litchralee

joined 2 years ago
[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

also uses just a standard "desktop computer cable" for charging

As an afficionado of the IEC 60320 electric power couplers, this adds an outsized plus-modifier to your recommendation. I will look into this some more. Thanks!

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm about 70 kg (150 lbs) so that shouldn't be at the edge of rated e-scooter performance, I think. To be abundantly clear, low-speed is not mandatory for me but rather, high-speed is not desired nor do I want to pay extra for it. My preference for low speed is simply because my objective is to be faster than walking, and since that's a low bar, I don't even need to take on additional risk of bodily injury.

If a candidate e-scooter can do 40+ kph (25 mph) but can be conveniently set up for just cruising at 15 kph, I would have no problem. But if I have constantly adjust a sensitive throttle on a e-scooter that is eager to bolt away fast, then that's a usability issue for my slow-speed use-case.

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 10 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

to vulgar childlike poetry so he can actually interpret it

This reminds me of a BlueSky thread I saw linked on Mastodon, of people riffing on the ludicrous and flawed idea that great literary works need to be distilled using LLMs into plain language, to "avoid difficult language": https://bsky.app/profile/adamcsharp.bsky.social/post/3lb5og7vrv22j

It's like watching education happening in reverse. Even Orwell would be baffled at these happenings vis-a-vis AI/LLMs.

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

In a lot of ways, EUCs have an apparent risk that roughly matches their actual risk, with a strong majority of the -- admittedly few -- EUC riders I've seen wearing full gear, as though they're going to motocross. Whereas I think e-scooters have the issue of masking their actual risk.

IMO, the lack of a handlebar or tiller will always be something deeply discomforting to me, but I'm also a person who can't/won't ride a bike without using the handlebars. Though that might be because of an ingrained need for control from years of riding bikes within suburban traffic.

Anyway, I digress. Yes, I do think an EUC could fit the bill, but sadly it doesn't fit for me.

 

Hi everyone!

Once again, I come to you all for advice. Currently, my fleet consists of my trusty acoustic bike, my Class 3 electric bike, and my own two feet. Couple this with my transit card and I've eliminated a lot of unnecessary automobile trips. Roughly, my trips fall into:

  • trips within town that I can run them with my acoustic bike, or the ebike if I'm short on time. Usually sub 8 km (5 mi)
  • trips to the outlying suburbs by hourly bus, getting me within 2 km of my actual destination, so I just walk
  • trips into the metro core by bus + LRT, within 4 km of my destination, so I might walk or might wait 30 minutes for the bus. The ebike won't fit on the bus, and even with the acoustic bike, this bus line often fills the front bike rack.

That latter one is what I want to optimize, since I missed that bus by 1 minute and then proceeded to walk in 38 C (100 F) heat to the LRT station. That was brutal.

So I wish to consider adding an e-scooter, as a faster-than-walking solution for short distances. This would be more compact than bringing either bike, and easily brought onto the bus or train. If I were going any farther than 2-4 km, or bringing more than I could carry, then the bike is needed.

That said, I know enough people that have eaten dirt on an e-scooter, so I would easily accept a scooter that is limited to some 15 kph (9 mph) -- still faster than walking -- so long as it can climb 3-5% grades. I would also like the largest diameter wheels I can get; 10-inch would be great. Suspension would be nice, but I'll take what I can find.

I've searched locally on Craigslist for options, and predominantly see used GoTrax and Niu e-scooters, but these have 6-inch wheels and no suspension, as well as clones of the Xiaomi M365, like Maxshot. These are cheap, but still don't meet most of my criteria, and it seems these clones have a habit of failing due to poor quality construction.

As extra background, I've never ridden a skateboard, so an electric skateboard is not being considered. Nor rollerblades. I would consider a really small folding bike or ebike, but this is only marginally better than what my current fleet can offer. Hence why I'm looking to e-scooters.

EDIT 1: forgot to mention that I'm in California/USA

 

When uploading photos using the desktop website, make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

I've already bemoaned the non-existent journalism that exists with Ecoticias before, and my only regret is that because that prior post to Ecoticias three months ago was deleted, I cannot properly link to my earlier comment, which reads as follows:

Can we please stop linking to ecoticias? These articles are either AI-written, or have terrible copyeditors. Even just the title already shows a poor understanding of ebike terminology, as well as units. 180 Wh is a unit of energy that might describe a battery’s capacity. Whereas motors are rated in Watts (a unit of power) or horsepower for Americans.

Also, this particular topic is somewhat old, with a much better link showing up in this community last year: https://lemmy.world/post/12008344

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

In a nutshell, voices are not eligible for copyright protection under USA law, whose hegemony results in most of the world conforming to the same. The principal idea for copyright is that it only protects the rendition of some work or act. A writer's manuscript, an artist's early sketches, a software engineer's source code, and a vocalist's audition recording, are all things that imbue their creator with a valid copyright, but only for that particular product of their efforts.

It is not permissible to copyright the idea of a space opera, nor a style of painting, nor an algorithm for a computer routine, nor one's own voice. Basically, pure thoughts cannot be copyrighted, nor things which are insufficiently creative like a copyright on the number 42, nor natural traits or phenomenon.

If we did change the law to allow the copyright of a human voice, then any satire or mockery that involves doing a good impression of someone speaking would suddenly be a copyright violation. This is nuts, because it would also deny someone else who -- by no fault of their own -- happens to have an identical voice. Would they just not be allowed to speak ever? Although intellectual property rights stem from the USA Constitution, so too do First Amendment speech rights, and the direct collision of the two would have strange and unusual contours.

For when ideas can be protected by law, see patents. And for when voices can be protected, see soundmarks/trademarks and brand rights, the latter stemming from rights of association. Such protections generally only hold when the voice or sound in question is an artificial product, like the sound of Ronald McDonald, and the protection only limits direct competitors from using the voice or sound improperly; everyone else is free to do impressions if they want.

So for the titular questions, the hypothesis posed simply will not occur under current law, and it's hard to see how it would be practical if the law did permit it.

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

If I understand correctly, the proposal would:

  • terminate the Southwest Chief and Pennsylvanian service
  • add a train with mixed consist of passenger cars and flat cars that will transport whole 18-wheelers, cab plus trailer, or charter buses
  • will aim to do NYC to LA in 72 hours, or an average speed of at least 40 MPH (64 kph)
  • introduce renovated or new bilevel passenger cars
  • does not propose where or what facilities would be needed to drive vehicles onto the flat cars
  • and somehow this can all be done by May 2026

What planet has this company been inhabiting that they think this is a reasonable proposal?

Just from the freight perspective, surely it would be simpler and easier to send intermodal freight by rail and then have short-haul trucking at the bookends, rather than what seems to be a boneheaded plan to put long-haul trucking on rails.

The shrinking interest in working long-haul truck routes will not be alleviated by spending rest time on a train, since the root complaint about the job is how much time is spent away from home and family. And I can't see why the host railroads would be fine with Amtrak -- aka the National Railroad Passenger Corporation -- carrying freight.

I sense something deeply amiss or even quite possibly scammy about this.

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 16 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Once again, the editor fails to capture in the headline what nuance the author so painstakingly wrote into the article:

A two-wheel machine without pedals IS NOT an ebike. Those are motorcycles (aka motorbikes).

Even the police got it right, with both Irvine and Desert Hot Springs PD referring to the arrests as involving an electric dirt bike and a minibike, respectively, which are types of motorcycles. The author even goes through pains to describe how such electric motorbikes exist outside the three regulated classes of actual e-bikes.

To be abundantly clear, I'm not a fan of unfettered spying by police drones, nor am I a fan of disincentives to electric mobility. But here, the editor is pulling a stunt out of Orwell's 1984 by diluting the meaning of commonly understood words. I am not having this.

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 days ago

Link to the blog post with the background on why this was made : https://ericwbailey.website/published/you-must-listen-to-rfc-2119/

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I mean, amateur radio was illegal to encrypt

Was? I'm not familiar with a jurisdiction that presently allows licensed amateur radio operators to send encrypted or even obfuscated messages, with the unique exception of control-and-command instructions for amateur radio satellites. The whole exercise of ham radio is to openly communicate, with other frequencies and services available for encrypted comms and whatever else.

To be abundantly clear, I very much support encryption because it keeps good people honest and frustrates bad people. But it's hard to see how, for ham radio, encryption could be reconciled with the open and inviting spirit that has steered the radio community for over a century. In a lot of ways, hams were doing FOSS well before the acronym came into existence.

I have great admiration for the radio operators, precisely because when all the major infrastructure falters, it takes only a battery and a wire up a tree to recover some semblance of connectivity.

(this is entirely tangential to the OP's question, but I feel like hams deserve a good word every so often. Also, I understand that last weekend was ARRL Field Day in the USA)

 

Must have exactly two 5x7 glossy prints.

When uploading photos using the desktop website, make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

 

Use the code on the Walgreens app and the website to claim the same offer twice!

When uploading photos using the desktop website, make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

 

Must have exactly five 4x6 glossy prints.

Use the code on the Walgreens app and the website to claim the same offer twice!

When uploading photos using the desktop website, make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

 

You must have exactly three 5x7 glossy prints in your cart for the code to apply.

This code seems to only work for the desktop website. Make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

 

Use the code on the Walgreens app and the website to claim the same offer twice!

When uploading photos using the desktop website, make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

 

Must have exactly two 5x7 glossy prints.

Use the code on the Walgreens app and the website to claim the same offer twice!

When uploading photos using the desktop website, make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

 

Use the code on the Walgreens app and the website to claim the same offer twice!

When uploading photos using the desktop website, make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

 

You must have exactly two 5x7 glossy prints in your cart for the code to apply.

When uploading photos using the desktop website, make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

 

Use the code on the Walgreens app and the website to claim the same offer twice!

When uploading photos using the desktop website, make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

2
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by litchralee@sh.itjust.works to c/newpipe@lemmy.ml
 

(fairly recent NewPipe user; ver 0.27.6)

Is there a way to hide particular live streams from showing up on the "What's New" tab? I found the option in Settings->Content->Fetch Channel Tabs which will prevent all live streams from showing in the tab. But I'm looking for an option to selective hide only certain live streams from the tab.

Some of my YouTube channels have 24/7 live streams (eg Arising Empire), which will always show at the top of the page. But I don't want to hide all live streams from all channels, since I do want to see if new live streams appear, usually ones that aren't 24/7.

Ideally, there'd be an option to long-press on a live stream in the tab, one which says "Hide From Feed", which would then prevent that particular stream ID from appearing in the feed for subsequent fetches.

From an implementation perspective, I imagine there would be some UI complexity in how to un-hide a stream, and to list out all hidden streams. If this isn't possible yet, I can try to draft a feature proposal later.

view more: next ›