![](/static/b5c6caef/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/fed50129-04e7-4dbc-8f54-4ba5bae58370.png)
But who will they find to play Norman Reedus?!
But who will they find to play Norman Reedus?!
If you end up liking Dungeon Crawler Carl, I’d also recommend the Completionist Chronicles by Dakota Krout, the first book is Ritualist. Based on what I know of DCC, they are both fairly silly LitRPGS.
I’ll concede there’s probably something to miners footing the initial capital to build the infrastructure, and if it’s in a remote area it may be prohibitively expensive for public utilities to extend the grid to it. But mining setups still require high internet speed connections to use the network, and I just have to wonder if installing that is a better use of resources than installing power lines to take some load off non-renewable power sources.
I dug up the original article: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/09/bitcoin-mining-energy-prices-smalltown-feature-217230/
In this case, they already were exporting 80% of the hydro-energy generated, about enough to power Los Angeles in 2018 when it was written. Maybe there are some cases for your suggestion on a small scale, but if a site is generating enough excess electricity to make mining worthwhile, why would it be less worthwhile to connect it to a larger grid?
There is a caveat to this. It’s been a few years since I read the article, but oftentimes the reason Bitcoin miners run on renewables is because they set up shop in places that have established local cheap electricity.
The example in the article was a town with ideal geography for hydro power, to the point electricity was cheap enough to sell it to the next town over. Crypto-miners set up in the first town and quickly began using more power, driving up the cost and eventually causing serious issues for the second town as there wasn’t enough electricity leftover to send their way anymore.
This song has merged in my brain with the opening song for TMNT: Back to the Sewer from the mid-2000’s. That opening has a bit that goes “back, back to the sewer… Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” that lines up so well with the Power Rangers theme here that I always hear it internally as “go go Power Rangers… Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!”
It can be depending on what you like. You have a flying drone to help you that isn’t in multiplayer because there you all have different abilities to cover each others’ weaknesses.
Personally I think single-player gets stale and lonely quick, it’s just a lot more fun panicking and overcoming challenges with friends.
This is partly true. While upvoting has some effect, boosting (at least on Kbin) has a much greater effect on sorting. For example, no comments were boosted on this thread, with Omgarm’s 12 upvote comment below 1984’s 42 upvote comment when using hot sorting. I boosted Omgarm’s comment and it is now at the top of the page despite have less than half the upvotes.
Hey thanks, I hate to see when those get misused. I don’t know how that flew over my head. Maybe their is something wrong with me.
It’s one of my favorite games, and now is a good time to play it! It gives me a similar feeling to Halo where humanity itself is on the backfoot and nearly extinct the whole time, yet enduring as best it can. The difference being that you’re controlling a city fighting the snowpocalypse rather than a cyber-soldier fighting aliens.
There’s a few main aspects to these things I see: the enjoyment of drinking them, the nutrition value, and convenience. For context I’ve ordered a box of Soylent a few times a year for a few years, and my roommate has been using it (or products like Soylent such as Huel) since 2015~2016.
Flavor/enjoyment: Plain Soylent tastes like liquid cheerios. Any flavors you find taste like liquid cheerios with flavor syrup added. To many that sounds gross, but if that sounds bearable to you then it’s worth a try. I like the flavored ones, mainly the creamy chocolate and mint chocolate, which tastes like melted ice cream.
Nutrition: you probably know but each bottle has a decent amount of calories enriched with 20% of your daily value of vitamins and nutrients, which is neat. I’m not a health professional, but I’m guessing it’s probably healthier than taking vitamins but not as good as getting them from a source that naturally has the nutrients. For me who has maybe one bottle in a day it’s a way to keep a baseline of nutrients that I may not get from my normal diet and that aren’t covered by my vitamin supplements.
Convenience: Having bottles is really nice if you commute. I like that when I’m headed out the door I can grab one to drink for work. I won’t be hungry or spend money on fast food. I will often be hungry by the time I’m home but as a person that tends to overeat I consider that a good thing.
My roommate who does the shake blending himself works remote so he can often find the few minutes to put a bottle together. He’s built up a reserve of ~20 blender bottles but usually needs about a third of them for his daily drinking if we keep up on dishes. He’ll use 2-4 a day for breakfast and lunch before a solid food dinner. We also keep space for 2-3 gallons of milk for how much he makes.
That’s all anecdotal, but I hope it gives you an idea of what daily life with the stuff may look like.
Yeah, but behind that wrong side is a valid person, and without a discussion you’ll never know how they ended up on that wrong side. Without knowing how they got there, you’ll never be able to sway them away from the wrong side and they will continue to be wrong.
I think everyone has something worth saying, but in the majority of cases I just don’t have the time, energy, or patience to get to that something.
Company A was created independently. In a sense, it owned itself. After a while Company A decided it needed capital or a close business partner. Company A told company B “We will sell you a 49% share of our company for capital and close business relations.” Company B accepted. Now what happened to the other 51%? They’re still with Company A, so we can say that Company A owns shares of itself.
If the author no longer has passion for his OSS project, and isn’t being paid for it, why is he still working on it? Why should he feel responsible for companies building their processes on a free piece of software without guaranteed support? Why the heck is he sacrificing sleep for something he claims not to care about anymore? It sounds to me like he’s not living his values.
If compensation for volunteer work is mandated, it becomes less volunteer work and more of a part(or in some cases full)-time job. My understanding is that a core pillar of open source software is that anyone can contribute to it, which should make it easier for contributors to come and go. Based on the graph shown it would take more than a full-time job worth of money to meet his demand, which seems unlikely in any case, and it’s time for him to go. Either someone else will volunteer to pick up the slack, the companies using it will pay someone to pick up the slack like the author mentioned, or the software will languish, degrade, and stop being used.
I don’t see how any of those outcomes suggest that people need to be paid for the time they voluntarily give. I could get behind finding better ways to monetarily support those who do want to get paid, but “how could it be easier to pay OSS contributors after their passion is gone?” is a lot less provocative of a headline.
Imagine you have a big board on your front lawn where people can come to write stuff and respond to others on the board. This board is an instance.
Your neighbor has their own board, which they have “federated” with yours. Messages from your board can show up on their board, and people there can write on those messages same as ones native to that board.
You can federate with them so their stuff shows on your board, or defederate if you don’t like the people there.
Anyone with the ability to make a board can have one federated with other boards to make a really big web of boards, but to a person looking at your lawn’s board it feels like one big one.
Who tells the people instructing the computers how the book keeping should be done if not the book keepers?
Hey now, I understood that reference and I’m… only… 27.
30 years draws ever nearer.