You can represent time zones with that format. So long as you have a source time zone, target time zone and tzdata you can convert any time accounting for all the particularities of any particular zone.
ISO 8601 timezone only allows an offset. You can't encode "04:00 in Cairo on 13th November 2036" as there's no way to know what UTC offset Cairo will have in October 31st 2036.
> 2036-11-13 04:00:00 Africa/Cairo
Is fine
> 2036-11-13 04:00:00 +0200
Is not, as the rules around moving from +3 to +2 may well have changed by them.
That’s got literally nothing to do with ISO 8601 though. Times are just hard and there’s no way to know the future with any kind of certainty. In this case there’s no way of knowing whether Egypt will by 2036 have changed their timezone or added or eliminated DST. Nothing to do with ISO 8601, just the world is uncertain.
Take the UK for another example. The daylight savings dates are actually set by act of parliament. Although they always have fallen in the pattern that everyone knows, for dates in future years beyond the ones they have already set, they could hypothetically (if you want to be literal-minded about it) change the law to make DST happen on absolutely any day of the year or not at all.
ISO 8601 only allows timezones as offsets, not as locations.
If it allowed "Africa/Cairo" instead of "+0200" that would be fine.
> they could hypothetically (if you want to be literal-minded about it) change the law to make DST happen on absolutely any day of the year or not at all.
That's the whole point - that's why you store future date/times with the location, not the offset, and not in UTC
The fact that ISO8601 does not store time zones (only fixed UTC offsets, which is not the same thing) obviously has something to do with ISO8601. I'm not sure what you're going on about?
I’m saying the problem is the time zone, not the fixed offset. The fixed offset always means a specific time (which may or may not be the time in a particular place, due to problems with the definition of time zones). Times for dates in the future are a problem due to time zones, not due to offsets. If you know the offset, the time is exactly specified.
Are you scheduling a restaurant reservation for 2036? Will it change from 09 to 10 in the morning depending on DST?
Sure, we cant know what unix date it resolves to, but it doesn't matter, because future dates are more of a contract intentionally bound to context that is subject to change.
Most modders aren't reverse engineering the game. There's a small community that are doing the obfuscation and then everyone else is effectively working from normal Java code.
I also recently flew on BA and bypassed the free WiFi restrictions just by using a VPN. Not sure why that worked, but with Mullvad I was able to browse Hacker News in the air. Didn't need anything more advanced than that!
You don't need to get everyone to coordinate. You need politicians to not listen to the lobby of home owners and real estate companies worried about their investments (in other words, ignore the NIMBYs). Change the zoning laws, incentivize developing mixed use, prioritize pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and stop prioritizing cars and parking.
Walkable cities are actually illegal in much of the US due to zoning laws right now. The reason you don't see shops in residential suburban developments is not because there is no demand, it's because it's literally illegal.
Having walkable and bikeable destinations is compatible with back yards. It just needs to be legal to build it.
In general, I believe that it's the highway lobby who shaped the US into what it is today, not the NIMBY people. I think they have much more power than nimby, even if in certain situations, they seem to be on the same side. So what I say is that industry interest weighs more than voter interest.
I think the point is that the vast majority of people don't really have a unique tax situation. And all the data already exists. There's just no framework set up to allow this to be automated like there is in other countries.
It should be the case that all your basic taxes get calculated for you and taken at the point you're paid by your employer. Anything exceptional should be able to be claimed back via a web portal somewhere.
So it's not like 160m tax returns NEED to be filed. That's just how it is today.
One thing you can arrange is "Oh, you need to trust our Router's security thing" and so you're adding a new private root CA trust, then they "just" issue CA certs which they've arranged for you to trust. This is commonly how corporate and institutional systems are set up, it's a terrible idea but it's very common.
One thing that helps drive it away at work is that we're a University, and essentially all the world's universities have a common authenticated WiFi (because students and perhaps more importantly, academics, just travel from one to another and expect stuff to work, if you got a degree in the last 20 or so years you likely used this, eduroam) but obviously they don't trust each other on this stuff so their sites all use the Web PKI, the same public trust as everybody else, internal stuff might not, but the moment you're asking some History professor to manually install a certificate you might as well assign them a dedicated IT person, so, everything facing ordinary users has public certs from, of course, Let's Encrypt.
> This is commonly how corporate and institutional systems are set up, it's a terrible idea but it's very common.
Tbh makes it kinda sense for those systems, when used only with internal tools and on company devices... but yeah I’d just (of course) Let’s Encrypt if I was setting it up for a client.
No - I have visited two universities in the past month in France and each of them has its own Wi-Fi logins and passwords. And then one more a few months ago in Poland.
AHHHH - I just called a friend of mine at one of the French schools. He told me that this is for researchers only and thsi is why I was given another (permanent) access.
I stand corrected and I apologize. This is actually awesome. Working in the field, this is probably one of the most interesting deployments I have seen over many years and I will have a close look at it now.
I feel like we're entering the era of general and inefficient solutions to problems.
Like LLMs being used to pick values out of JSON objects when jq would do the job 1000x more efficiently.
This is what this whole field feels like right now. Let's spend lots of time and energy to create a humanoid robot to do the things humans already decided humans were inefficient at and solved with specialised tools.
Like people saying "oh it can wash my dishes for me". Well, I haven't washed dishes in years, there's a thing called a dishwasher which does one thing and does it well.
"Oh it can do the vacuuming". We have robot vacuums which already do that.
As a hardware engineer I hear this a lot from software/electrical folks.
It's Moore's law that largely drove what you describe.
Moore's law only applies to semiconductors.
Gears, motors and copper wire are not going to get 10x faster/cheaper every 18 months or whatever.
10 years from now gears will cost more, they will cost what they cost now plus inflation.
I've literally heard super smart YC founders say they just assume some sort of "Moore's law for hardware" will magicallyake their idea workable next year.
Computing power gets, and will continue to get, cheaper every day. Hardware, gears, nuts, bolts, doesnt.
It is not the gears, motors and copper wire that are bottlenecking robots. It is the software and computing. We can already build a robot hand that is faster, stronger, more dexterous, etc. than a human hand. What we can't do right now is make the software to perceive the world around it and utilize the hand to interact with it at human levels. That is something that needs computing power and effective software. Those are things that get, and will continue to get, cheaper every day.
> It is not the gears, motors and copper wire that are bottlenecking robots.
It is those things that are bottlenecking the price of robots.
The price of something tends towards the marginal cost, and the marginal cost of software is close to $0. Robots cost a lot more than that (what's the price of this robot?).
Edit: In fact Figure 03 imply marginal costs matter:
Mass manufacturing: Figure 03 was engineered from the ground-up for high-volume manufacturing
Yes, but the two (software and hardware) scale very differently.
Once software is "done" (we all know software is never done) you can just copy it and distribute it. It is negligiblehow much it costs to do so.
Once hardware is done you have to manufacture each and every piece of hardware with the same care, detail and reliability as the first one. You can't just click copy.
Often times you have to completely redesign the product to go from low volume high cost manufacturing to high volume low cost. A hand made McLaren is very different than an F-150.
The two simply scale differently, by nature of their beasts.
China has shown that they don't scale all that differently. Yes the tooling is hard to build but after that you hit go and the factory makes the copies for you.
It's not quite startrek replicator but much closer to that than the US view of manufacturing where you have your union guy sitting in front of the machine to pull the lever.
This was somewhat true at once point but is a highly outdated view. Labor is no longer cheap in China relative to other nearby countries and there's a huge amount of automation with some factories that don't even turn on lights because they are effectively 100% automated.
Think about cars. Their manufacturers work really hard on efficient (cost and performance). And what people do with them is a very different story. It could see the same happening with robots.
Human form robots are a case of Jake of all trades and master of none. Sure I have a dishwasher thats more efficient at doing the job than me but I still end up doing dishes because the cast iron frying pan can't going in there without ruining the polymerised layer of oils that have been baked into it and i would have to repeatedly oil and reheat it and stink up the house with smoke reseasoning it afterwards, and I have hand wash the thermos and travel mugs, and dishwasher arent good for the sharp knives and etcetera etc etc... sure the rumba can vacume very efficiently but it suck at gating around furniture leg or gaps to small for a 14'' diameter circle to fit through so I have to vacume all of the bits it can't get to. Sure the a robot lawn mower can do my yard very efficiently but it cant move the childrens toys out of the grass or open the gate to the front yard or close the gate to keep the dogs from running out the gate once its open. Specialized tools suck at edge cases. Human form robots if they ever works (big if) can do all of the edge cases and take advantage of all the tools made for humans I already have to do all of the those other jobs.
There isn't enough migrant to do all labor east asia will need as its population gets quickly older. Plus the societal aspiration of culture dissemination isn't there.
have you ever googled a simple maths question? I often come back to that and realise we've been in this era for quite a while. Calculator would probably be 1000x more efficient!
Sure, but I have to launch the calculator, instead of just typing it into the ever present search bar of my persistent open browser.
If I could just type it into my shell, that would be nice. I’m sure there’s some command (or one could be trivially made) to evaluate an equation, but then you get to play game with shell expansions and quotes.
In emacs I have to convolute the equation into prefix.
That's not that weird, even if it is pretty pathetic. I don't understand it now but I used to dread "doing the dishes" when I was younger even though it was 95% just filling a dishwasher. Laziness drives technology an awful lot, at least from a product POV.
This unoptimizing has been going on since the start of time. Why are the values in json to start with? At somepoint the bad slow generalized version will overtake the specialized ways of doing things.
Considering the entire thing is a text generator it's quite a statement to exclude that. Text is a huge world. Math, programming, stories, chatting, mail, search, website navigation, most things you want to do in the digital space involves text.
Was long time ago I used macOS in any professional capacity, but doesn't it just maximize the height of the window, not the width? I seem to recall some UX like that, but might have been a different action/button.
Mac has a weird windows models based on contents, not the display. So the content can “suggest” maximum and minimum size when you double click the title bar. it fits within the document model (windows are tied to documents while the application oversees things, which is why the menus are global and closing a window does not exit the software).
Thanks for the insight. I have never thought about it that way and it explains the weird behaviors you mentioned and also why it works well for people who do mostly office stuff. As a dev, I heavily use browser, editor and terminal, which don't map as well to the document model.
It's the same behaviour as Option + Maximize. Finder for example, that grows taller. Terminal for example, that goes full screen. My browser also goes full screen.
Seems like the app decides what the behaviour is. But the point being it's the same behaviour as the Option + Maximize.
You can represent time zones with that format. So long as you have a source time zone, target time zone and tzdata you can convert any time accounting for all the particularities of any particular zone.