Is there a generic (non-brand) name for these boiling-water faucets? (That’s not a mouthful like “boiling-water faucets”). I think we call them quookers here, which is also a brand name, and I slightly dislike that practice. I mean, “brand name for generic thing” is very common, but the brands and things differ per country, so it’s like a layer of jargon to decipher.

Extrapolated from the relevant information in the post (a single data point), that is a solid hypothesis.

I do my time tracking in org-mode, and export it to JIRA once a day or so. It is quite a specific/tailored setup, written in a mix of elisp and, well, org-mode (specific names and tags are used to configure some settings), but I’d love to look at this tool to see if I can extend my workflow by using it for the “massaging into a nicer shape” part. I might end up writing some extensions for either side (org-mode input format and JIRA REST calls output format).

My current tooling quantizes everything by rounding start and end times to the nearest full 15 minutes, and starting a new task at the end time of the previous one when clocking in, so that my team lead does not have to report so many fractions of hours to higher layers.

I don’t think their “No” was a disagreement, but a confirmation of your second line. https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/88502/how-to-agree-with-a-negative-statement-with-yes-or-with-no Sometimes, language can be a tricky tool to wield.

That fills me with determination.

Was the solution there to just boot an older/previous kernel?

As Flatfire mentions, another issue can arise if plugins can modify the config. I assumed config to be read-only for the software, only editable by the admins, and never by the tools themselves.

I’d try to share the config space as much as possible. Options 1 and 3 make sense then.

What feels “right” to me, when using NixOS and its module system, is that all config has the same shape, and is therefor easily moved to a different section, or to a section that is shared by a subset of plugins.

Con: It could lead to bad practices like strengthening dependencies between plugins (if they hard code to use a specific config option of another plugin).

Pro: But if you can discourage that, or use “deprecated pointers” to the new location of an option, the ease of moving shared config options to a more generic level can make it easier to maintain the total configuration. Developers of the separate plugins can build on what others have already done, and even synergize functionality (add a convenient integration if they see another option configured).

If some options are “secret”, though, and you don’t want those shared, they should either be in their own config (easier), or you’d need some access control on the configuration storage/file for each plugin (more work). Allowing a plugin to have a separate file for credentials, for instance, could be a good choice.

That is an interesting source. Thanks for the link!

That’s why you feed that flame once in a while.

This is still salvageable by pronouncing it as “an earl”.

I agree, and I love how it has these younger words with a vivid etymology, how it shares so many common roots with English, German, the Scandinavian languages, and a serving of French, but also sprinkles of many other languages from its seafaring and otherwise trading history. And I love the grammar rules that allow one to be precise and concise in many things (but there we must definitely bow to German).

Water bearer makes much more sense, thanks! I did notice the images where a guy carries a jug, but as a kid, I always imagined the water man to be some kind of elemental, and I never consciously challenged that idea. Haha.

In Dutch we don’t use the Latin names for zodiac signs (and we call them “sterrenbeelden”, which means “star images” or maybe “star statues”). Aquarius is “waterman”, which I guess would translate to (surprise) “water man”.

Why? Not sure, but it might be because of Simon Stevin who insisted we use Dutch words for mathematical concepts, and thought up some words like “evenwijdig” (“same distancey”) for “parallel” and “wiskunde” (“certainty knowledge”) for mathematics.

Yet.

👏👏👏👏

I like that I can hear that omitted space there.

Reply to self: really not that useful. That would be the same as just throwing all variables/coordinates of the solution in a set, forgetting their names and then filling them back in as some kind of madlibs experiment. And multiple solutions don’t grow with the exponent on x, that is just an odd/even thing. Don’t know shat I was thinking…

Haha I got that :) @Urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone is right, I was halfheartedly looking for a logic system in which it could make sense. Still, I would have major issues with the first step as it is shown, but I am wondering about systems where, say, each x <- {..}, then what would be the set, and the probability of the correct solution.

Something I need to be more awake for, and it may be easier to solve without resorting to powers and roots, haha.

Would it be a rabbit hole to try and find any merit in this solution when interpreting it as: “if x is in a superposition of 2 and -2, the x + 2 = x - 2 would be true in 1/4 of the observations”, or something like that?

It is the closest thing to a “solution” that I can imagine, but doesn’t fit any laws that I know of or understand, and would probably break down on any scrutiny, but it feels like something is there.