I played the F-Zero game recently in an Arcade nearby, it was amazing! I was so suprised when a buddy of mine went like: "Yeah, there is just a Gamecube in this".
It was very broken for a long time. Since fairly recently you have WiVRn (specifically wivrn-dashboard on Arch) for Oculus (more supported though) and I would daresay it works better then SteamVR used to do for me on Windows
There is a chance the led is also used as a important diode in the circuit, plainly removing it can greatly reduce the lifespan of the device. (more common in cheaper products)
Adding a appropiate diode in it's place is advised.
While I think this change is great, I am not directly convinced Safari should be included in the list by their own rules, considering the app has not been explicitly downloaded by at least 5,000 users in the prior calendar year.
That seems like a strange claim. Any source for it? Safari can be deleted on iOS and I find it hard to believe that less than 5000 people do that and then re-download it a year.
When you delete it from the phone, you have to redownload it from app store to get it back. I would be shocked if less than 5000 people a year did that.
I knew that hackers still would not be satisfied. Thanks for spending some time to invent a reason to continue raging against Apple, so that the rest can go back to work.
Right it is good as a “regression” test framework. AI isn’t needed for this and there are things like pyarttest that give you the same regression benefit. - they don’t validate that the initial code was correct.
I think you’re spot on that currently it can only test what the code actually does.
That’s probably why they specify that it’s for regression tests which are meant to do exactly that - test that future changes to the code do not change the current behavior unintentionally
That's all well and good when you're test-driving, but when you're spelunking into a legacy codebase it can be awfully hard to identify "intent," so it's good to know when you've changed any observable behavior.
Because it's simply not enough time for a proper meal, even more for children. Eating pre-digested, transformed food it might be doable to finish in this time, but you might as well give them Soylent. Seating at one's desk is even worse, it removes the social part of these moments.
In some places the 'proper meal' of the day isn't eaten at lunch time, but rather in the afternoon. Lunch is a quick sandwich and some fruit to get you through the rest of the day and then you have your proper meal at 4-5 after you get home.
The social part at school came after lunch when you go out to play. When I was at school lunch was story time, and we would sit and listen to the teacher read us a book while we ate.
No, a decent breakfast, then sandwiches for lunch, maybe a small snack around 2, then a warm dinner at 4-5.
edit: in general I would say that focusing what and how much you eat is far more important than focusing on when you eat if you care about health outcomes. Eating a quick healthy snack once every other hour is a lot better than junk food twice a day.
If you care about health outcomes, teenage boys should eat 3000 calories or more. Teenage girls should eat 2500 calories or more. Packing it into meals like described is basically impossible without junk food in the mix, if they do not have real lunch. There is decent breakfast, then nothing but snacks and sandwiches until dinner at 4-5 and I guess maybe second dinner after.
reply