deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Clean the bottom of your pan and the coil, you nasty bugger. The only thing that stops heat from getting to the pan is insulation, aka all that stuck on grease and muck you constantly fail to actually get off the pan when you fail to actually get it clean. Did you know there’s no reason your pans can’t be shiny for decades after you get them, except your own lazy habits?

Elitist and I’m arguing against the flamboyant and expensive option that only exists to enrich the wealthy?

That rule breaking part of your comment aside, and since we’re on a science adjacent page;

Thermal inertia isn’t a bad thing, and most chefs utilize it during cooking explicitly. No chef, on earth, in any professional kitchen, leaves a pan on a burner and just turns off the burner. None of them. If you need heat to stop building, you remove the food from the pan. If you just need the inertia from the pan’s material, you move it to a dead burner. All stoves have thermal inertia. Even gas stoves. No stove on earth stops transferring heat immediately. That’s not how thermodynamics works.

Gas ‘appears’ to change temperature faster because the range of heat is higher, since it is so much less efficient. The typical gas stove can output 1300c at it’s max (usually largest burner on a four burner stove). An electric, properly working, should never get above 900c. No food on earth is edible for any known lifeform once it has reached 300c, even when cooled down after. So yes, you can make a pan hotter faster by subjecting it to nearly enough heat to melt iron, but you won’t be cooling it down realistically any faster if you go up to that point.

This paired with the lower amount of control over temperature for nearly all gas stoves results in less efficiency every where. Actual chefs use predictable heat. Anyone pretending gas is better in anyway is the same type of person that still believes they can switch gears faster in a manual car or that its cheaper to just take your shoes down to a cobbler to get new soles.

…The element ‘clicks off’ when the element is at (or usually around 105%) of the temperature set for that number. It ‘clicks on’ when it is below or (or within 5%) of that temperature. This actually provides MORE accurate and even heating than gas stoves, which can be effected by room temperature, slight breezes, variations in pressure in the line, or mismatched regulators.

The heat is never off during cooking, it just isn’t applying more temperature to the coil. Which means your pan and food aren’t pulling enough heat to cool down the coil.

It’s easier to cook with electric when you know what you’re actually doing, and what the stove is supposed to be doing. It’s easier to cook with gas when you have no idea what anything is supposed to be doing and you just fiddle with the knobs until you brute force the heat you think you need.

Electric heating is 100% efficient in general, as in 100% of the energy used is converted to thermal energy. No other heating method can claim this period (except geothermal and other heat pumps which can be several thousand percent effective but are impractical for spot heating.)

So the real difference is induction versus resistive coil efficiency at transferring that energy to the food…

Luckily a ridiculous amount of research has been done to show:

Gas is about 40% efficient

Electric coil is about 74% efficient.

Induction is 80-90% efficient.

So not only are you using more efficient methods of creating heat than combustion, you are getting more heat transferred to your food per unit of energy used. By double.

Gas stoves are great for two things, and only two things:

Jet-Gas stoves for Woks.

And Charring vegetables when you’re too lazy to start a grill.

He hates consistent and predictable heat cycles that are 100% efficient heating instead of 80% of the heat escaping to everywhere but the pan?

Bro look up median publisher and dsitrbutor fees. There’s a reason steam became the defacto publishing platform, it was the cheapest option by far.

Code was in use relating to the set of instructions used to control a computer in 1946; with it becoming a verb by 1986. Programming was from 1945 as a first use in regards to computers; meaning "cause to be automatically regulated in a prescribed way.

Now the funny thing is the noun ‘Program’ in regards to computers in 1945 meant “series of coded instructions which directs a computer in carrying out a specific task”

So if we really work through the etymology a bit, coded instructions was first, then Program/ming, then Code and coding; though certainly ‘encoding’ would have been used before programming given the definition of ‘coded instructions.’

So… Blame Ada Lovelace for not coming up with something catchy like ‘lacing’ which would have been far more camp (and much more accurate to the gender of early programmers).

deleted by creator

because words lose power over time if you let them, ninnyhammer.

Like cloaca without the a?

It’s always the furries, every time.

I’ve never heard of reticulum before now, and only spent a few minutes going over their overly philosophized website, but I do have a degree in networking.

tl;dr Don’t do it.

It’s an amnesiac mesh network, or in an analogy, it’s like if you’re in a crowded room and can only see the person next to you, but you’re sure someone you know is also in the room, so you pass a note to everyone next to you hoping it gets to the person you want.

This is inefficient for large scale data transfer, to say the least, but does theoretically fit their stated purpose of an anonymizing network to transmit information.

But this brings up two problems:

1.) In a normal network, even Tor or I2P, information flows along a path one hop at a time, with each hop knowing which path to send your information down next. i.e. Person A only knows Person B and sends your note to them, Person B knows lots of people but only sends your note to Person C, because Person B knows the note is intended for Person F, and that’s how you get there, and so on. With this network, Person A sends a note to Person B, Person C, Person D, Person E, Person F, hoping that one of them knows how to get to Person F. Each individual contacted then goes ‘Am I person F? No? Then I need to send it to every person I know, except who I just got it from.’ There are rules in place, supposedly, to keep this from becoming an infinite loop, but still that’s potentially 100x or a 1000x the amount of traffic for every single packet, every single part of any file sent on the network.

a 100MB file split into 10,000 packets would result in 10,000,000 or more packets being sent over the network.

This is fine, theoretically, for legitimate text communication that would never reach more than a few MB per item, but torrenting even the smallest movie would be like a tsunami every single time.

There are few rules and safeguards built in to make this slightly more efficient than the scenario and analogy I just laid out, but it’s infinitely less efficient than the IP layer so you want the data kept to a minimum given the much, much higher overhead.

2. On network torrenting might work (with the problems mentioned above), and routing through the network as that VPN solution might work (assuming the peer at the end, literally someone else’s computer, allows it *3) You’d have incredibly slow speeds. Even assuming there is route caching somewhere in the documentation that I missed which would massively increase efficiency, you’d be generating a whole lot of noise and unnecessary connections with each packet sent to each peer, which would slow down the entire network you’re connected to, and might crash some transport nodes if enough people have their torrent clients set up with high peer discovery numbers.

3.) this is not a private connection when you come out on the other side. Computer A <=> Reticulum Network <=> Computer B -> Internet would be the general configuration, and both computer A and computer B would have full knowledge of the contents of the information being sent, which also means Computer B’s ISP has the full knowledge of the contents of the information being sent.

For torrenting, this might mean computer B learns a lesson about hosting what is essentially an exit node for anonymous networks – i.e. their ISP shutting off their service for piracy. While this is good for you, Computer A, it’s a dick move.

For more nefarious purposes Computer B would know what traffic they’re exposing and could snoop on it, just not know where it’s from. This is the Tor problem and there’s plenty of ways to keep yourself safe from it, but it’s still something to keep in mind if you do actually naughty things with your connection like the protocol authors want you to be doing. (i.e. anything illegal in a country that a state actor would actually care about). This comes down to opsec but the best solution would then be to simply never leave the reticulum network, making the ‘vpn’ you pointed to conceptually worthless for the network’s stated purpose.

4.) I’ve not been able to find a single actual security audit or even a implementation project, given this is (or can be) a localized mesh network, this wouldn’t be hard to do. This means no one should trust this beyond sending an anonymous love note to a nerdy colleague. Anything that might be entered into evidence in any court should stay off the platform.

There really isn’t a way to access clearnet sites privately, at least up to state actor standards. If your goal is avoiding surveillance due to, for example, being a hated minority in an increasingly hostile country, a vpn isn’t going to save you any more than tor would. Simply leaving the clearnet would be the solution. The more that do the less ability any of the surveillance state has to spy on anyone.

So in other words, burnout is absolutely not the problem, capitalism is.

i2p would be the alternative if you want actual privacy away from five eyes. Or a decent amount of speed.

To be clear, FAA(N)G is netflix, not nvidia. It’s an acronym originally used for bay area tech employees as a list of the top companies that look good on a resume, as well as investment.

It is much, much older than nVidia’s relevance in the wider market.