z2h-a6n
Joined 4 years ago
Joined 4 years ago
Unexpected Keyboard works well for me when using Termux, possibly even better than Hacker's Keyboard, since I find it easier to swipe on a key to get to uncommonly-used symbols rather than switching to a different keyboard layer. Every now and then I accidentally swipe a key when I meant to press it, and end up entering a accented character when I didn't mean to, but this is fairly rare. I don't use Termux very often, but for occasional vim or terminal usage it's totally sufficient.
One cool feature of Unexpected Keyboard (which may be available elsewhere, I haven't looked at many others) is that you can swipe left and right on the space bar to quickly and accurately scroll left and right in a text field. I find this about as fast as tapping at a position in a text field, but much more accurate.
- base16 is a specification of how different UI elements map to colors [1], and also some tooling, configuration files, etc. to automate setting this up for many different applications.
- For a user to be able to use base16 with a tool, either:
- Allow the user to set their preferred colors for UI elements at a semantic level, preferrably in a config file, and even more preferrably in a separate file that can be included into the main config file so that it's easier to automate (i.e. I have a separate `colors.sh` that is loaded in my `.zshrc`).
- Let the user set their shell colors however they want (presumably using [2]), and use the ANSI shell colors (and a few more) according to the base16 style guide [1]. Some translation between shell colors and base16 colors will be necessary, e.g. base16 says that a language keyword should use the color base0E, which in [2] corresponds to ANSI shell color 13.
My impression is that the base16 specification is not sufficiently general for most tools to implement it in a totally unbambiguous way, but if users can set their own colorschemes with a config file, it's not hard for a user to come up with a base16-approximating colorscheme template file, from which other users can generate a config file that sets a specific base16 colorscheme.[1]: https://github.com/chriskempson/base16/blob/main/styling.md [2]: https://github.com/chriskempson/base16-shell
Out of curiosity, in what sense can the texture be wrong? I never wash my rice, and I like the texture.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer#Explanation...
Of course using a scale is a good way to keep the ratios from getting too out of wack, and I usually do it too when baking and almost never when cooking.
This is on the Jaun de Fuca Ridge, on the other edge of the Juan de Fuca plate [2] from the Cascadia subduction zone, so it's related in the sense that it's the same tectonic plate, and the plate is very small (as far as I understand, it's a remnant of a plate that has been subducting under North America for a very long time). It is not (in my very-non-expert opinion) necessarily related in a direct sense to what is happening in the subduction zone.
[1]: e.g: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcKUIuDhdLl92gfymRabw... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Fuca_Plate
I'd point out that there is another interpretation of resistivity that is linear in temperature, namely that the basic physics of electron transport [1] is the same as a standard metal, where the scattering rate (proportional to resistivity) is proportional to temperature squared. The difference from normal metals is attributed to the linear increase in the carrier concentration (e.g. density of free electrons) with temperature. Since the carrier concentration (in the simple model) is inversely proportional to resistivity, this partially cancels the T^2 dependence of the scattering rate and produces T-linear resistivity. This is not (yet?) widely accepted in the literature, and I doubt it can explain all T-linear resistivity, but I think there's fairly strong evidence to believe it could explain some instances of T-linear resistivity, e.g. in the cuprates [2]. (n.b. I'm academically associated with some of the proponents of this idea, though I'm personally somewhat agnostic on the matter.)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drude_model [2]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/ab4d0f
They compared pulsed light to continuous light with the same average power [1]. This means that the light intensity within the flux was much higher than the intensity of the continuous (since the pulses were short compared to the repetition rate). The proposed mechanism (and their result) depends on the square of the light intensity (because it requires simultaneous absorbtion of two photons), so the effect is scales quickly with increasing peak laser power, but (I'm guessing here) doesn't depend as strongly on average laser power.
Additionally, I expect 4ad was right that sufficiently-intense continuous light would damage our eyes.
My guess is basically that the timescales of two photon absorbtion and human perception are so different (i.e. two photon absorbtion is much faster), that the effects of the pulsed beam (which was repeating at 76 MHz in the experiment) can be treated basically continuous when considering human perception.