The photographer Michael Weseley did a number of long exposures (>12mths iirc) of Berlin during the 1990s as it was being transformed after the fall of the Wall and subsequent reunification. Viewed as huge prints in a gallery they were impressively detailed, as layers of various rebuilding and urban planning projects were revealed in varying degrees of transparency, depending on how long they took and how recent they were:

eg https://www.uncubemagazine.com/blog/14374185

Beautiful work and great magazine. Thanks for sharing

I'm running a ZFS NAS with mirrored 2 HDD vdevs. I've set the HDDs to spindown after 20mins using hdparm -S and this works fine under zfs. The drives (Toshiba N300s) take ~15s to spin up when something accesses them, and ime zfs has always handled this gracefully.

This vdev only contains data; it's not running the OS / root.

> “It leads to a new philosophy of physics that rejects the idea that the universe is a machine governed by unconditional laws with a prior existence, and replaces it with a view of the universe as a kind of self-organising entity in which all sorts of emergent patterns appear, the most general of which we call the laws of physics.”

Is this distinction as meaningful as it first seems; my assumption was that all 'laws of physics' are in essence only ever an expression of our current best understanding of these observed 'generalised patterns'?

By talking about the 'laws', it's easy to start treating these as though they are firm, a-priori rules, but my assumption was that - to physicists - these were always simply a short-cut way of describing a set of common, repeated and testable observations about the universe. Iow they were never 'rules' in the sense that they existed independent of the phenomena they were describing? I'm not a scientist, btw.

I think you're right w.r.t laws.

From reading the article this morning I hadn't thought of something like "there sure is a lot of carbon in the universe as far as we know" in terms of natural selection.

But maybe it's circular where "evolution" as it was originally used to describe biological systems/organisms on earth is just a way of describing changes in the universe but locally and specific as well. In other words, Evolution may be the Grand Theory of describing how the universe works and perhaps observing a black hole is akin to observing how elephants behave.

Although as someone else has pointed out here, maybe that theory is bunk too. [1]

> I'm not a scientist, btw.

Same here. I also have not yet had coffee this morning ;)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35218567

For those who weren't aware, scintilla forms the basis of the popular Notepad++ Windows text editor.

The Qt port of Scintilla is also used by a number of projects as a lightweight editor component:

  $ lsb_release -d && apt rdepends libqscintilla2-qt5-15
  Description:    Ubuntu 22.04.1 LTS
  libqscintilla2-qt5-15
  Reverse Depends:
    Depends: libqscintilla2-qt5-dev (<< 2.11.6+dfsg+1~)
    Depends: sqlitebrowser (>= 2.11.2)
    Depends: sonic-pi (>= 2.11.2)
    Depends: qgis-providers (>= 2.11.2)
    Depends: python3-qgis (>= 2.11.2)
    Depends: python3-pyqt5.qsci (>= 2.11.2)
    Depends: openscad (>= 2.11.2)
    Depends: octave (>= 2.11.2)
    Suggests: libqscintilla2-qt5-l10n
    Depends: libqscintilla2-qt5-dev (>= 2.11.6+dfsg)
    Depends: juffed (>= 2.11.2)
    Depends: libqscintilla2-qt5-designer (>= 2.11.2)
    Depends: libqgis-gui3.22.4 (>= 2.11.2)
    Depends: libqgis-app3.22.4 (>= 2.11.2)

It feels like an eternity ago, but an editor I wrote in Qt for a game did exactly this so you could write Lua inline on objects.

Doesn't Qt already have an editor component?

It does, but IIRC Scintilla is more full-featured (e.g. I think it has better syntax highlighting support).

Whenever I work on Windows machines, Notepad++ is a must to have.

But usually, SciTE is more than sufficient: https://www.scintilla.org/SciTE.html

and also works fine on Linux.

I remember using SciTE in the early 00s. Apart from some oddities of displaying italic text in a weird way it was a perfectly cromulent editor and you could start it, do your task, and close it before eclipse had even finished the loading screen :P

and Notepad++ itself sometimes gets bundled with other software.

IMO title is clickbaity; it's a statement-of-opinion-masquerading-as-a-question.

Effectively the parent is saying 'fan noise is up there with performance as my most important metric in a laptop'.

This may be true for the OP, but it's by no means a universal consideration. Personally, battery life comes before fan noise for me as a metric. YMMV.

To a first approximation, if the fan is going (and using energy) because the CPU is running hot under load (using energy), doesn’t that give you a hint about battery efficiency?

Two laptop model with the same CPU can have big differences in thermal design, which impacts a lot the fan noise but battery efficiency only in a marginal way.

Sounds like you’ve just supported the point about fan noise being a good approximation for battery efficiency.

Unfortunately there have been recent issues with the 870 EVO series also: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/samsung-870-evo-b...

There may be multiple, different issues with Samsung parts at play here. The 900 series issues seem to have been addressed with a f/w update; the 870 EVO issues were - allegedly - caused by bad NAND and the devices needed to be replaced.

ofc part of the problem here is the lack of public acknowledgement / information from Samsung on these issues.

The SSDs in these machines consist of NAND chips soldered directly to the motherboard; the controller aspect is handled within the main M* SOC. As such there's no way that a company could offer an internal 'upgrade' or expansion to these drives.

I think I was getting the config of the Mac Studio confused with the MBP.

I thought these are soldered together as well? Am I mistaken?

This is not true . The SSDs on this are not soldiered but are in distinct chips that can be removed but none of them have a discrete controller on them instead the controller is on the SoC itself. Basically they are NAND modules not full SSDs at all.

The NAND chips are soldered with ball grid arrays, requiring a reflow oven to add a new chip, not to mention how the board itself would probably not even detect the extra chips.

Here's an M2 Air logic board with 1 of 2 NAND chips soldered on (in yellow), there's an empty spot on the board for another chip: https://guide-images.cdn.ifixit.com/igi/1A2NHYEY6dJcUcd4.hug...

Challenge accepted. Here’s an M1 being upgraded with both RAM and Storage by some Chinese Techs. Yes, you need an oven.

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/06/m1-mac-ram-and-ssd-upgr...

Note that this code actually turns phase-updates ON. To turn them OFF:

  Update-Manager::Never-Include-Phased-Updates;
  APT::Get::Never-Include-Phased-Updates: True;

As I understand it, either 'always' or 'never' actually solve OP's problem. (edit: was both/and - both sounds like a bad idea.)

"always include" effectively puts you in phase 0 - if an update is being phased, you're an eager beaver.

"never include" effectively puts you in phase 100 - if an update is being phased, you'll wait until the phasing is complete.

AIUI OP's problem isn't that he wants these updates on day 0, it's that he wants his environments to be consistent with each other, which either of these options would provide.

Perhaps the advice is bad because this doesn't appear to be mentioned in the documentation.

A fuller instance of the first quote: "Through careful and thorough fault injection, we show that ZFS is robust to a wide range of disk faults. We further demonstrate that ZFS is less resilient to memory corruption, which can lead to corrupt data being returned to applications or system crashes"

...ie, ZFS is 'less resilient' in comparison to its robust disk fault handling, not that it's less resilient to memory corruption in comparison to other filesystems. The parent quotation above implies that ZFS is more sensitive to memory corruption than other fs but that is not claimed in the referenced paper.

The issue is not a cable thing. I have experienced the same behaviour on both a 2020 intel MBA and a 2021 M1 Pro; a 10GB/s rated Samsung T5 SSD only connects to either Mac at 5GB/s, despite being rated for 10GB/s. The same SSD (and cables) connects to Linux & Windows boxen at 10GB/s.

Equally, a Crucial X8 SSD rated for the same 10GB/s connects to both Macs at its rated speed.

This behavious has persisted across OS updates since Big Sur.

My current thinking is that there's some undocumented quirks in place in MacOS that scales speeds down with certain USB controllers.

Sounds pretty clearly like Apple thinks certain devices are non-standards compliant. And just because it works at full speed on Linux & Windows doesn't mean it's standards compliant.

Alternatively Apple is not standards compliant. Or it could just be a bug in their driver or controller. Not sure why it makes more sense to assume Apple is doing it right and everyone else wrong.