Out of curiosity, why? I use TS for all my homelab bits (including my HA instance), but connect to TS before opening the HA app. Is it just a case of making it easier/ possible to connect if you’re on another VPN? Are you not concerned with having something from your local network open to the internet?
After a decade with KeePass, I’ve finally moved to Vaultwarden. I’ll admit, self-hosting such a critical service still feels a bit scary, but the seamless syncing across all my devices is a huge upgrade. To balance the risk, I keep it tucked safely behind Tailscale for that extra peace of mind.
Do you have anything that’ll trigger a notification if there’s suspicious traffic on your local network? I may be overly paranoid about exposing things on my local network to the internet.
Besides the use cases listed, we see this as an opportunity for homelabers and organizations to add authentication with access control to already exposed services.
That’s relevant when storing a users password to verify that they’ve entered the correct data, but password managers (which Keychain effectively is, I believe) need to be able to retrieve the original password
You are deeply confused as to how password managers work.
Password managers—all password managers—require stored passwords to be encrypted such that they can be decrypted. Otherwise they would have no possibly way to retrieve the stored secret for the sake of submitting it to the verifying party.
Best practice for verifiers is to use a one-way memory-hard password hash.
It just means that ‘a’ must be a Number [0]. In this context, I believe satisfies means that it implements the things defined in the ‘minimum definition’ in the link below. If you’re familiar with Go, it’s similar to something implementing an interface.
well why does Num then come before a ? If a :: Num would mean a is a value of type Num, why does this "satisfies" constraint does not follow the pattern?
Technically, `a :: Num` would be declaring, or defining that `a` is of type `Num`. After you see `a :: Num`, you can assume from then on as you're reading the program that `a` has type `Num`; if something is incompatible with that assumption it will result in a compiler error. This is different from `Num a`, which is making the assertion that `a` is of type `Num`, but that assertion may evaluate as true or false. It's similar to how assignment is different from equality, so that most programming languages with C-style syntax make a distinction between `=` and `==`.
There's also the fact that `Num` is technically not a type, but a type class, which is like a level above a type: values are organized into types, and types are organized into classes. Though this is more of a limitation of Haskell: conceptually, type classes are just the types of types, but in practice, the way they're implemented means they can't be treated in a uniform way with ordinary types.
So that's why there's a syntactic distinction between `Num a` and `a :: Num`. As for why `Num` comes before `a`, there's certainly a reasonable argument for making it come after, given that we'd read it in English as "a is a Num". I think the reason it comes before is that it's based on the usual function call syntax, which is `f x` in Haskell (similar to `f(x)` in C-style languages, but without requiring the parentheses). `Num` is kind of like a function you call on a type which returns a boolean.
This reminds me of the Make Illegal States Unrepresentable[0] idea, where something will return a ‘ResolvedExecutor’ type to guarantee that you’re only working with something in the state you want. Go makes this a little clunky to do, though. I suppose you could use Generics to implement a Preresolved and Resolved struct.
You start with a Resolver, call Resolver.Execute, and up with a Resolved (which happens to be the same object, but that's really an implementation detail). But the type system doesn't prevent you making further calls to Resolver -- that's one of the illegal uses we'd like to prevent, if I understand the example.
It might work in a language with linear types or some concept of ownership. Execute() would take ownership of the Resolver and prevent it being called again.
Let's do the same to twitter links and get rid of them too, please. Without nitter links, twitter links are completely useless to those of us who would rather not have a Xitty account.
You don't need a 2000 kg car-shaped monster just to get one person to his office job. That's a historical artifact because ICE engines can't fit onto man-sized vehicles.
In the future most vehicles will be man-sized and powered by electrical motors. "Cars" will exist only for hauling freight, and probably only ever occasionally rented, not owned.
This appears like wishful thinking to me, because motorcycles have been available for a century, but people still almost always prefer cars if they can afford them.
Cars keep you much better protected from temperature, weather and traffic; it seems very unlikely to me that people will just forgo these comforts to rent electric rollers in the future.
Keeping a similar total number of privately owned cars, but almost all electric, sounds MUCH more likely to me.
> Cars keep you much better protected from … traffic;
I think you mean car traffic. Cars create most of the dangerous traffic conditions that exist in our cities and neighborhoods.
While the GP’s post is idealistic, so many places are working to make non-car travel safer, it’s not hard to imagine a future where people choose more convenient modes of transportation as they feel safer doing so. Bikes as an example, tend to be easier to park, avoid most traffic issues (never really get stuck in traffic) and generally don’t have to look for parking at your destination. The only downside is their utility is generally mostly for local travel (last mile) of about 2 miles.
My guess is that for people that live within 2 miles of their work, school, and other needs, you’ll start seeing most households drop to a single car, with electric bikes making up most of the utility needs. It’s hard to predict a timeline here, and is highly dependent on a communities attention to making roads safer for non-car users. But for communities that do make those safety improvements you see big upticks in bike usage for things like taking kids to school, daily food shopping, and travel to work.
No; I mean that a car protects reliably in case of an accident. When on a bike, roller or on foot you are MUCH more likely to bleed or break bones. Bike-on-bike crashes can be fatal, even if there were zero cars or trucks around.
Living within 2 miles of work for the majority sounds just improbable to me without falling back on short-term renting (maybe even then). Outside urban centers- impossible.
True, though based on the statistics around this most people tend to only bike about 5 miles. After that, it’s really only the folks committed to not driving at all.
Cars are a massive waste of energy and resources compared to other transport options we have now.
Societis/cultures who ignore efficiency will be eventually forced to adapt against their will. It's just market economics.
(E.g., you can be obstinate and waste a significant chunk of your income just for the perceived comfort of a car, but over a few generations these people will lose in economic competition to people who act rationally.)
"People won't do something if it's not efficient" is quite a take. Demonstrably wrong, too. People will happily trade off more energy consumption for personal convenience.
As PV goes down its experience curve, the cost of operating an electric vehicle will fall. As batteries go down their curves, the cost of the vehicles themselves will fall. This will naturally push the equilibrium tradeoff point to larger, more energy intensive vehicles.
As someone who’s adopting bikes for most of my utility needs, food shopping, dropping kids off at school, one thing I can’t agree with is that cars are more convenient. In general, I find cars to be far less convenient. They are annoying to park, often get stuck in traffic, and generally are just annoying large boxes that you need a lot of space to maneuver. Using a cargo bike for most of those needs on the other hand is far more convenient. Cars are definitely more comfortable, especially on rainy days. But even on rainy days, I often choose to ride (if it’s not a crazy storm) as it’s still more convenient.
Cars are only inconvenient in a few dense urban areas. In the places where most Americans live/work/shop/recreate there is plenty of free parking and traffic isn't too bad.
You appear to have misunderstood the Census definitions. Most of what they label as "urban" or "suburban" is hardly dense by urban planning standards. The people living in those places mostly have a surplus of parking.
The census has a broad definition of urban, which is why I also linked the Bloomberg article that is a more articulate piece on what we should define as urban. Even using that, more than 60% of Americans live in urban environments.
The question is about convenience. Cars and parking, parking lots, moving through them, being stuck behind one or two cars traveling into and out of a parking lot. Even if there is ample parking, you generally have to walk longer distances from that than you do when you bike. That is why biking can be more convenient than driving. It’s not that you have to search for parking for 30-40 minutes at both ends of you trip, it’s that driving has all sorts of annoyances, like random traffic from crashes, lots of waiting at signals, lots of waiting for others to get their cars out of the way in parking lots. That’s always been my experience driving, and that includes the very rural place where my parents live. When you travel into town for groceries, you still have to deal with moving a car through all of those situations. If I’m closer than 2 or 3 miles to where I’m going, my preference is definitely not driving, because overall it’s more annoying than biking.
> People will happily trade off more energy consumption for personal convenience
This must be why European cars are generally smaller than American cars. It has nothing to do with the lack of tax breaks on large vehicles, historically higher gas prices, and notoriously smaller parking spots. Nothing at all. Europeans just like smaller cars, right?
And let’s not get into why half of Asia seems to ride around on tiny little 50cc vespas/scooters. I’m sure that’s just more comfortable there what with all the extremely hot weather and monsoon rains.
You use money to buy energy. Wouldn't matter that you're money-bound if gas was free. With gas (energy) not being free, people are voting with their wallet to say they would rather spend their limited funds on things other than energy.
For example: Going bonkers crazy on insulation is a common thing to do in Europe. We had TV ads for triple-pane windows back in the 1990s in a country (Slovenia) where re-doing your windows costs an annual wage or more. Because over N years it comes out cheaper than paying for energy.
Energy is so cheap in USA, at least in CA where I am, that even in 2024 seeing double-pane windows on a house is rare. Let alone triple or quadruple pane, which have become the norm back home.
> Cars are a massive waste of energy and resources compared to other transport options we have now.
Comfort is something we spend energy and resources on. This is a good thing.
You could potentially argue its too much energy/resources but that's not a determination you can make, not having access to people's internal emotional states. Some people really like giant fuzzy toys, some like nothing more than flying and some like fancy VR.
We should let people spend the energy/resources they earn on what gives them the most comfort/enjoyment or we'll be Typical Mind Fallacying our way to collective unhappiness.
(The above assumes that the externalities of cars are correctly priced in in the form of car insurance, road tax, congestion charge and fuel duty)
I was struck on a visit to Tel Aviv how absolutely every economic class had a form of powered transportation.
The low rung was the scooter/bicycle and the expense and convenience went up from there.
The streets are absolutely clogged with every level of transportation and everyone was busy and going fast.
Quite a contrast to rural New England but obviously the future. I see a college professor riding a one wheel about 2 miles from campus going up an incline that stretches for 2 miles. The road turns to dirt as it crosses state lines to Vermont. I dislike the ride on my bicycle. I stopped him once and I think he said he had 40 mile range!?
Admittedly our experience is probably very different, I live in London where there's great public transport, so most people use that/ bicycles to get into their jobs. Despite that, I still own a car that I regularly use to get out of the city into areas that aren't remotely well served by public transport (think an airfield in the middle of nowhere). The infrastructure around renting a car is too much of a pain in the ass at the moment, and far too expensive. I think the inflection point is ~12 rentals or so per year to make it cheaper to own my crappy old car with insurance and maintenance.
In Japan, electric Kei cars do quite well at half that weight, even in rural areas with heavy snow. For example, 2022-2023 car of the year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Sakura
You need the car if you want to go reasonably fast (much more than 20-30 mph) and stay reasonably safe. You also need the car if you want to haul enough groceries to feed a family for more than one or two meals, or if you want to transport other people who may be too old or young to go cowboying around on an electric scooter. Electric scooters are pretty much only for young urban adults with no children.
Like it or not, cars aren't going anywhere. A scooter lifestyle might work for you but it doesn't work for a large enough portion of the population that your wishes for society will never come to pass.
Btw, electric scooters are possibly the most idiotic form of personal electric transport; electric bicycles are much safer. The geometry of a scooter, small wheels far below the center of mass of the rider, makes them fundamentally unstable at any speed. Considering bicycles exist, scooters are completely senseless and should probably be banned outright. You are far more likely to crash a scooter by yourself, simply by losing control of it, than to crash a bicycle. Scooters really are for young people who still think they're invincible; which explains why most riders don't even wear helmets.
> wheels far below the center of mass of the rider, makes them fundamentally unstable
Having the wheels far below the center of mass of the whole system (rider + scooter) makes them MORE stable, a bit similar to reversing a car with a long trailer instead of a short one. Compare to something like a racing recumbent bicycle, where the center of mass is really low. Those are very hard to balance at lower speeds.
You're so high above the wheels on en e-scooter (or just a regular kick scooter) that you can easily swerve (i.e. laterally displace the wheels, but not your torso) around a pothole or a puddle without changing the direction of travel. That's the opposite of instability.
The small wheels of scooters make them more likely to death wobble. I have personally witnessed it happen literal to the name, the rider cracked his skull because he wasn't wearing a helmet of course.
Bicycles naturally stay upright. You can push one without a rider and it will roll alone until it loses speed. Try the same with a scooter and it will immediately fall.
Some scooters are susceptible to death wobble, that's true.
The fact that you can push a bicycle without a rider and it will roll, while most small-wheeled kick-scooters will fall, is not caused by a higher center of mass, but by the geometry of the front wheel, mainly the steering angle, fork offset and trail. Without a rider, a) the center of mass isn't even that different and b) it doesn't really matter how they behave without one, because the rider is part of the system.
> if you want to haul enough groceries to feed a family for more than one or two meals, or if you want to transport other people who may be too old or young
This is a "once a week" situation. As time goes on it will become increasingly hard to justify the cost of something you use once a week, especially when other options (groceries delivery) are cheaper and more convenient.
P.S. Scooters are popular because they don't need skill to ride, despite being worse in other respects. As time goes on this, too, will change; learning to ride some sort of PEV will be normal.
How many "once a week" situations do you have? I go out to breakfast most weekends with my spouse. Which one of us should ride on the spokes when its 20° out? Do we have to drive seprately now?
Grocery delivery sucks. You have to order too far ahead, actual delivery time is too unpredictable, you can't personally inspect the items, and sometimes you get inappropriate substitutions. Any suggestion of grocery delivery as a substitute for cars is just totally disconnected from reality.
Americans will continue driving to Costco. There is no conceivable future where this minor transportation cost becomes hard to justify, especially when you factor in the cost savings of buying in bulk.
Grocery delivery is neither cheaper nor more convenient as a general rule. I've only used it once in the past 20 years when I was on crutches and doing a full grocery shopping was awkward.
Grocery delivery is cheaper because they save on real estate costs. (You can keep most of your stock in a warehouse with only a small area for walk-in service.)
This is already happening where I live, because it makes economic sense. (They can sell upscale and more varied groceries without paying for upscale real estate.)
YMMV. For me in the UK — where all supermarkets except the discounters will deliver cheaply — it's ENORMOUSLY more convenient: it saves me hours a week that I'd otherwise spend at a supermarket.
All of these concerns are predicated on sprawl-based land-use patterns, which themselves are dependent on the automobile. The largest impact of private motorised transportation, after climate, has been on the built landscape.
What was replaced were dense cities and compact towns, along with more distributed rural living, though the traditional form of that, still found in some places in Europe and elsewhere, is of small towns from which farmers travel to their (nearby, but not immediately proximate) fields.
In the city/town example, where the total urbanisation rarely extended more than a few kilometers or miles (as in low single digits), one would walk to shops or the market square, and purchases were carried, occasionally pulled in carts or wagons, or later delivery by the merchant was arranged.
Some goods, particularly fresh / readily spoiling ones (milk, eggs, ice) were delivered by cart door-to-door.
I'm not saying that we necessarily are returning to a similar circumstance, though it's a possibility you and others on this thread seem not to even consider. I'd suggest that this is an error. What a post-carbon world will entail is much more expensive private vehicle costs, where EVs seem to runs 2--4x the cost of an equivalent ICE vehicle, which would make ownership more challenging and various alternatives, including smaller transport options (bicycles, electric bikes and scooters, "city cars", and the like) more viable. I'm going to suggest that the Uber/Lyft ride-hailing revolution has proved a failure with many of the purported benefits (less traffic & congestion, universal availability, lower cost, less demand for parking) falling well short of advertised potential.
And I'm not claiming that the transformation will be instantaneous. Mass-market automobiles first appeared in 1901 (Ford's Model T and equivalent General Motors offerings), whilst tract suburban development didn't gain significant momentum until the late 1940s (Levittown, PA), and weren't fully mature until the 1970s, a lag of a half to three quarters of a century. De-suburbanisation may well follow a similar timescale. And yes, it's worth noting that there were a few minor road-bumps on the path to suburbanisation (the Great Depression, World War II).
> Considering bicycles exist, scooters are completely senseless and should probably be banned outright.
Scooters can be quite convenient due to smaller size.
In general, banning things that are too risky for an individual's taste seems wrong. Individuals should be allowed to take risks with their own bodies as long as they are fully informed of those risks. Skiing or having children might be too risky for me but imposing that preference on others isn't showing empathy.
Many single people exist who shop using a backpack, in the peer comments there is an example of a Japanese small car of the year that suits people of a different country.
World-wide car sales 2023: Around 70 millions
Cars sold in the US in 2022: Around 13 millions.
Even if you are talking only about Light Trucks and SUVs as an exclusively American choice, most customers in the BRICs and the most affluent developing countries now prefer a SUV if they can afford one. The only reason light-trucks and SUVs don't outsell light cars in those countries as much as in the USA is the income differential.
Cars per-capita? Well, the US has more cars per-capita than almost anyone, but not by a so big factor, it only has 2x the number of cars per-capita then, let's say, Brazil.
So, no, for what is worth, people seem to prefer to have a personal car as soon as they can afford one, and as soon as their income increases they also seem to have the same american stupid desire for trucks and SUVs.
Nonetheless, large families throughout time and space have somehow managed to survive without a yank tank, this suggests that while they may be desirable they are hardly neccessary.
They’ve also managed to survive without running water or antibiotics. And if you’re really worried about overpopulation, we could go a step further and eliminate the entire practice of medicine. Large families went without modern medicine for thousands of years, plus then we wouldn’t need to worry about maintaining road infrastructure for ambulances.
I have a cargo bike, I carry two kids on it to school and back in the mornings and afternoons, avoiding the crazy car traffic other parents create at drop-off/pickup, and also can carry up to six bags of groceries (easily) which is generally enough food for a week or more.
We use our car to travel longer distances, like soccer tournaments over 5 miles away, or on the very rare case I need to haul something really big (which is such a rare need it’s worth just renting a truck).
The average number of people in a car is probably somewhere between 1 and 2, but if a group of people who know each other have to go from A to B, it is reasonable that they may try to get in a single car. If nothing else, because parking in major cities tends to be a nightmare, and finding a spot for one car is easier than finding N (reasonably close) spots for N cars.
> If nothing else, because parking in major cities tends to be a nightmare, and finding a spot for one car is easier than finding N (reasonably close) spots for N cars.
A vehicle which isn't moving is not performing its job as transport; and is instead wasting space. Your scenario is better served by public transit, which doesn't require any parking (outside of official maintenance depots, etc.). It also scales to groups of several hundred, whilst a car can only take around 5 individuals (perhaps a few more in a minivan, but that just makes the inefficiency of moving it around and wasting space on parking even worse for the entire rest of its lifetime!)
It's more of an issue when the thing exploding is in orbit. This was a (just) suborbital launch, and I think the first stage was quite a bit slower/ lower than orbital at the point that it exploded, meaning it'll all just fall to Earth
I'd love to know more about this. Is this all done 'offline', fine tuning one of the existing open models? Or is everything being sent to an OpenAI API?
I sent it to OpenAI because I felt comfortable doing it with my entries, but my guess is that the same can be done with an open model.
I want to see if it’s possible to have it extract more structured information about my beliefs, values, and thought patterns, and then reference it to non-intrusively comment on my writing.
Let me know if you’re interested in this, I saw your post on journaling and found it thoughtful.
> I saw your post on journaling and found it thoughtful
Thanks!
> Let me know if you’re interested in this
That'd be really great, I'd love to do something like this with my journal. My email is in my profile, or just drop me a message on LinkedIn or something. Whatever's easiest.
There's some new models that can run locally, but I have no idea what the performance of them is like. I was wondering if that's what was used, given the sensitivity of the data
reply