> Submodules are usually good for frameworks and libraries that are more stable than your main codebase. However, those submodules under active development within the same organizations can be a pain to maintain.
Except they aren't. Libraries are better in their own code base and published as a separate artifact which is auto-versioned.
> I know some programming ecosystems, such as C++ does not have a default way of handling libraries and dependencies, and in that case it might be good to look into submodules.
> Please, if there is any dependency management in your chosen platform use it.
I use C++. There is no such thing as package management in C++ (at least no unified standard that you can use with confidence with every library). So giving a blanket statement and saying that you should just ship library artifacts is a non starter in a language like C++. This basically implies either creating a package manager, or distributing binaries manually, or forcing users to find the correct versions manually and install them.
Git submodules is extremely helpful here, and if you look at the documentation this is what it sounds like it was created for:
> Large projects are often composed of smaller, self-contained modules. For example, an embedded Linux distribution’s source tree would include every piece of software in the distribution with some local modifications; a movie player might need to build against a specific, known-working version of a decompression library; several independent programs might all share the same build scripts.[0]
If this suggestion here doesn't sound like your use case, then your probably using the wrong tool.
In the same way, you wouldn't tell people who use a hammer to cut a piece of wood in half that the hammer must be a terrible tool. You would say something like, you're using the wrong tool, here's a saw. Use the correct tool for the job at hand. If you need source code from a 3rd party library that you won't modify but you depend on, a submodule is a fine tool for the job.
In every respect, versioned libraries are far superior to submodules.
Every time I've encountered submodules in any work projects, I've personally replaced them with auto-incremented semver libraries (usually jars) and received copious thanks for it.
When I see this done, it ends up causing headaches as well. You now have to deal with a second authentication flow that is usually a lot more opaque. I work in games with less technical people such as artists. Bootstrapping their workspace is an effort. "Setup your maven credentials" might as well be ancient latin.
Submodules aren't ideal but I do prefer that you can pull down everything you need in a one liner instead of multi-stage pull, build, auth, download, build etc.
In most aspects submodules are far superior to bad versioning. I understand the Amazon workflow, but never found a company were it worked properly.
In my current job, which uses semver and conan and not submodules, submodules would have solved most of the problems. But unfortunately they are all git newbies (switching from svn just lately), so you cannot throw submodules at them yet.
Who even holds their phone to their head anymore?
Everyone I see only uses bluetooth.
Seriously, how can you understand the inverse square law and be afraid of EM?
There are too many unknowns in biology for me to 100% dismiss the idea. I use a phone, I'm not worried about it - but it also wouldn't surprise me if there were mechanisms we are not yet aware of at play. e.g. specific frequencies that can do harm even at low levels.
I also know we don't have good quality baselines. Cell phones have only been here for 30-ish years, during a time when the resolution and detail at which we delineate and diagnose disease has gone up dramatically. There are diseases and conditions we know about today that didn't know about then. Until we understand all the mechanisms of those diseases - it's bad science to entirely dismiss EM radiation because of "inverse square law".
Similar view here. No harm in using a phone and no harm reducing exposure using basic techniques like speaker phone, not talking on it in the car, scheduling your router wifi to turn off during the hours you don't plan on using it, etc.
You are constantly bathed in your neighbors wifi, emf from nearly cell phone towers and even more intense from the sun. Scheduling your routers wifi to turn off is absolute nonsense.
Not everyone lives close enough for their neighbor's wifi.
These comparisons are very sloppy. Different frequencies act differently, have different limits of exposure, and have different effects. First you need to establish which frequencies are comparable or fit the same category/type. Then you have to set exposure limits (acute and cumulative). Reducing one's RF exposure by 5mW (1W at 15 feet) while one sleeps could be significant in these respects depending on what those limits and baseline exposures are. The fact is, there is little known about the mechanisms and the limits. For example, why does glucose metabolism increase in the brain when exposed to cell RF and how does that increased glucose metabolism affect the rest of the biological system it's a part of? (Honest question. It's something that I found interesting but seems it's lacking research.)
My point was that it doesn't hurt to take basic steps like turning off wifi or using speaker phone. We can show that it measurably reduces exposure, but we don't know if it helps or makes a difference when it comes to outcomes.
Who wants to when you have an inkling to use your computer go to the bother of going to a hard wired computer and turning on the network. It is an absolutely ridiculous workflow which we have absolutely no reason to believe has any benefit whatsoever. You might as well hop on one foot and turn in a circle while making the sign of the evil eye.
"You might as well hop on one foot and turn in a circle while making the sign of the evil eye."
Any evidence to support that?
I've run my wireless on a schedule for about 10 years. I've never had any problems, nor has the workflow been ridiculous. The wired network stays on, which is what I primary use for everything except the phone or occasional laptop use. What exactly do you envision needing the wifi for when waking up in the middle of the night?
That's part of the logic - if you're looking to reduce exposure then designing your network to be primarily wired is part of that, which is usually easy. Generally it provides better performance (eg gaming) or options (PoE cameras) anyways.
Oh I absolutely believe in wiring everything stationary. That doesn't need justification beyond reliability and performance.
I'm talking about the logical inconsistency of scheduling wifi to avoid exposure. Your phone used without headset or speaker is a cm from your brain putting out up to 2W and your wifi access point conversely is 1/10th of a watt 30 meters away. You are getting up to 180 million times less exposure than up against your head.
Comparing speakerphone usage 15cm away isn't much better. It's up to 800,000 times the exposure vs your wifi.
If that is dangerous enough to schedule your phone logically needs to go straight in the trash.
You are underestimating how low energy your wifi is and how much the difference the distance makes.
"wifi access point conversely is 1/10th of a watt 30 meters away."
Not in the US I guess? Also 30m is a massive house. In the US routers are 1W (although I believe many could reduce it per device with the newer tech, but many still have set limits; although this is also true of the 2W you mention for cell).
"You are underestimating how low energy your wifi is and how much the difference the distance makes."
My house is not 30m in any dimension. Probably about 5m router to bed, and that's one of the longest distance in the house. I don't think I am overestimating router power for my region. US limits are about 10x higher than Europe for wifi, while i believe Europe is about .4W higher for cell tx allowance.
You mention power and distance. What about time for cumulative exposure?
"15cm away"
I think this is underestimating speaker phone usage. Usually I keep it .75-1m away from me. 15cm is very close and not even worth using at that distance.
"I'm talking about the logical inconsistency of scheduling wifi to avoid exposure."
Not avoid, but reduce. The biggest point,since you brought up logic: baseline-5mW < baseline. There is a quantifiable reduction, at no cost (in my experience/situation, since I'm not using it at that time). Eliminating cell usage would require a cost (in my situation). So I accept that exposure with mitigating factors, like speaker phone and not sleeping with it next to my head. Likewise, I am a ham and except that exposure with mitigating factors (ground planes to limit RF back into the house, typically 1W but always QRP, and compared to cell phones it's about 1/2 the RF since isn't not full duplex), even though I don't use it very often.
You could limit your exposure more by not putting your router in the same room as your bed more so than scheduling it.
Of course the whole exercise is somewhat like playing like the floor is lava and hopping from couch to chair as a kid nothing happens when you fall unless you break a lamp on the way down.
"You could limit your exposure more by not putting your router in the same room as your bed more so than scheduling it."
It's not. I just don't have a huge house.
"There is no evidence of injury by virtue of WiFi."
The research seems to be mixed when searching PubMed. At the very least, there are confirmed biological effects for microwave RF for which we don't understand the mechanisms or their implications (eg increased cellular glucose metabolism). To me, these unknowns warrant some caution, especially if I can make reductions in exposure without any reduction in utility.
>No harm in using a phone and no harm reducing exposure using basic techniques like speaker phone
...except if you're in a room/bus and you're disturbing everyone by being on speaker phone.
>not talking on it in the car
What's the point of this? Are you trying to avoid brain cancer or distracted driving?
>scheduling your router wifi to turn off during the hours you don't plan on using it, etc.
I mean, if you want to go through the effort to set this up, that's your prerogative. I'd probably put more effort into chucking out the 1200W microwave before worrying about the 0.1W coming from router.
"except if you're in a room/bus and you're disturbing everyone by being on speaker phone."
You're likely disturbing everyone even if you're not on speaker. In general, I'm not going to talk on a phone in a crowded location unless I have to. This is one very small edge case which I don't see affecting my claim that it doesn't hurt to use speaker phone.
"What's the point of this? Are you trying to avoid brain cancer or distracted driving?"
Cars act as weak Faraday cages. Using a phone inside a car increases the power output required to reach the tower. Similar if you are in a low reception area.
"I mean, if you want to go through the effort to set this up, that's your prerogative."
It takes maybe 5 minutes to log into your router and set the schedule. Not much effort at all.
"I'd probably put more effort into chucking out the 1200W microwave before worrying about the 0.1W coming from router."
Why? You realize the microwaves are contained to to inside of the machine by it's shielding, right? The allowable lifetime escape limit is set at 5mW.
Routers can have much higher power output than that. I think the US limit is 1W. This is also something that runs almost continuously as compared to a microwave that runs for maybe a few minutes per day.
>You're likely disturbing everyone even if you're not on speaker.
yeah but in addition to one guy speaking normally half the time, you also hear a distorted voice coming out of the shitty speakerphone the other half of the time.
>Cars act as weak Faraday cages. Using a phone inside a car increases the power output required to reach the tower. Similar if you are in a low reception area.
That's partially canceled out by being able to use hands-free calling in your car, and placing the phone on the other side of the car. I suspect the inverse square law will cause you to get less radiation exposure than you holding the phone using your arms.
>It takes maybe 5 minutes to log into your router and set the schedule. Not much effort at all.
the "effort" also includes the time you have to fiddle with your router to turn it on when you need wifi during the night for whatever reason.
>Why? You realize the microwaves are contained to to inside of the machine by it's shielding, right? The allowable lifetime escape limit is set at 5mW.
yet, when I place my phone inside the microwave it still gets wifi reception (yes, I tested it with 2.4ghz wifi only).
>Routers can have much higher power output than that. I think the US limit is 1W. This is also something that runs almost continuously as compared to a microwave that runs for maybe a few minutes per day.
inverse square law applies here. chances are when you're operating a microwave you'll be standing near by. at the very least you need to be next to it to turn it on. meanwhile the router is probably tucked in some corner of your house.
also, I suspect you can apply the "runs for maybe a few minutes per day" argument to wifi as well. if you're not torrenting on your wifi 24/7, it's probably not pumping 1W 24/7.
Microwave oven leakage exposure, while it can be quite large compared to a cell phone's average radiated power, is not modulated. So, the small amount of research we have, which almost all tested wholly unmodulated radiation, suggests that it would have little or no effect.
About the phone, we don't have any good information. That doesn't stop people from insisting they, personally, know, without any.
"Microwave oven leakage exposure, while it can be quite large compared to a cell phone's average radiated power,"
Is this really true under most circumstances? I think lifetime leakage limit is set at 5mW for microwaves and a cellphone is much higher during tx at around 800mW.
"yeah but in addition to one guy speaking normally half the time, you also hear a distorted voice coming out of the shitty speakerphone the other half of the time."
True. I suppose what I'm saying is that with proper etiquette this shouldn't be issue, at least not often.
"the "effort" also includes the time you have to fiddle with your router to turn it on when you need wifi during the night for whatever reason."
This has never been an issue for me for 10 year of doing this.
"That's partially canceled out by being able to use hands-free calling in your car, and placing the phone on the other side of the car. I suspect the inverse square law will cause you to get less radiation exposure than you holding the phone using your arms."
True. However, if we are comparing being in a car to not being in a car, then you would still have more exposure (eg putting on the other side of the room vs other side of the car. Plus, many cars are no bigger than arms length, and of you can put it further than that, toad noise becomes an issue.
"yet, when I place my phone inside the microwave it still gets wifi reception (yes, I tested it with 2.4ghz wifi only)."
Perhaps you should have it tested and get a new one if it's not conforming to safety specs. However, my guess is that since it isn't causing interference with you or your neighbors phone that it's really just a slight difference in the frequency the shielding is designed for.
"inverse square law applies here."
As it does for the microwave. Im frankly tired of everyone going "inverse square law" with nothing substantive. How about you crunch the numbers for someone 3 feet from a microwave at 5mW and someone 15 feet from a 1W router and tell me what you get... just because a concept is true does not mean you are correctly applying it in your argument.
"also, I suspect you can apply the "runs for maybe a few minutes per day" argument to wifi as well. if you're not torrenting on your wifi 24/7, it's probably not pumping 1W 24/7."
Well, routers are generally transmitting multiple times per second just for the beacon/name (yes, probably at 1W since TX rate is gwnerally separate from TX power). How many minutes per day does your household use on wireless internet vs the microwave? I'm guessing it's a close to a factor of 10 difference. How many minutes do you use either during your typical sleep hours? Even if you're TX is 5% of the time during 6 core sleeping hours, that's likely to approach the amount of time you use your microwave.
The act of having the discussion not just the act of pushing buttons or holding the phone is the primary distraction. Anyone using hands free for safety is doing safety wrong. You might as well be driving drunk for the duration of the conversation.
It’s not moving the goalpost to say that OP’s dismissal of risk (because inverse square law) is imo just a little bit too broad. I know it’s not moving the goalpost because there is no goal. I’m not trying to win or defeat anyone or anything - i’m just trying to talk about an interesting topic.
I absolutely hate bluetooth. I'm not walking around with something in my ear at all times nor rushing to shove one in when I get a call. Do you wear your bluetooth headset at all times?
The herb ephedra (Ma Huang/Mormon Tea) contains appreciable amounts of ephedrine and is prepared as a tea in Chinese medicine as a remedy for asthma and cold congestion.
It can easily be purchased online and the ephedrine ban does not apply to it.
This is true, but the plant actually contains both. The amount of each can vary widely based on which species you're talking about. The species linked here, commonly known as Mormon Tea, is one of the few species that doesn't contain any ephedrine and only contains pseudo
Because the value of cryptocurrency is strongly effected by the volume of buy and sell pressure. Market cap implies that a level of liquidity which is likely not present -- it can very difficult to sell large amounts of most crypto without at least temporarily tanking the value.
Market cap doesn't imply liquidity, not for equities either.
A larger market cap might be correlated with more liquidity, but you readily want to look at shares outstanding and average volume to measure liquidity. I don't see why crypto is special here.
