> They are never about when a train is actually expected to arrive
Maybe I'm way beyond my expertise, but isn't the train schedules when the train will leave, rather than when it arrives? I've arrived early at train stations many times with my train already being there, idling, and then it leaves on the scheduled time.
Except I guess during delays in the UK when they announce when the train arrives?
> the train will never come earlier than advertisted
This part kind of makes your comment sound like it's not about delays but about the schedules, which I feel like are the departure time, not the arrival time of the train.
The article is referring to NYC subways which, while they run on a schedule in theory, the schedule is effectively irrelevant except for when it leaves its first station.
It won't speed up to compensate for delays, and it's never going to wait at a station because it's running ahead.
So the countdown clocks don't report scheduled times, they are derived from the train's actual current distance.
Obviously medium- and long-distance rain is different.
> It won't speed up to compensate for delays, and it's never going to wait at a station because it's running ahead.
The first part absolutely makes sense, but the second one I'm not so sure. They don't have any "Hold at station" or whatever it's called to get some even spacing if they're running ahead of schedule? Seems unnecessarily chaotic.
Doesn't that mean sometimes you end up with 2 or 3 trains coming right after each other?
> Doesn't that mean sometimes you end up with 2 or 3 trains coming right after each other?
Kind of -- you definitely can have that happen, but probably never because Train #2 is way ahead of schedule, as it's nearly impossible for any American mass transit system's best case scenario to be any better than "on time". When a parade of trains all at once happens, it's more typical that, if trains are theoretically supposed to stop here at 11:10, 11:20, 11:30, and so on, train #1 would be arriving 29 minutes late at 11:39, followed by Train #2 22 minutes late at 11:42, and Train #3 running 14 minutes late at 11:44. For instance, due to "police activity" or worse, when someone dies by suicide on the tracks (pretty sure those delays are much longer than the above example in that case).
I'm not sure if I understood something wrong, but .env files are for development, not production. It never crossed my mind to use .env files for production deployments, but skimming the blog post, it seems like people do ship a .env file to their production environment?
SRE here, most of time when that happens, it's people leaving .env in git where it's not ignored and build process just does COPY * * to runtime environment.
EDIT: Or it's just small time developers who don't care about security and ship whatever works.
The pattern I've always followed is having `.env.template`, `.env.dev` or similar in SCM, then require the development setup to manually/automatically copy it to `.env`, which is .gitignore'd.
Seems that pattern might not have been as widespread as I thought :)
> It used to be the US government worked to secure American communications.
When was this? As far as I remember (but I'm not that old to be honest), it seems to mostly been about the US government making sure the government has secure communications, while the rest get to fend for themselves.
Fend for themselves, and if they don't cooperate with the wishes of the TLAs they get legal trouble nobody could possibly afford. And if you end up in the secret FISA courts, you basically can't get legal representation because it's secret, or ever really talk about it. Also there's no real oversight for this stuff because it's that secret.
I know there’s a mechanism for 3 letter agencies to get a warrant allowing them to break into insecure hardware owned by US citizens and companies, to patch said vulnerability.
Can be, can also be just like using multiple files, especially since OP seems to be using neovim. Open a buffer per area and work away, just like using tabs/panes with multiple files.
I've tried twice to read this, but it looses me about 10% in for some reason. Is it worth continuing past that? Does it get "better"? Or does that just signal that the whole book isn't for me?
I was in your boat. I revisited later and powered through and it does indeed get better. The narrative forms into something more cohesive and you start being less exhausted by all the lingo because you've learned it. You settle in. You have to sort of try to immerse yourself. I'd recommend trying to read in larger chunks of time and really absorb the aesthetic of the world.
I think that was my problem with Burning Chrome. Every sentence contained a new word or three that the reader is supposed to guess by context or conversation. Combined with something that read like stream-of-consciousness narration. I literally had no idea what was even happening after 30 or 45 minutes of reading.
But then I had the same problem with Shakespeare, so maybe I'm just dimmer than most folk.
This is exactly how I feel about Dune. The invented words and world-building are overwhelming at first, but once you absorb them it makes the narrative richer.
Neuromancer definitely has a unique prose style that Gibson came up with. And a lot of people do find it to be something of a turn-off. Me, I enjoyed it on the first read 30+ years ago and still enjoy it on re-reads. But it's hard to say whether or not somebody else will find it enjoyable. All I can say is that I/ve enjoyed Neuromancer enough to read it 4 or 5 times and will probably read it again at some point.
I love Neuromancer specifically for the first third or so, so maybe the latter?
IMO the first part of the book is peak cyberpunk vibes. In particular I read it almost like I would read poetry, late at night when I can't sleep, sometimes jumping back and forth between pages.
Not sure if they're really "scrapers" though, if they're initiated by a user for a single webpage/website, more like "user-agents" in that case, unless it automatically fans out from there to get more content.
Maybe I'm way beyond my expertise, but isn't the train schedules when the train will leave, rather than when it arrives? I've arrived early at train stations many times with my train already being there, idling, and then it leaves on the scheduled time.
Except I guess during delays in the UK when they announce when the train arrives?
> the train will never come earlier than advertisted
This part kind of makes your comment sound like it's not about delays but about the schedules, which I feel like are the departure time, not the arrival time of the train.
reply