Looks like the C64 is behind it (underneath a..?) and there’s a small corner of 5.25” diskette station further back.

Probably not his daily drivers.. :)

Yeah, behind datasette it looks like there's C64 C parked, and above is a laser 300 (which makes sense if guy is australian) and we can also see 1541-ii behind that, on the top.

Right, laser 300 was called the VZ300 here. I'm out of desk space so I had to put the VZ300 on a stand above my C64C. Maybe AI can finally help me code some C64 and VZ games. :-)

If only! It's kind of a blessing and a curse for us who still code for c64 (demo scene). It looks like llm may help you, but it's usually gibberish 6502 asm. I've seen similar with z80 but on spectrum.

I think generating assembly with an LLM would be like copying from a magazine back then: nothing learned.

But I wonder, do LLMs help explain chunks of 6502 assembly code, in your experience? Say, if one was learning.

yeah that certainly does happen. Especially if you give it the context of the machine since 6502 itself and opcodes do you no good unless you know the memory layout/ map which is in a sense what machine you're on. NES and C64 are 6502, heck even SNES is but 6502 opcodes are nothing since action is in memory you're interacting with.

When you provide context and the memory map, it does help explaining what algos you're looking at and what's going on. I've had a bit more luck with gemini rather than claude on this vs in general claude codes better. ChatGPT is for the most part lost in hallucinations.

Huh..? MySQL 9 is not even GA in AWS RDS yet, only in preview: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/MySQL...

And latest 8.0 and 8.4 is supported at least a year from now.

Aaaannnnd.... I figured out last night that I don't need to go to 9, only to 8.4. Strangely, what version I needed to upgrade to from 8.0 was not stated anywhere in the mass of emails Amazon sent me. I hadn't yet gone on RDS and noticed that 9 is not on the list of options, I was just trying to build 9 on my Mac.

8.4 won't build in homebrew under Monterey, though, so I'm stuck with 8.3 for my dev stack. I guess I can live with that. I'm dreading the next forced upgrade.

Headscale is the not-vendor-login version of Tailscale.

Sort of. Many tailscale clients you would use with headscale are closed source.

> Why is Github enforcing that decision..

Because at the end of the day, Github is responsible for _their_ runners.

If you want full control, install and use your own runners, which flips the responsibility to you.

> If you want full control, install and use your own runners, which flips the responsibility to you.

It's a bit tedious to have to explain that service providers have certain responsibilities and obligations too. Corporate culture has given bigtech a blank cheque to behave the way they want. That aside, based on the way you framed your reply, let me assure you that I don't trust them with even my projects, much less the CI system or their runner. And time and again, they vindicate that decision. I have posted the full argument as a reply to your sibling comment.

I'm still paying for these github runners. There is also some line between fully dictating which versions of languages and packages you are allowed to use and a managed runner that doesn't get in your way like a control freak.

From a drawing perspective the hat is fairly simple (3-4 lines), looks good and quick to sketch - speed mattered when drawing lots of Smurf’s.

Huh? I’ve used jellyfin on my chromecast for years

Maybe the taller aspect ratio is due to cockpit surfaces being more horizontal or vertical than eyesight..?

Like letters/words painted on the road for drivers to read them.

Take a look at Crystal for types: https://crystal-lang.org/

Crystal is cool but the only thing it shares in common with Ruby is a similar syntax.

If you actually want types in Ruby, you should check out Sorbet: https://sorbet.org/

Do you know if it says anything about restarting them simultaneously or not?

I would think trying to restart engines one at a time would be preferred, over both of them at the same time - or maybe thats not how it works..?

Just from a systems perspective if the actions to restart the engines can be parallelized then they should be; maybe only one engine will start. You don't want the 50% (for 2-engine aircraft) chance that you spend time on the one that won't start before trying the other.

But then you’ll no longer receive any future security fixes by the publisher.

It’s a hard problem to fix, when we can’t trust any publishers in the future :(