I just run a wireguard container on my raspberry pi 3b and use that to VPN onto my local network. Was super simple to set up

Yes, I should be able to play music, AND charge the phone without a 9 wire adapter like those universal charger plugs from 10 years ago. Wild concept. I wonder when phone tech will be able to support such a thing

I'm not sure what troop you were in, but nobody I know had an experience like that in scouts. I loved scouts and highly suggest people get into it. Without scouting I would have never done many awesome things, and I straight up never would have gotten the chance to get into certain hobbies like snowboarding (my family does not ski), without taking merit badges like the snow sports merit badge. I learned how to scuba dive, I learned blacksmithing (awesome merit badge), it helped fuel my love of chemistry, and so SOOO much more. I'm not saying it's all fine and dandy, there are bad people out there. However, painting scouts with a broad brush (or painting anything with a broad brush) is just wrong. It's not representative of the entire group, nor of everyone's experience with said group.

I would say scouting significantly built my leadership skills, I attended multiple leadership conferences and trainings, and my eagle scout award is a talking point in every interview. Along with many of the life long friends I made along the way, I highly recommend scouting to young children. You will be shocked the cool opportunities it can provide.

Finally, I'm not in any way sure what was fascist about anything we did in scouting? Outside of being respectful when performing flag ceremonies, very little national anything came up unless we took a trip to a military base to see refueling planes for example. I'd assume this highly depends on the troop and its leaders, but again this is not an across the board scouting thing. Every troop can be wildly different from the next as long as their bylaws fit within thr BSA rules

Because it's actually dogshit. Like in every thinkable way a launcher "could be bad" it is.

Examples:

-Cannot move games or files, IN ANY CAPACITY. If you move a game folder or file the Epic launcher loses sight of it and the launcher has no way at all to tell it where existing files are. I learned this when I tried to move GTA V and had to reinstall the full game in the exact same location so that epic could see it.

-The launcher is the slowest loading launcher and service in the world. I have a 7800x3D and an nvme and EGS is the slowest launcher on my computer by a country mile (fucking Uplay is faster). Also on top of that, it has a major hard on for making you log back in on the same fucking computer (what feels like weekly). Meanwhile I don't touch steam for 2 weeks and, guess what? It still logs me in! How the hell did they figure out that crazy tech?!

-It has absolutely 0 of the function the steam launcher has. Besides letting you spend money on games and launch them. No communities, workshop, friends features, profiles, voice calling, steam share, remote play together, etc.

I could go on but this all just grinds my gears when they do nothing but tout how they are "for gamers" and "for developers" when they're clearly just here for fucking money. They use anti consumer practices to lock people into an ecosystem that for some reason they refuse to improve (wild fucking concept, maybe people would use their launcher if it wasn't one of the least functional ones available!), and instead try to bait people in and keep them around with a free game a week. I'll never, ever willingly give a cent to epic games. They've proven they don't give a fuck about gaming or the consumer experience

edit: changed you to they when referring to Epic Games at the end

That is the second. The "first" was linus going on an unhinged rant and shirking blame on the LTT forums

I straight up had the shocked Pikachu face when he said that. Being someone with a background in chemistry, I love the level of care GN puts into their testing. To have an LTT employeee be so fucking brazen with how they shit on someone WHO DOES IT RIGHT made me unsub right then and there. Linus' reaction only made me feel even more secure in my choice.

I just want to make the distinction, that AI like this literally are black boxes. We (currently) have no ability to know why it chose the word it did for example. You train it, and under the hood you can't actually read out the logic tree of why each word was chosen. That's a major pitfall of AI development, its very hard to know how the AI arrived at a decision. You might know it's right, or it's wrong....but how did the AI decide this?

At a very technical level we understand HOW it makes decisions, we do not actively understand every decision it makes (it's simply beyond our ability currently, from what I know)

example: https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-black-box-a-computer-scientist-explains-what-it-means-when-the-inner-workings-of-ais-are-hidden-203888

Setup a jellyfin server, and then you can use custom CSS options to outright make jellyfin look and function like netflix.

Example: https://github.com/Automationxperts/jellyflix

There are many more options to completely customize the look and feel. Also you can do this system wide (meaning all clients get what you set up, or you can set it up per client since its just CSS)

So I wanted to provide a bit of unique perspective here on the topic. I now work as a process engineer in a steel mill, but 2 of my previous positions were in product safety and regulatory compliance. I worked in US, CA, & MX regulatory law, as well as global compliance with countries outside of the Americas. In my position I had to deal with regulatory compliance with chemical lists (TSCA, ECHA, DSL/NDSL, ISHL, etc.) and I was responsible for creating and verifying the information we use to create our SDS sheets.

So a large part of people are stuck on the fact that there is a lot of redacted information in the paper, this could be for multiple reasons outside of protecting trade secrets. As I stated above, there are regulatory chemical lists. In many countries, it is entirely ILLEGAL to sell or use in manufacturing, any chemicals which do not appear on the list for the country in question. When a company wants to create a new chemical (which is happening all the time, this also can be a "mix" and not a defined exact molecule, ill speak more on this later) its is a very slow and long process of classifying the chemical, getting a CAS number assigned, and then getting this chemical listed on the regulatory lists of the locations you intend to use it/sell it. To get listed on these lists is a process in itself that includes providing absolutely as much information on the chemical as reasonably achievable. From my experience, ECHA (EU) has stricter rules than TSCA (U.S) for example, and not all lists are made equal, governed equally, or even list the same chemicals. So circling back, the feedstock listed in the paper is likely very early in this process or is in the middle of the process, meaning there is not an "official" name or means of identifying what is being spoken about, anything referred to in the paper would just be internal monikers/code names or possibly a nickname to describe it.

On the topic I said I would speak more about, "mixes" or "chemicals" without a defined chemistry. So there are feedstocks/chemicals/mixes of oils/paraffin materials/alkanes/etc. that are very hard to control the creation of, so they are created as an inseparable bulk mixture. Some Examples:

-Cas #: 85535-86-0 [C18-28 Chloroalkanes (20-50 %Cl)]

-Cas #: 97553-43-0 [Paraffins (petroleum), normal C > 10, chloro]

The "mixtures" are classified based on their properties and what is actually making up that mix defined within the certain Cas #. This is likely how all of the feedstocks in the paper would be classified. Based on certain plastics that are recycled you could expect X, Y, Z, defined blends.

Finally, regarding the safety aspect. Having been thrown into the world of chemical regulation (I am a chemical engineer by education, we covered the existence of TSCA in like one section of our safety course), I got to see first hand how almost "fly by the seat of your pants" it is. I cannot suggest a "better" way to more safely regulate these chemicals, other than to take an outright strict approach (which I am in favor of btw). Eu for example is much stricter (both health and environmental hazard wise) compared to the U.S. They have a higher burden of proof that the chemical is not harmful and an approach of "okay if it shows signs it could be a problem, classify it as such", while it sure feels like the EPA takes the approach of "okay, lets see if you guys can keep this from becoming a problem." Which companies have proved repeatedly, they cannot.

They actively use this design in large buildings (with a modern twist). Its known as a chilled water system: https://hvactrainingshop.com/how-a-chilled-water-system-works/

Or you have ones that do not run at all during the day, and only chill/freeze the water at night on excess power/cheap power: https://www.buildinggreen.com/news-article/making-ice-night-cool-buildings

The second system I linked would then let the ice slow melt over the day as its way of actively chilling air passing through its exchanger.

These systems work by chilling water instead of air, which has a much higher heat capacity. Meaning, it can accept much more thermal energy per unit mass before raising its temperature by 1 kelvin. You are able to build a single, very well designed, and efficient refridgeration unit that can provide HVAC services to up to multiple high rise buildings. This reduces waste and reduces the usage of coolant/refridgerant.

This system can be reversed in the winter (heating the water instead of chilling) with geothermal heat, solar heat, or if no "green" options are readily available, natural gas direct fire heat can be extremely efficient compared to electric coil

Not necessarily in your house. I'm talking about the design of the units from when you were a child (Many public buildings in the EU have AC regardless of houses not having it). AC was invented in 1901, and has come a very long way since then, and we have begun combining it with old principles to extract the best of both solutions

Combining modern refrigeration/cooling techniques with well designed passive systems that exploit material properties (Heat capacities, transfer coefficients, etc.) to their advantage is the future of HVAC. It started with CFCs and knowing we could exploit their boiling point with mechanical force to chill air beyond the outside air temperature. Who knows where science and engineering may take us next!

This would be a great idea if you want everyone in that building to file humidity complaints every single day. Air conditioners work by using mechanical work (compressor) to exploit evaporation in order to pull heat from one location to another and exhaust it away, in turn cooling the first location (this could be air, water, etc.)

This system works by using ground temp water as a heatsink to suck heat out of the air passing over it. When it does this, it humidifies the air. In the desert...who cares? In an office building...who cares? Every single worker who is stuck there all day

If you're saying we need better systems than the AC unit you grew up with, fear not! Many office buildings have been moving away from it (same with other large venues) they use a chilled water system. They use the best of both these systems to get WAY more performance out of way less wattage. You only need a fraction of the cooling power with a chilled water system because the water can absorb much more heat per unit mass than air and can be sized to never run during the day, but only at night when the grid is least in use