obvious to me, but so are dictionaries.

The "of course" is actually a nod to "it's not the way for many". Or rather, my assumed perspectives don't actually map to other people, and it took me a long time to learn that.

It's a very lonely thing realizing one interacts with the world in ways few others do, really.

I have total aphantasia. Can't do pictures. I'm still unsure what I'm missing with sounds.

Anyway, it was an article like this that made me realize others could do this "visulization" thing, and it wasn't just pure metaphor. So weird.

Next, people say they have "inner voices". That can't be real! (/s) (again, like aphantasia, I found out that others have inner voices, and that explains some more things that made no sense to me!)

... I keep running into people that "cannot imagine this". That is so weird, I can't imagine people HAVING "pictures in their head" and "inner voices". I can comprehend it as an idea, but it just does not seem real.

Side note : this is not related to dreams. Dreams are of course, heavy with all senses and complex stories, and almost never related to anything in one's daily life. Why do people ask about dreams? This has no connection with visualization.

I'm so tired of Albertan exceptionalists grabbing attention. They annoy their neighbours no end (including far too many Albertans I know).