> > With the popularity of disk brakes, why don't we have a standard size for pads?
Same as for shifters: the braking compound and design for a race road bike will be really different to what a DH race bike requires
I really don’t understand how this mentality Uk survives.
for the past 100 years companies have been working to get unfair advantage over each other by creating user lock-in, patent trolling each-other, DRM in games, changing their design to break compatibility with generic products etc.
surely you must realise that many motivations for product difference have no bearing on user benefit, or we would never have region-locking on DVDs or proprietary media formats.
Bicycle market is not a healthy competitive market. Shimano makes almost all gears for all bikes in Europe. For the price of an electric cargo bike that goes 15 mph and has 0.6 kWh battery I can buy an electric motorbike that goes 70 mph and has 6 kWh battery.
> Inertia of user base is by far the largest predictor of what will stick in a market
Why are you calling open source of market?
These appear to be feuds and battle of ideas fought between contributors, with minimal input from end users. There is no price signal at all
Re. Bicycles, it’s not a healthy market. Shimano dominates with 70% share in gears and brakes. Top 3 manufacturers have what, 95%+?
Also look at how cargo bikes cost 3x what a normal bike does, but have same components.
With that structure, users have zero input on size of breakpads.
TLS internally does not depend on a domain in the DNS sense, it basically certifies a chain of signatures bound to a name. That chain can be verified, starting from the root servers.
The problem is more in the fact that TLS assumes creation of a long-living connection with an ephemeral key pair, while DNS is usually a one-shot interaction.
Encrypting DNS would require caching of such key pairs for some time, and refreshing them regularly but not too often. Same for querying and verifying certificates.
Exactly, there is free fuel and aluminium just floating by, and we are unable to use them to upgrade our ships or refuel them.
Until we make full use of robotics and 3D printing, there is no point of heading far. And we have all the tools.
Distant stars will not be settled by a fast small ship travelling from earth. They will be settled by a city sized monolith produced by harvesting and smelting an entire small moon
> Distant stars will not be settled by a fast small ship travelling from earth. They will be settled by a city sized monolith produced by harvesting and smelting an entire small moon
I don’t even think you’d need a whole moon unless it was a tiny one. Nonetheless, by the time we send a ship to another star, building these kinds of large self-contained habitats will be old hat.
All of fiction and discourse fails to consider that the Solar System is actually a huge place and just the period of settling and industrialising it will take hundreds of years.
Everyone things that a game breaker technology is better engines, or fusion, or FTL, but they are wrong, the game breaker technology has already happened: 3D printing.
If we can manufacture things with minimal infrastructure using local resources, we can that is all we need.
And all of it reachable with simple nuclear power and technology we have today.
It sure isn't. Although its competition is stuff like chmod (way less granular), and SELinux, and SELinux isn't winning any usability competitions either.
> This sounds like Python development....and React.....and Svelte....and oh, remember Angular 2 to 3?
I can open a webpage written in Angular 1, or written in year 1990. I can run a program written for windows 95 on my new PC with windows 11. It’s normal to keep compatibility for compiled/finished ebd user software.
but, can you run npm install on your angular 1 codebase from 1990? or was it bower install ? remember grunt?
my 2012 mac hardware works perfectly fine, even the battery is OG, apple stopped supporting it, chrome won't give update on the last supported os.
software is fragile.
i constrain myself to html and plain vanilla js. if i have to use deps, they are local or hosted .js lib files, minified. d3 is a great example of this pattern.
I miss gulp, things seemed so much simpler back then in retrospect and the nature of JavaScript fatigue seemed to be the FOMO kind instead of this abstraction over abstraction that abstracts that other abstraction but you still have to the understand what it abstracted away kind we have going on today.
Will TypeScript go the way of CoffeeScript in the future? Who knows.
Also the process is prone to unexpected issues, bugs, etc.
reply