No heart attacks or strokes? I'm in the same boat (hereditary issue), and altering my diet has never had any substantial effect on my numbers. I'm not overweight and rarely eat red meat, but have had trouble keeping onto a primary care physician long term (the people I keep picking seem to move between clinics constantly) in order to retain consistent access to a statin prescription, but as I continue to age I've been getting increasingly anxious that my time is coming.
So far everything is good. I only had more of a logistic issue, once, when moving to France from the US, a few years back (retirement) and when my new doctor told me that the French do not recommend statins for people at my age and overall good shape (active, fit, etc. ), even if the numbers are high. I asked her to give me a referral to a cardiologist, to whom I mentioned my 35 years of statins in the US, and who was of the opinion that after such a long time and with no apparent side effects, he would recommend continuing on this type of médication. And that was it, so I'm now getting the prescription renewals almost "automatically", even as my cholesterol is staying within limits (under the assumption that it may increase, should I stop, especially considering the amazing cuisine and products to which I now have access :) )
Devil's advocate: it seems similar to reassigning a lease if you want out before it ends. Lease reassignment is a common clause in rental agreements, it sounds like Apple simply allows you to reassign your indefinite device rental, unlike, for example, Tesla.
As someone who does a lot of Go, glancing over Factor's syntax in your links makes my eyes glaze over. I'm sure it's perfectly understandable if you take the time to learn it, but languages like Go and Python have the benefit of being nearly immediately understandable for anyone with prior experience
I do love Go for that. Python less so, lots of syntactic sugar, less immediately understandable than Go, IMO, just the list comprehension is less understandable, i.e. I would rather have a for loop when I am reading a reference implementation.
As for Factor, of course, it is a concatenative language. You not only have to learn it, your brain probably has to work in a certain way. Common Lisp vs. Forth vs. Haskell vs. C. They are all at the different end of a spectrum I would say.
A great work of art. One that identifies this spectrum of feeling. But one that should be taken with a grain of salt, a subjective arrangement of visual material as captured by the BBC.
It's incorrect. The copyright holder of any work is obviously well within their rights to yank it from shelves (physical or otherwise). That doesn't make piracy legal.
The naive programmer in me wants to assume, "It can't possibly be that hard to simulate a circuit," and get to work on prototyping my own simulation engine but the fact that this apparently has not ben adequately solved yet gives me pause.
As a practicing EE and naive programmer, It is pretty hard to build a simulation engine for electronics and even harder to build a performant engine. SPICE does this with huge matrices of differential equations and math tricks.
Theres an interesting article by Mike Engelhardt (author of LTspice) which gives hints on the details of their implementation.
It depends on what level of detail you want the simulation to have. Boolean logic is easy. Analog circuits operating in certain (very limited) domains are straightforward. But - noting that what follows is well out of the realm of my experience - in other domains you have to account for things like RF characteristics and quantum effects in the semiconductors.
Imagine trying to simulate something that used water in tubes to implement logic, except it's analog logic and there's resonance and some of the joints start leaking when they exceed a certain pressure and etc.
It's not AI slop, it's 100 percent written by me. I don't think AI can come up with screenshots/gifs and build process etc of my effort. I am very interested in seeing split tunneling on MacOS on wireguard.
Infact you search Google for 'split tunneling on macos in wireguard ', even Google will tell you that it's only supported via terminal and that's what I did:
> While WireGuard itself doesn't inherently offer split tunneling on macOS, it's possible to achieve this functionality through manual configuration or using a third-party VPN client that supports it. Some VPN providers like Mullvad VPN and ExpressVPN include split tunneling features in their macOS apps. Alternatively, you can configure split tunneling manually using macOS Network settings and Terminal commands, though this method is more complex and may not be suitable for all users.
