Tootfinder

1/2 Thanks to @… for this interesting article. It speaks to me. :)
I’ve been weather blogging @… since 2005. It is interesting how it has changed, and how I have changed.
My website used to be just data from the (expensive) station I bought when I moved back to Port Alberni. It was a hobby and a side project to practice web/coding skills I use at work. My focus was on creating useful data for people that was more local/relevant than the official EC station outside of the city.
Then I put up a webcam and learned how to make timelapses. This got the attention of local media… because pictures. :)
Then I added a blog and started to write about the weather almost daily. This was before Facebook. There was a popular local online forum where I would post things. The media would also follow my website and they started to call me when there was extreme weather (usually very hot or very wet/stormy).
Then Facebook started to get big and I made a page that eventually had a few thousand followers. I would blog often. Lots of traffic from Facebook… this was 2010 and on. I blogged about climate and weather pretty equally.
Like anyone in Port Alberni, I was/am obsessed with the Martin Mars and got wrapped up in that issue along with others which combined with the weather following probably gave me just enough exposure to have me elected as a councillor in 2014.
I continued through that 4 years, blogging often in addition to councillor duties and work, heavily on facebook, then it all went sideways on my own poor judgement (go ahead and google it, it’s ok :)) and I was not reelected, but Facebook by 2018 had also changed. Cambridge Analytica, etc.
….Continued…
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-weather-apps-data-wildfires-storms-preparation-obsession-social-media/

google glass and snapchat spectacles were both such wildly successful products, which we all trampled one another to get, of course facebook-wunderkind-who-isn't-really-a-wunderkind will succeed with possibly the most unappealing glasses ever made since someone ended up with auto glass in their eyes after flying through a windshield in a collision. It's a sure thing! /s

Mark Zuckerberg is making a major bet on the future. He’s about to share it
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a bold claim on the social media giant’s earnings call in July. Answering a question from an analyst, he said people without smart glasses may one day be at a “significant cognitive disadvantage” compared to those who do use the tech.

Alright #PDXFedi folks. I’ve created !@…. The idea is you can follow the group (Approval required to keep out spam), and if you’re following the group, it will boost any post you make mentioning it. (Without the ! In front).
That *may* make it eas…

From Clean Energy Review
In Edmonton’s Blatchford neighbourhood, a new “virtual power plant” is flipping the script on how communities use energy. Twenty (but soon-to-be 100) townhomes, each equipped with rooftop solar panels and energy storage, are not just powering themselves—they can feed the grid, manage peak demand, and even provide emergency backup when the lights go out. It’s a glimpse of what clean households could look like across Canada.

I scored 20/21 on #emailwtf

Here’s a mind-blowing experiment that you can try at home:
Gather some children’s blocks and place them on a table.
Take one block and slowly push it over the table’s edge, inch by inch, until it’s on the brink of falling.
If you possess patience and a steady hand, you should be able to balance it so that exactly half of it hangs off the edge.
Nudge it any farther, and gravity wins.
Now take two blocks and start over.
Stacking one on top of the other, how…

This Block-Stacking Math Problem Has a Preposterous Solution You Need to See to Believe — Scientific American
In principle, this impossible math allows for a glue-free bridge of stacked blocks that can stretch across the Grand Canyon—and into infinity Amanda Montañez Math Here’s a mind-blowing experiment that you can try at home: Gather some children’s blocks and place them on a table. Take one block and slowly push it over the table’s edge, inch by inch, until it’s on the brink of falling. If you possess patience and a steady hand, you should be able to balance it so that exactly half of it…

It's worth bearing in mind that all AI companies are in that phase where they burn money to attract the most customers and hope that the competition blinks first. That means all AI is pretty badly underpriced.
For coding, that's a problem. It's just on the edge of being arguably positive for some. If the price goes up by an order of ten, the bubble is going to burst. And it may take the other AI use cases with it. After all, coding was kind of a killer app.

Anthropic Is Bleeding Out
Hello premium customers! Feel free to get in touch at ez@betteroffline.com if you're ever feeling chatty. And if you're not one yet, please subscribe and support my independent brain madness. Also, thank you to Kasey Kagawa for helping with the maths on this. Soundtrack: Killer Be Killed -

I feel stupid for asking this… but is there still no good way to checkout and later pull a pull request branch from another repo?
We've got `gh pr checkout NUMBER` but the only way I've found to fetch updates is to delete the local branch and start over.
I really don't want to play adlib with manually adding remotes etc – is this still the best we can do in 2025??
EDIT: it’s solved! 🎉

Tomáš Janoušek (@liskin@genserver.social)
@hynek @carlton Drop fetch.all=true and that fixes it.You may need to learn to use git remote update instead of git fetch though.And I’d consider filing this as a bug upstream, because as you said ...

Joe Davidson, a longtime Washington Post columnist, says he resigned after a column he wrote about Trump's policies was blocked for being "too opinionated" (Corbin Bolies/The Daily Beast)
https://www.thedailybeast.com/wapo-columni

WaPo Columnist Flames Jeff Bezos After Quitting in Protest
Joe Davidson said he left the paper after it spiked political commentary from his column.

How popular media gets love wrong
Okay, so what exactly are the details of the "engineered" model of love from my previous post? I'll try to summarize my thoughts and the experiences they're built on.
1. "Love" can be be thought of like a mechanism that's built by two (or more) people. In this case, no single person can build the thing alone, to work it needs contributions from multiple people (I suppose self-love might be an exception to that). In any case, the builders can intentionally choose how they build (and maintain) the mechanism, they can build it differently to suit their particular needs/wants, and they will need to maintain and repair it over time to keep it running. It may need winding, or fuel, or charging plus oil changes and bolt-tightening, etc.
2. Any two (or more) people can choose to start building love between them at any time. No need to "find your soulmate" or "wait for the right person." Now the caveat is that the mechanism is difficult to build and requires lots of cooperation, so there might indeed be "wrong people" to try to build love with. People in general might experience more failures than successes. The key component is slowly-escalating shared commitment to the project, which is negotiated between the partners so that neither one feels like they've been left to do all the work themselves. Since it's a big scary project though, it's very easy to decide it's too hard and give up, and so the builders need to encourage each other and pace themselves. The project can only succeed if there's mutual commitment, and that will certainly require compromise (sometimes even sacrifice, though not always). If the mechanism works well, the benefits (companionship; encouragement; praise; loving sex; hugs; etc.) will be well worth the compromises you make to build it, but this isn't always the case.
3. The mechanism is prone to falling apart if not maintained. In my view, the "fire" and "appeal" models of love don't adequately convey the need for this maintenance and lead to a lot of under-maintained relationships many of which fall apart. You'll need to do things together that make you happy, do things that make your partner happy (in some cases even if they annoy you, but never in a transactional or box-checking way), spend time with shared attention, spend time alone and/or apart, reassure each other through words (or deeds) of mutual beliefs (especially your continued commitment to the relationship), do things that comfort and/or excite each other physically (anywhere from hugs to hand-holding to sex) and probably other things I'm not thinking of. Not *every* relationship needs *all* of these maintenance techniques, but I think most will need most. Note especially that patriarchy teaches men that they don't need to bother with any of this, which harms primarily their romantic partners but secondarily them as their relationships fail due to their own (cultivated-by-patriarchy) incompetence. If a relationship evolves to a point where one person is doing all the maintenance (& improvement) work, it's been bent into a shape that no longer really qualifies as "love" in my book, and that's super unhealthy.
4. The key things to negotiate when trying to build a new love are first, how to work together in the first place, and how to be comfortable around each others' habits (or how to change those habits). Second, what level of commitment you have right now, and what how/when you want to increase that commitment. Additionally, I think it's worth checking in about what you're each putting into and getting out of the relationship, to ensure that it continues to be positive for all participants. To build a successful relationship, you need to be able to incrementally increase the level of commitment to one that you're both comfortable staying at long-term, while ensuring that for both partners, the relationship is both a net benefit and has manageable costs (those two things are not the same). Obviously it's not easy to actually have conversations about these things (congratulations if you can just talk about this stuff) because there's a huge fear of hearing an answer that you don't want to hear. I think the range of discouraging answers which actually spell doom for a relationship is smaller than people think and there's usually a reasonable "shoulder" you can fall into where things aren't on a good trajectory but could be brought back into one, but even so these conversations are scary. Still, I think only having honest conversations about these things when you're angry at each other is not a good plan. You can also try to communicate some of these things via non-conversational means, if that feels safer, and at least being aware that these are the objectives you're pursuing is probably helpful.
I'll post two more replies here about my own experiences that led me to this mental model and trying to distill this into advice, although it will take me a moment to get to those.
#relationships #love