UK typically uses air-to-water heat pumps with convection radiators. The passive radiators are useless for cooling, and condensation on pipes in walls can be a problem.
Look, I know that actuuuualy and technically it's the same type of technology working on the same principle. The thing I have ( Daalderop 5G WPU) mainly works as floor heating (and great at that), but it's the size of a fridge and has it's own utility closet and a pipe underground for whatever thermal medium it uses and it's own separate meter (for reasons of regulatory kind). And it's a district wide deployment where I don't even own the thing.
Most importantly it's not the same in the way of me not feeling the chill. It's stupid, as I know the house is cooler than the outsides, but the actual split system delivers the cold air right to where I feel it and this thing just makes the ambient temperature down to 25c without me even noticing.
I don't want to know what it costs to install (I got it with the house), but split system costed lol nothing in eastern european dollars and took some guys less than half a day and zero permits to install too. For better or worse the heat pump doesn't live in the same locale I had that.
A water/water heat pump is absolutely not the same thing the other commenters are talking about. They're mostly talking about an air/air heat pump, where it's literally all the same parts but has a reversing valve so it can either be hot/cold or cold/hot among the coils with fans blowing through them.
This is more like what they're talking about, but they do come in a lot of shapes and sizes and can be more or less integrated into central systems.
I agree. It does make me think these tools need an irrevocable signature on the files, if that’s even possible. You can ask someone you’re commissioning if they use AI, and they can just lie.
Now should have Jagex reviewed it? Of course. However, there’s just this mistrust in art now. I’ve commissioned two things from artists. I asked both, as for my work I want to fund actual artists. However as these tools get better, I’m concerned that trust won’t be good enough.
Fake edit: “Well if it’s so good you can’t tell the difference then why’s it matter” completely misses the point so let’s not bother with that.
This really feels like jumping the shark. But I'll admit I've run into cases where this would have been handy. I wonder if it'll be worth all the inevitable edge cases and footguns it'll create.
> But yes, the coding agents will not magically make everything maintainable if you don't tell them to.
You say that like adding "Make it maintainable." to your prompts solves the problem. But the reality is we only have weak metrics for measuring maintainability. For example, you can trivially optimize for Cyclomatic complexity by blowing away abstractions and duplicating code everywhere. That doesn't make the code better. Cyclomatic complexity is a tool that has to be applied judiciously.
That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't use AI to generate code. But it does mean if you want your project to scale, you're still going to need a lot of developer involvement at the code level to ensure the code remains maintainable so that future developers can build on top of it. AI is not like compilers, which allow developers to build complex solutions without being proficient at the next level down (assembly).
I believe copyright timeframes have gotten WAY out of hand and need to be reigned in to something more sensible, but I still think it's a valuable concept and don't want to see it abolished.
Patents on the other hand have become a total joke and I'd be happy to see them gone.
As it is now, it’s a joke. Essentially new laws are continuously introduced to make disney’s junk forever inaccessible. No author, no animator, no one except disney share holders wants these shit laws.
A 10% reduction in cache size in exchange for a 4% slowdown doesn't seem obviously worthwhile to me, especially when it comes at an increase in complexity.
Percentages aren't always the right gauge. uv isn't something I run frequently or for long periods of time. It's like a couple seconds every month or whatever. I would rather spend an extra second waiting every year to have hundreds more megabytes all the time.
When actively developing Python projects, running uv a dozen times per hour isn't unusual. Those seconds add up fast. Whereas freed disk space remains unused.
There are still many environments with <=250GB, below that I wouldn't call it negligible. And let's not forget that the price per GB has appreciated a LOT!
You could reverse the last sentence to "freed disk space reduces the need to clean the hd".
And I don't even mean physical limitation as much as the compulsion to manually clean ballooning cache dirs once in a while.
Overprovisioning also reduces the need to clean the disk. I've had a terabyte Macbook for over a year, developing in 7 different tech stacks simultaneously, never cleaning anything up manually, and I still have over 60% space left.
It's a tradeoff between wasting a little time everyday vs. wasting equally little time every year or so but also having the mental load of cleaning up plus maybe existential dread vs. spending more money to never have either problem. I do understand the last one isn't an option for everyone, but if it is, it's absolutely worth it.
Whereas I made a mistake and bought an underspeced MacBook and my 512GB disk is constantly on the brink of full as I reclaim the last 40 GB over and over from different caches, downloads, and wherever else and had to simply give up on several projects because of their disk usage.
Exactly my experience, even worse because for me it's 2x256GB drives. Eventually I bit the bullet and upgraded one of them to 1TB, but not the one my root partition is mounted on (too lazy for that), so now I find myself moving various large directories across to my "extra" drive and symlinking them. Funnily enough I don't remember this ever being a problem back when 50GB was considered a lot.
Yea, I remember when the family computer had a 40MB hard drive and it was never ever filled to capacity. Now I’m wondering how many new disks to add to my ZFS pool, and when. And how to budget for it.
We upgraded our 40MB harddrive to a 210MB, as it was constantly getting filled up. I was wondering what on earth to do with all this space, it seemed limitless.
A week later I was cleaning up disk space again...
The things which use my disk are things like package caches in several languages, build artifacts in both release and debug, multiplied by worktrees, things like iOS device support and release files + simulators, docker containers and related.
I had to give up on things like Lean theorem prover projects and VM projects because the disk space wasn't there.
The causes of disk waste are manifold and usually can't just be disabled and even when they can the result is constant rebuilding, redownloading, etc.
Too many developer products act like disk and memory is free to waste and the consequences have gotten ridiculous.
Making things faster is much easier than making things smaller. I'm sure we can win back a 4% slowdown elsewhere since we have so many more levers to pull from.
Yeah, my bigger worry here is more about if somebody direct edits a file in their venv and uv was unable to make the venv with reflink/COW semantics and fell back to hardlinks.
This could happen with a user asking their editor to show definition, and then not realizing the result was in some other package, changing it, and saving it, but only if the editor's normal atomic replace mode is disabled. So perhaps that sounds farfetched. But if an AI agent wants to patch some package in a venv, I've seen them bypass the editor and use command line tools to make edits often enough to be concerned. Like corrupting the cache for one package version is already not ideal, and this could potentially affect multiple versions now?
I suppose is this happens the right fix is to nuke the cache completely?
What you describe is a goal we should absolutely strive for - and one we are clearly falling short of. At the same time it's foolish to describe the US as being on the opposite side of the spectrum. I dare say it's even dangerous, as it encourages a sense of hopelessness and disregard for laws and civility.
> it encourages a sense of hopelessness and disregard for laws and civility.
That is true. I hope that people sees my comment as a push to do better, not a reason to give up. Things are never perfect, anywhere. And that's why we should continue pushing for more equality, defending the environment and making better the live of working class people.
that's funny, i see hope (reproductive futurity/the child; see edelman, hocquenghem) as what keeps us under the yoke of capital and oppression, and a disregard for laws and civility as a brief act of jouissance and a moment out of time where one could experience actual freedom and liberty. positive nihilism as a praxis that rejects all external constraints, imposed social mores, authorities, etc. it's only dangerous if you're currently benefiting from the various systems of oppression the hold up capital and civ.
You put way too much faith in kids' desire to learn and their ability to make responsible choices.
> Homework should be optional material for self study, evaluated by teachers if you choose to do it but never forced.
My wife is a teacher and her school does this. The result is that nobody does homework. The kids who need the extra practice don't get it and they fall into a spiral of failure and apathy. This is especially bad for subjects like math that build on themselves.
IMO the better solution is to require and grade shorter homework and provide students with optional, supplementary assignments that can be used to make up for missed credit on homework for the same material. That way students who grasp the material quickly can demonstrate and move on while others who need practice are naturally encouraged to get it without being permanently punished for struggling initially.
Homework is no longer useful in the era of AI. Options are: treat kids like they are able to make responsible choices, and accept that much more of them will fail; or, keep the charade of grading AI-"assisted" homework and push kids farther along the track, even though they definitely don't know enough.
I much prefer the first.
School shouldn't be impossible, but you shouldn't have a charade of schooling.
It's not necessarily useless. If you make assignments short, provide some time in school to work on it, and do not allow students to use devices with access to general-purpose "AI", then there is a good chance most students will do the work like they're supposed to. Some will still cheat, but it's foolish to reorganize everything around the few who stubbornly refuse to learn.
It's "homework" in the sense that it is not bound to the class. It is not due during class and if you can't finish it in class, you'll have to complete it out of class.
And I mean setting aside some time during the class itself, not a separate "study hall" period. Obviously class time is precious, so I don't expect there to always be enough in-class time to finish assignments. But even having a little in-class time for students to get started - and when the teacher is available for help those in need - would go a long way towards encouraging students to do the work themselves and not cheat.
And of course part of my strategy is to make "homework" shorter (5-15 min). That should also reduce the temptation to cheat and increase the likelihood students can even complete them in class.
reply