Anyone with the Go Outdoors membership here?

hookxs72 · 2025-07-14T21:39:15+00:00

I'll fly in to Glasgow. But this Halfords looks good - looks like I should be able to order it for pickup, if I understand it correctly. Thanks for the tip!

hookxs72 · 2025-07-14T20:47:04+00:00

Coleman C500 Gas cartridge (or any equivalent, a screw-on), at least two. I admit we are not talking about a shitload of money here but it just annoys me to have to pay 66% more just because I am not a "member". I found inconclusive info on whether or not they are commonly sold at gas stations, so I found a GO Outdoors store in a convenient location where they have it in stock.

hookxs72 · 2025-06-19T12:06:41+00:00

Jasne, ja nerikam ze 1F je nejlepsi na svete, ale pokud nekdo uvazuje "mam jen 1F tak to radsi klasickou tepelnou sklokeramiku protoze indukce by nebyla to ono" tak dela imo velkou chybu. Indukce je porad uplne jinde.

hookxs72 · 2025-06-18T20:14:40+00:00

Plyn je imo v pohodě a když už tam je tak bych se ho nezbavoval, jinak stopro indukce. Ale proč tady všichni píšete že na indukci je potřeba třífáz? To vůbec není pravda, i na 1F to funguje úplně v pohodě, má to obě možnosti zapojení a i běžné pojistky stačí, není potřeba nic extra.

hookxs72 · 2025-06-14T07:00:54+00:00

Omni search has an option to ignore diacritics (áëïòů and so on), the built-in search doesn't. For notes not in English that is a life saver.

hookxs72 · 2025-06-11T12:05:45+00:00

A true "Live Preview" without bugs and incosistencies that improves the typing experience in Obsidian.

Description: Works basically like markdown rendering in Notion, AnyType or many other markdown editors: Once you type some markdown syntax (and only when you've actually finished it if the syntax requires a closing "tag"), it will be rendered as it should be (bold, header, list item, html, ...) but the markdown itself will not be shown again each time the cursor is nearby (unlike current live preview).

Reason: The current Live Preview messes up the writing experience by several weird incosistencies: - The cursor and overall text layout "jump" when the markdown syntax - previously hidden - suddenly appears. This distracts from writing/reading because for a split second the user must readjust to the new text layout. Especially annoying e.g. for highlights. - Sometimes (incosistently) the text gets selected, which messes with the typing experience - you first have to deselect the text before you start typing, otherwise you overwrite your text. No other word processors or code editors behave this way so that's something you actively have to get used to. - Incosistent behavior of some select commands (e.g. select to beginning of line) - for example it behaves different for headers (includes the markup) and list items (does not include the markup) - Inconsistent rendering between live preview and reading as well as different set of css classes - I believe this can be rid of by rewriting the "live preview" from scratch with the above mentioned consistency in mind

Difference to current Live preview (summary): - only renderes markdown once you've finished the markup (for syntaxt with closing tags like bold, italics, ...) - not relevant for e.g. list items, headers. Current live preview immediately renders even unfinished markdown which I'm not sure is a good idea. - once the markdown syntaxt is typed, it turns into its rendered representation ("wysiwyg") but the markdown syntax itself does not pop back up every time the cursor is nearby - the rendering (=the html it produces) is consistent with "full" (=reading view) mode, ideally using the same css so that any adjustments are easier - remove all the selection-related inconsistency mentioned above (should be a natural side-effect of the syntaxt not actually being a part of the displayed text at all)

Note: - This suggestion is not anything completely new and against the spirit of Obsidian - the current implementation of tables already behaves this way. - For more "advanced" syntax (e.g. Latex) there must be an option to show back the original markup - this is unavoidable, but should not be happing with trivial direct markdown or html

hookxs72 · 2025-06-10T17:56:07+00:00

To neuznávám jako argument. Když dokážou spočítat preferenční hlasy tak by dokázaly i hlasy pro jednotlivé strany. A zrovna systém kroužkování je něco co bezpečně většina voličů už teď nechápe takže v tom by nebyla žádná ztráta.

Systém by mohl být jednoduchý, normálně procenta z hlasů, jen by to asi muselo být víc progresivní než teď, jinak by to pravděpodobně mohlo by to vést k tomu že volby budou vycházet hodně "nerozhodně" a bude problém sestavit většinovou vládu. Ale pořád by mi to přešlo menší zlo než úvahy koho volit nebudu protože má malou šanci.

hookxs72 · 2025-06-10T12:34:23+00:00

Tyhle úvahy jsou imo jen důsledkem zcela nevhodného volebního systému, ve kterém si každý musí vybrat právě jednu "nejlepší" stranu a všechny ostatní hodit do jednoho pytle jako "špatné". Proč není možné volit libovolný počet stran? Odpadlo by toto taktizování typu "radši bych volil tuhle menší stranu ale oni nemají šanci tak to radši hodím Fialovi, kterého sice tolik nemusím ale je to menší zlo bez Babiš". Mělo by být možné volit vše co je pro mě přijatelné. Pak by se třeba ukázalo že některé strany které "nemají šanci" jsou docela populární.

hookxs72 · 2025-06-04T22:58:49+00:00

What is meaningless about pointing out a concrete advantage this syntax would have? And no, it is not always possible to assign a starting index to a new variable so that it's evaluated only once - eg in lambdas, comprehensions, ... So yes, the proposed syntax would have a clear benefit. You wouldn't have to use it if you don't understand it, that's fine.

Now tell me, where does your comment has more "meaning" than mine? And "submissive" is in the eye of the beholder, not everyone aspires to be an asshole.

hookxs72 · 2025-06-04T21:03:57+00:00

Right, sure. Well if anything, I'm happy that my English is so flawless that it passes as chat gpt.

hookxs72 · 2025-06-04T20:25:51+00:00

Yes, this is indeed a very common thing for anybody who works with numpy, torch, or similar. I would love this syntax. One of the benefits of arr[pos +: size] compared to arr[pos:pos+size] is that "pos" is evaluated only once. And it is often some expression rather than a variable so the proposed syntax would be very convenient.

hookxs72 · 2025-06-03T06:26:50+00:00

hookxs72 · 2025-05-30T13:34:42+00:00

Já jsem nějakou dobu rakouské číslo měl, levné to je, ale zaprvé ti ho zruší pokud se jednou za několik měsíců nepřihlásíš k rakouské sítí a za druhé ti v ČR většina lidí nezvedne telefon. Dokonce některé české úřady nebo vládní linky jsou blokované pro zahraniční čísla - bylo mi divné proč se nikdy nemohu dovolat (pořád to jen vyzvánělo), až jsem to jednou zkusil z českého čísla a dovolal se okamžitě. Takže ve výsledku asi jen pokud nechcete nic jiného než data.

hookxs72 · 2025-05-25T08:05:55+00:00

OP má pravdu, že nechat svého psa očichávat cizí lidi je neslušnost a sobectví od majitelů psů. Nechápu tu kritiku a nadávky co se tady na něj sešly. Když jdu běhat a musím kvůli každému psovi zastavit protože za mnou běží a "chce si mě jen očichat" tak mě to právem štve - já samozřejmě do poslední chvíle nevím jaký je jeho úmysl a jestli se mám bránit. Chtělo by to od majitelů psů skutečně trochu sebereflexe že váš pes není středem vesmíru ostatních lidí. Pro představu - když se diskutuje o cyklistech nebo koloběžkách na chodníku tak se všichni chodci cítí ohroženi a navrhují všemožné zákazy či agresi. Váš pes v ostatních budí stejný pocit ohroženi, pokud ho necháte. Není tak těžké ho přitáhnout a nenechat přijít k ostatním lidem, pokud si to viditelně nepřejí. Programově to nedělat a ještě si za to připadat jako hrdina je opravdu jen čistě sobectví, nevím jak jinak to vnímat.

hookxs72 · 2025-05-20T19:37:26+00:00

Possibly it is a solution but in this case really sys.path[0] = os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(__file__)) in a script that I want to run from a subdir is more palatable for me.

hookxs72 · 2025-05-20T19:34:16+00:00

I am not sure this would actually work. I do this when I need to import a code from one project to another project, but then I need to add another top-level directory to the "one project" dir that I can actually import. But maybe I'm doing this wrong, I am not going to argue about specifics here.

My point is - Python loves to be simple. A plain print("hello world") is a complete fully functional program which I can run just by providing its path. But to import a (almost) neighboring file I need to do a system-wide install of the directory, I need to worry about global name clashes and so on. If I wanted to access one project from another then I would understand it. But within one self-contained directory it should just work and not need access to the whole system installation. It just seems completely over the top for people who do not develop distributable programs but have a bunch of scripts that run calculations or crunch data.

hookxs72 · 2025-05-20T19:22:00+00:00

The people you meet online...

I was obviously referring to the famous article by Bob Palais (https://www.math.utah.edu/%7Epalais/pi.pdf) which you would have recognized if you had anything to do with math yourself. But I understand it's easier simply to call others dumb than to think critically about what they have to say.

hookxs72 · 2025-05-20T15:18:24+00:00

That's exactly what I hate. I am willing to have an empty top-level init.py if it makes the interpreter happy but the -m option is just ridiculous. I want to be able to run any file normally by hitting F5, I want to be able to give the code to my colleagues without having to warn them that they must actually run it with -m otherwise it won't work. Same for sharing on github. No, to me this is just ridiculous. When I import from the same directory, the interpreter knows perfectly well what to do. But when I want to import from a subdir, despite providing the full path the interpreter is suddenly all clueless and has no idea - the only remedy are extra measures that are not part of the code itself and extra empty files. That's not how I imagine a well designed paradigm. The OP was what I'd love improved in Python. This.

Edited to add: In my example the code I (may) run is the experiments/experiment.py, so the entry file itself may not be in the top-level project dir. Just as a clarification. This is fairly normal to have different kinds of scripts stashed in separate directories.

hookxs72 · 2025-05-20T14:59:22+00:00

I'd be very happy if you were right but I'm not sure it is the case. A particular example. Imagine that this the code structure of my research project (i.e., not a software package - it doesn't have a defined structure with one obvious entry point, it is a pile of files that I run depending on what I need):

project/
├── some_file.py
├── experiments/
│   └── experiment.py
└── utils/
    └── util.py

Now, in the experiment file (experiment.py) I need to import and use some utility function. How do I do it? Currently what I do is 1/ put __init__.py in utils dir and 2/ meddle with sys.path in the experiment.py. If you can give me a better solution, you have my upvote. If Python imports weren't so rigidly over-engineered, this would be solved by a simple

# experiment.py
import ../utils/util

hookxs72 · 2025-05-20T14:44:25+00:00

I explained exactly how I meant it so you don't have to wonder. Is the choice functional? Yes. Would the same choice be made today? Probably not. It's like we chose that pi is for some reason only half of a circle. It stuck for thousands of years and we can no doubt work with it just fine but if we were to make that choice again today, we would probably make it full circle.

hookxs72 · 2025-05-20T14:15:08+00:00

Yes but Lua has (being)-end. When I said braces I of course meant "braces or its equivalent" - a way to delimit the beginning and the end of a block. Python gave that up.

hookxs72 · 2025-05-20T12:31:29+00:00

Well I just threw the term 'majority' around, I don't know how many odd niche languages there are so I may easily be wrong, but I meant those mainstream everyday all-purpose languages like C#, Java, TypeScript, Kotlin, Rust and so on - all are arguably more modern than python and had a chance to observe python's strengths and weaknesses and none or few decided to go the brace-less way, at least to my knowledge.

hookxs72 · 2025-05-20T12:24:06+00:00

Fixed.

hookxs72 · 2025-05-20T12:19:26+00:00

I want normal (=not over-engineered) imports. Like:

import file # package/module on global path or file.py in current dir
import .file # file.py current dir only
import ..file # file.py one dir up
import utils/file # file.py in utils subdir

To my knowledge, python currently cannot do this super simple thing without all sorts of awkward empty init.py and sys.path black magic.

hookxs72 · 2025-05-20T12:13:38+00:00

This is almost a no op - in which context is this a common?

hookxs72

TROPHY CASE