I traveled with my kid when he was less than 1 year old in Tokyo. What is the issue with the stroller in the subway? There are always signs of how to get where you need to go using elevators.
While Tokyo has one of the worst fertility rates, it's not like the rest of Japan is doing particularly well. Also, I was staying in Azabujuban and I was surprised by the amount of kids I saw there.
Interesting. To provide a different experience, I live in NYC with kids and I find it great here. Daycare/Kindergarten is at most 4 blocks away, grocery stores are less than a block away, it takes me 10 minutes to get to the office on the train (1/2/3). I still bike to the office often. If we need a car there is a rental less than a block away, but in practice we rent maybe once a year. Today there was an open street on Columbus Ave and it was lovely to meet co-workers with their kids and let them play there. To be fair, I wasn't born here even if I'm a citizen, so I guess I wouldn't be considered "American".
I wasn't born here either (but I am the person you are replying to)
I'll give you some examples of the kinds of things I easily did with my two bigger kids (5 and 3 years old)
- woke up on a nice Sunday morning and decided to go for a woodsy hike 20 min drive away.
- threw our kayak on the roof and drove out to paddle it on the south shore, on a whim.
- threw bikes into the bike rack for a long ride along a Greenway.
- dropped by Grandma's house easily.
- went to the Adirondacks for a week and brought our bikes and paddle board along with a bunch of other stuff.
And not directly care related but car enabled - I just opened the backyard door and they were playing there by themselves while I kept an eye from the kitchen.
Nice. Those activities remind me when I used to visit my dad countryside (he lived in Tuscany). He's legally blind though, and we managed anyway. Not sure why the last bit would be car enabled. I was in East Hamptons a few weeks ago and the kids would play outside while we stayed in the living room/kitchen. We just had to be careful about the pool.
I think you and I can both recognize that the east Hamptons are a car oriented place even if you got there from the city on the jitney.
The point I was making w that one is - lower density is what allows us a back yard while higher density is what supports walk-ability and transit. So maybe I can make the point in a cheekier way - your Hamptons weekend is closer to my every-day life than to your city life :)
The drm atomic test is not only to verify if it's "correct", it is also used to check if the display controller can scan out that configuration of planes/buffers, given buffer modifiers, plane properties/sizes, etc. and current status of the display controller. If it can't, you probably need to simplify the configuration via some GPU compositing.
Right. The number of times I got an EINVAL just to discover yet another reason was quiet something :) (Is there a better way to discover the true reason other than scrolling back through dmesg?)
I'm also falling back to GL composition in some cases or while taking screenshots to avoid composing twice (HDMI + Writeback) if the scene is too complex or if other restrictions make that mandatory: Planes can only be rotated 0/180 degrees on the Pi HVS, so rotating a video to a portrait orientation is done on the GPU.
When I worked on it, there was no other way to check if a configuration could be set. I remember suggesting to kernel folks to add some another way, in particular 'cause sometimes we had to allocate some massive buffer just to be told you had to composite.
Also, you could not cache a config as valid. The configuration validity depends on the current state of the display controller. For example, if a configuration of planes on one CRTC can be set might depend on how much bandwidth is currently required by another one. I remember having to get rid of framebuffer compression on one monitor if another monitor had a resolution above a certain threshold.
Planes rotation property can be 0,90, 180 and 270, you can also flip them: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.12/gpu/drm-kms.html#c.drm.... If I remember correctly I implemented/upstreamed a few of these properties support for Rockchip display controllers.
If you can rotate a specific buffer will likely depend on your display controller plus if it's tiled or not though, since rotating a linear buffer is going to destroy BW.
If you are writing code only for one specific display controller you can look at the drivers and just figure out which configs are ok.
If your DP supports it, you don't need to GPU composite for screenshots, you can use the write back connector.
> The configuration validity depends on the current state of the display controller.
Yep. At least now the Pi's implementation does cause kernel tracebacks or lockups any more. Was rough in the beginning :-}
Flipping is supported (but not 90/270 rotation) and I use that together with a recently added transpose feature in the Writeback connector to support mirroring the primary VC4's output to the minimal DRM implementation of the official 7" display.
I'm using the Writeback connector to support screenshots, but copying every plane's configuration would be too much sometimes, so I heuristically compose some framebuffers via GL and then only place the remaining framebuffers (including the GL one) on Writeback and HDMI.
If you translate it literally, "per" is closer to "for".
If you don't translate it literally, I'd vote for "in itself". "In itself" (viewed in its essential qualities; considered separately from other things[0]) has a different meaning than "by itself" (alone/unaided). And to me it's clear that "per se" pretty much universally means the former.
A less literal translation like "essentially" or "in essence" is deployed by master Latin translators like Robert Fagles. I've even seen "in a vacuum" which does a better job at communicating the original intent than a string of cryptic prepositions.
That's another valid translation for the same preposition.
And there are many definitions of English "for" as well. This would fit the one used in the phrase "if not for this, ..." In other words, for itself = by virtue of itself, through the existence of itself.
Also note in terms of Indo European roots, per is a cognate with English for.
Prepositions are some of the least translatable bits of language. For that matter, even without translation they tend to get slippery within a language, especially over time (one that springs to mind is the whole “quarter of” referring to a time which I first encountered some 50 years ago and still don’t know if it’s quarter to or quarter after).¹
⸻
1. Cue some dude to tell me in 3…2…1²
2. And this knowledge will promptly disappear from my brain five minutes later, sort of like the guy I knew in my 20s whose name was either Jack or Chad and to this date, I still am not sure, but I do know that every single time I called him by name, I got it wrong and it totally wasn’t on purpose even though he didn’t believe me.
I once had a Spanish teacher, who also had problems remembering what that kind of time specification stands for and I came up with maybe a trick to remember. We do the same thing in German, so I guess it translates:
Lets say you have 11:00. That's easy. But what about 11:15? We would say "quarter 12", so I guess the English version is "quarter of 12". How to memorize, that this is 11:15? Well, you can imagine a round clock and the minute pointer has moved _quarter of its way to 12_. So you only have a quarter of that hour "already done". 10:30? We say "half 11". So I guess English is "half of 11", meaning that the minute pointer has moved half the way to 11.
Maybe this will help.
(Actually I personally usually don't use those ways of specifying the time, neither in English nor in German. I just say the 24h format as it is written: "11:15" is "eleven fifteen", 13:35 is "thirteen thirtee five" not 1pm something.)
Whatever "quarter of 12" means in English, whether it's 11:45 (quarter to 12) or 12:15 (quarter past 12), it definitely isn't 11:15. We do fraction of an hour forward or backward relative to the hour mentioned, not fraction of an hour elapsed in approach to hour mentioned.
I recently encountered a German asking for the English phrase equivalent to bis unter, looking for a phrase like "up to below". There isn't one in common use. We just don't count things in equivalent ways.
Can you please specify the dialect of English you're referring to, instead of falling for the obviously ridiculous notion that there's one English.
I have never heard "quarter of 12", and wasn't aware it was a thing. In Ireland - Hiberno-English, Irish-English, whatever you like - I've only ever said and heard "quarter to 12" for 11.45.
So, serious question: who says "quarter of 12"? It sounds makey-uppy and illogical, so I'm supposing it might be a linguistic development in the old U.S. of A. I don't feel like I've ever heard it in movies or shows though, in spite of having been subjected to a certain amount of U.S. cultural produce, so this is somewhat mysterious to me.
And I'm pretty sure the Spanish matches (except in reverse, like Spanish usually is relative to English):
11:15 -> once y cuarto
11:30 -> once y media
11:45 -> doce menos cuarto
edit: and about the subject of the thread, "por sí" or "por sí mismo." "per" afaik is a preposition like "por" that means to pair or match things: so it can mean by, through, around, with, for, and even times("×") i.e. doesn't mean anything in English.
"si" is the 3rd person reflexive pronoun (when placed after the verb), and is probably similar to "se." ("mismo" is a redundant clarification is Spanish, probably because "si" and "sí" are homonyms.)
Se and si (as used here) are the same word in different cases. I would draw comparisons to latin se and sibi respectively. I'd also draw parallels between sui, suus, secum and suyo, su, consigo.
Quarter to and quarter past are not rare in Britain, so
11:15 -> quarter past 11
11:45 -> quarter to 12
are very normal to me. In fact any number above 5 to or past are normal. Even smaller numbers come up, where, of course, 1 to 1 and 2 to 2 are particular favourites.
I hear quarter to and quarter after a lot. I think rarity might be a regional thing (or perhaps generational—despite growing up four miles from my childhood home, my children have a different Chicago accent than I do and when I did student teaching in the school district where I went to high school, those kids also commented about the difference in accent).
This is not great advice - the only way I have heard it in English would be "quarter past 11" to mean 11:15. Most people would just say "eleven fifteen".
You were just wrong. They explicitly gave the understood options as 15 before or 15 after. These are the options everyone uses in English -- not 45 before or a quarter of the hour before. In English no one says quarter of 12 to mean 11:15. You just explained it completely different from the ways it is interpreted in English. I understand the logic and how it might come about. Maybe it's very common in German, but it is not used that way in English. If you referred to 11:15 in that way to a native English speaker you would be misinterpreted.
As is often the case, Randall Munroe has already delivered: https://xkcd.com/1602/. Perhaps the joke in this context would be if it said "bi-weekly".
"You should come to our Linguistics Club's bi-weekly meeting. Membership is open to anyone who can figure out how often we meet." (I mean, you have a 50-50 shot. I wonder if there's any personality insights one could learn from such a selection.)
Tok Pisin, a.k.a. New Guinea Pidgin, has exactly two prepositions: bilong, which means "of" or "from" in a possessive or attributive sense; and long, which means everything else.
I have to admit that I was a bit surprised when my ex-wife listed off Spanish prepositions to discover that it excludes a lot of words I would have thought were prepositions but Spanish considers adverbs and only become prepositional when used in conjunction with one of the enumerated prepositions, usually (always?) de.
I don't mean to belittle your app that unfortunately I can't try it since I don't have iOS.
We did solve the problem in a much easier way though. We do have 40 recipes we usually cycle through. I wrote them in a spreadsheet and marked them based on who can cook them, if it's brunch, lunch or dinner, quick or elaborate, summery or wintery.
Then in another sheet I just create a list of those recipes/dishes picked randomly based on the day of the month.
If we start the discussion "what do we eat tonight", I can just open the spreadsheet. 99% of the time proposing the option for that day on the sheet gives us closure and we're done.
I don't mean to belittle your app, I can't try it 'cause I don't have iOS.
We did solve the problem in a much easier way though. We do have 40 recipes we usually cycle through. I wrote them in a spreadsheet and marked them based on who can cook them, if it's brunch, lunch or dinner, quick or elaborate, summery or wintery.
Then in another sheet I just create a list of those recipes/dishes picked randomly based on the day of the month.
If we start the discussion "what do we eat tonight", I can just open the spreadsheet. 99% of the time proposing the option for that day on the sheet gives us closure and we're done.
My wife does the same kind of thing, except she wrote a whole web app that I host on my homelab server (we're both rails devs). The app keeps track of upcoming meals on a calendar, number of leftover servings in the freezer, ingredients needed for upcoming meals, etc.
What an organized person. I just pull stuff out of the fridge and randomly cook whatever I can with it and if there's no good option I go to the store to buy some random things to resupply the fridge.
It is nice to have ideas that you can pick up but being so organized sounds so exhaustingly boring...I would have suggested a deck of cards with recipes that you can pick up randomly.
Also, what about that "who can cook them" column in that spreadsheet? Obviously there are personal prefs but you guys have the recipe stored, surely anyone can cook it.
> Also, what about that "who can cook them" column in that spreadsheet? Obviously there are personal prefs but you guys have the recipe stored, surely anyone can cook it.
In a very general sense, yes, but people have varying competencies/preferences in the kitchen.
Some people have more patience/precision for baking, some people don't think twice about handling raw meat, some people put in the time to learn fancy knife skills and can dice an onion in half the time...
I have found it works very well to divvy up the complicated cooking by skill/preference (though obviously everyone in the house can churn out a pasta dish if the need arises).
Funnily enough me and my partner are coming from very different countries and culture so for the same name of recipe we do it completely differently and we love discovering how our each one of us would do one thing. Also we like to do things together as well so some days cooking becomes a teaching workshop on how to prepare a dish specific to one of our countries of origin and I can now prepare stuff pretty much as well as any local of her own country. She often joke I should obtain the passport because of that ( and for adopting their way of swearing ).
Having said that you have a point about handling raw meat.
I'm not organized at all! The deck of cards idea sounds much better than the spreadsheet, I might print them!
For the "who can cook them" in the spreadsheet, I guess it's just a matter of what we're used to cook. I'm from Italy, she's from Malawi, I'm sure I could cook 'nsima and she could cook polenta.
The limit could also be in the training data. If we could train LLMs with a corpus generated by some super intelligent entity, maybe we'd consider them super intelligent even with the same model size/architecture we have today.
While Tokyo has one of the worst fertility rates, it's not like the rest of Japan is doing particularly well. Also, I was staying in Azabujuban and I was surprised by the amount of kids I saw there.