I have the same issue. I have too many ideas with very limited amount of time to work on them. When I meet people, I want to share my ideas and get feedback about what they would find interesting, use, pay for, etc.
I'm building a platform to do this, so I can share my ideas.
It's currently available as a subdomain of my personal site, since I have not yet finalized the domain for this project. However, each user's page will be at a path of the primary domain (e.g. example.com/moshe). `/ideas` is not supported at a sub-path (e.g. example.com/moshe/ideas).
I will be supporting custom domains, so I could support `/ideas` only for those sites.
Other options include redirecting/rewriting your personal `/ideas` path to this product. Or, offering subdomains (e.g. moshe.example.com/ideas)
I’ve always wanted a tool to help me track my online orders. However, it wasn’t practical to make integrations with every merchant. Even scraping the order emails was way too much work to do for an unproven product.
Now with LLMs it’s simple to extract structured data from emails.
I built [Orderling](https://orderl.ing) that is basically a CRM for your orders. It uses OpenAI api to extract the order information and automatically adds it.
> Apple updated its App Store guidelines today with a change to its traditionally strict restrictions around push notifications. Apple has long banned apps from using notifications for “advertising, promotions, or direct marketing purposes,” but that changes today. Apps can now send marketing notifications when “customers have explicitly opted in to receive them.” Users must also be able to opt out of receiving the ads.
> The change follows a couple incidents over the past two years in which Apple bent its own rules by sending out push notifications that read a lot like ads. Since other companies’ apps could be banned or have their push notification privileges revoked for that behavior, the moves were criticized as another example of Apple getting away with special treatment because it controls the platform.
Did they change it back? Reading the guidelines themselves...
2.5.16 Widgets, extensions, and notifications should be related to the content and functionality of your app.
2.5.18 Display advertising should be limited to your main app binary, and should not be included in extensions, App Clips, widgets, notifications, keyboards, watchOS apps, etc.
> The flight software is written in C/C++ and runs in the x86 environment. For each calculation/decision, the "flight string" compares the results from both cores. If there is a inconsistency, the string is bad and doesn't send any commands. If both cores return the same response, the string sends the command to the various microcontrollers on the rocket that control things like the engines and grid fins.
Seems risky. I remember the automated train control system for the Vienna Hauptbahnhof (main train station) had an x86 and a SPARC, one programmed in a procedural language and one in a production language. The idea was to make it hard to have the same bug in both systems (which could lead to a false positive in the voting mechanism).
Do you have data to back that claim up? I remember reading evidence to the contrary, namely that programmers working on the same problem -- even in different environments -- tend to produce roughly the same set of bugs.
The conclusion of that study was that parallel development mainly accomplishes a false sense of security, and most of the additional reliability in those projects came from other sound engineering techniques. But I have lost the reference, so I don't know how much credibility to lend my memory.
After some searchengineering I found Knight and Leveson (1986) “AN EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE ASSUMPTION OF INDEPENDENCE IN MULTI-VERSION PROGRAMMING” which my memory tells me us the classic paper on common failure modes in reliability via N-version software which I was taught about in my undergrad degree http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers.html#ft
> Modern fly-by-wire planes are said to have 12-way voting
Do you have a source for that? Everything I've ever read about Airbus says the various flight control systems are doubly redundant (three units). Twelve sounds like it would be far beyond diminishing returns...
That was word of mouth.
This website says 5 independent computers, of which 2 use different hardware and software so as not to fail in the same fashion.
There's several subsystems that have backup functionality or piloting fallback available incase of subsystem failure, and subsystems have internal 2-weay or 3-way redundancy/voting. See eg https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/15234/how-does-...
If you read the link it’s actually two cpu cores on a single cpu die each returning a string. Then 3 of those cpus send the resulting string to the microprocessors which then weigh those together to choose what to do. So it’s 6 times redundant in actuality.
It’s a more solid 3x or 3x+3y, which… if you had a power failure at a chip doesn’t take a 6x to make it 5x. It makes it 4x with the two remaining PHY units because two logical cores went down with one error.
The x being physical units, and the y being CPUs in lockstep so that the software is confirmed to not bug out somewhere.
It’s 6x for the calculated code portion only, but 3x for CPU and 1-3x for power or solder or circuit board.
I know it’s pretty pedantic, but I would call it the lowest form for any quality, which is likely 2-3x.
I don't understand this. If two or more computers fail in the same way simultaneously, isn't it much more likely that there is a systemic design problem/bug rather than some random error? But if there is a design problem, how does having more systems voting help?
It is possible for a random error to affect two computers simultaneously, if they are made from the same assembly line, they may fail in exactly the same way, especially if they share the same wires.
That's the reason I sometime see that for RAID systems, it is recommended to avoid buying all same disks at the same time, because since they will be used in the same way in the same environment, there is a good chance for them to fail at the same time, defeating the point of a redundant system.
Also, to guard against bugs and design problems, critical software is sometimes developed twice or maybe more by separate teams using different methods. So you may have several combinations of software and hardware. You may also have redundant boards in the same box, and also redundant boxes
They are not going to fail the same way simultaneously. This is protecting against cosmic ray induced signal errors within the logic elements, not logic errors due to bad software.
Having at least 3 computers allows you the option to disable a malfunctioning computer while still giving you redundancy for random bit flips or other environmental issues.
Which is why different sets of computers will run software developed by independent groups on different principles, so that they very unlikely to fail simultaneously.
It's more complicated than that, in the link, they described it better:
>> The microcontrollers, running on PowerPC processors, received three commands from the three flight strings. They act as a judge to choose the correct course of actions. If all three strings are in agreement the microcontroller executes the command, but if 1 of the 3 is bad, it will go with the strings that have previously been correct.
This is a variation of Byzantine Tolerant Concensus, with a tie-braker to guarantee progress in case of absent voter.
I was taken to task for mis-spelling "consensus"; I used to spell it with two 'c's and two 's's, like you. It was explained to me that it's from the same root as "consent", and that's how I remember the right spelling now.
Originally, when I started working on [Fileshark](fileshark.app) I designed it around using your own Google Drive as the storage backend. I ended up going in a different direction. Here are some of the reasons:
- Having the entire product be reliant Google is just too big a risk. Google has changed apis, and restricted access to third parties.
- Lots of added complexity around search, pagination, etc.
- Due to the last point, all the files need to be tracked in an external database. This adds a requirement to keep everything in sync.
- Now that the files are not stored in Google Drive, I’m working on adding an option to support auto backups to Google Drive.
I've used [Paperless ngx](https://docs.paperless-ngx.com/) for several years to manage my important personal documents. I wanted something like Paperless, but that is hosted. Selfhosted is nice, but I really needed these documents to always be available and accessible. At times, my self-hosted setup would be down.
It would be good if there is a FAQ that explains where the documents are stores,
and how the stored documents would be safe, encrypted, etc., and how they could be retrieved if the website is no longer available or wanted, etc.
Watch out with this approach, emails sent via mailjet will have a mailing list id and unsubscribe header, and may be deprioritised. In gmail, with the default settings, they will land in the 'promotional' tab, not the main inbox.
The forms can be dynamically generated within the workflow, and then call back with the response.
The docs still need some work and I plan on adding some video demos, but here it is so far.
https://humaninput.app
reply