Most interestingly, it unlocks ways to avoid coordination within distributed systems, offering better scalability and better performance
This sounds similar to the spanner work with Google - if the machines know what time it is, they can then make queries as of GIVEN_DATETIME
we strive to heed upstream's recommendations on how they intend for their software to be consumed.
iCloud Sync is not working. Make sure you have signed into iCloud with the same account on all devices. On iOS, go to Settings → [your name (the very top item)] → iCloud → iCloud Drive. On macOS, go to System Settings → [your name] → iCloud → iCloud Drive. Make sure iCloud Drive is on. On iOS, go to Settings → [your name] → iCloud → (Tap the “Show All” button to go to “Apps using iCloud”) → (Scroll down to find Anybox). On macOS, go to System Settings → [your name] → iCloud → Show More Apps…. Make sure Anybox is on. If the switch for iCloud Drive or Anybox is disabled, it means your device is managed by organization and iCloud is not allowed.
and shares data with the wider Matrix ecosystem by synchronising communication history with other homeservers and their clients
That's a con. There's no need to sync globe-wide, creating a giant ledger. You have a set of peers that you want to share your stuff with (friends), leave it at that.
Readwise Reader
A great article on the history of reading online that might just nudge me into trying out and eventually becoming a Reader paid subscriber.
async is a concurrency technique. If you need concurrency, async is required for node to work properly (not "better"). If you don't have concurrency, you don't need async. The point is you need to actually understand what async does for you and why. It's not inherently "better" for no reason and you don't need to memorize it as a "best practice". If the OP is writing a command line utility to alter a JSON file then exit, async complicates the code for no reason as the concurrency is not required.
async vs. sync depends exactly on what you are doing in what context. If this is in a network service, you need async. For a command line utility, sync is the appropriate paradigm in most simple cases, but just knee-jerk saying "async is better" is not correct. My snippet is based on the OP snippet for context.
Version bumps and security fixes should be attended to in a timely manner.
If you do not represent upstream and upstream becomes interested in maintaining the image, steps should be taken to ensure a smooth transition of image maintainership over to upstream.
When we have our git rev-parse examine our Git repository to view our origin/HEAD, what we see is whatever we have stored in this origin/HEAD. That need not match what is in their HEAD at this time. It might match! It might not.
We use the Web Annotation Protocol to sync bookmarks and last reading position across devices. At a glance it covers all the use cases here, and it's a well-defined protocol with multiple independent implementations. In particular, WAP defines a relation for discovery. Here's how we link to the annotation endpoint for a specific book in an OPDS 1.2 feed. Note the distinctive link relation and media type:
xml
<link href="https://circulation.librarysimplified.org/NYNYPL/annotations/Gutenberg%20ID/40278/"
type="application/ld+json;
profile="http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld""
rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#annotationService"/>
We cannot make the above statement reactive because we touch tmpCopyAsTemplates.
It works if you always want b to be the value deriving from a. However in the example above, we want the value of b to be temporarily out of sync of a.
For me there is a distinct difference between these two scripts: let a = 1; $: b = a * 2; let a = 1; let b; $: { b = a * 2 }; The first example defines a "recipe" for how to create b and b is completely defined by that declaration. Outside of that it is immutable, data flows only into a single sink. The second example declares a variable b and then uses a reactive statement to update it. But it also allows you to do with b whatever you want. If someone wants to go that route (definitely not me), they are free to do so at their own risk of ensuring consistency.
The intended behavior for the code snippet above is to reactively update b when a changes allows b temporarily go "out-of-sync" of a when calling update, setting b to 42 in this case, b is not always a * 2 however, if a changes again, b will be updated back to a * 2, instead of staying at 42
I don't think these are two different interests in contrast with each other. I wanna update that temporary object and when the dep changes I re-create the temporary object. Simple as that.
It means that when having a type guard:TypeScript and JavaScript runtime are tied to the same behaviour.
Inside the if statement, TypeScript will assume that amount cannot be anything else than a string, which is true also at the runtime thanks to typeof JavaScript operator.
Keeping bootstrap-sass in sync with upstream changes from Bootstrap used to be an error prone and time consuming manual process. With Bootstrap 3 we have introduced a converter that automates this.
I personally think that starting from google's components makes easier to keeping update to material specs updates.
Lu, D. (n.d.). AI can edit video in real time to sync new audio to people’s lips. New Scientist. Retrieved September 14, 2020, from https://www.newscientist.com/article/2254326-ai-can-edit-video-in-real-time-to-sync-new-audio-to-peoples-lips/
in order to track the always-improving upstream project, we continuously rebase our patches on top of the upstream master
As for the syncing: I think BitTorrent Sync should do it. It's p2p, meaning there're no servers inbetween. Maybe there're even open alternatives already. TL;DR: KeePass <-> BitTorrent Sync for database transfer <-> MiniKeePass
Papagayo is free and open source, lip sync software for matching pre generated or custom mouth shapes to a recorded audio file for use in 2D animation. Its available on Windows, Linux, and Mac.
Coming back to the two ‘FreeSync’ settings in the monitor OSD, they differ in the variable refresh rate range that they support. ‘Standard Engine’ supports 90 – 144Hz (90 – 119Hz via HDMI) whilst ‘Ultimate Engine’ gives a broader variable refresh rate range of 70 – 144Hz (62 – 119Hz via HDMI). We didn’t notice any adverse effects when using ‘Ultimate Engine’, so we’d suggest users simply stick to that option.
In my tests using Standard Engine, in combo with G-Sync Compatible Driver, I get more screen flickering during menus.
e completed the design and eval-uation of PartialSync (pSync) [5]. We also conducted a thorough comparative study of the di erent syncprotocols we have developed over the last few years, including CCNx Sync [1], iSync [6], ChronoSync [8],RoundSync [2], and pSync.
We completed the design and evaluation of Partial Sync (pSync) [5]. We also conducted a thorough comparative study of the different sync protocols we have developed over the last few years, including CCNx Sync [1], iSync [6], ChronoSync [8], RoundSync [2], and pSync.
extremely cool, but...
comparing with tahoe-lafs:
clearly separates writecap from readcap, but... does it grok readcap as separate from idcap?
client-side encryption?
n-of-k erasure encoding?