froh42

For an Esp32 you'd need to take a larger model which has psram. With the Pi, yes a is take a zero (Zero 2w or so). The Pi already has hdmi on board and a graphics chip and accelerator, while for the ESP32 you'd need a custom solution.

The price difference is maybe 10 Dollars per piece or so. On the PI I have 512Mb of RAM and what ever SD they put in for storage. On the Esp32 I have 8 psram or so and a tiny bit of flash.

Ah right, for the ESP i probably need to wire up a sd card, custom board, all that stuff, to just store that 24bit 1024x768bit image.

Naah, while I love my ESPs and am just build a project with one - the PI is just so more competent for this task while still being damn cheap.

A decent Esp 32 board is around Eur 5, a. pi zero 2w around 20. Compute module proably similar - customer prices.

That's a 15 Euro difference.

Ah and my developer pool who can code for Unix is a LOT bigger than the pool who have commercial experience for the Esp32.

I can't follow your math, at 100 units the price difference is 100x15 for me, which is 1500.- About a day of developing for a small team, if the office and hardware is free. More if you pay for those, too.

When I calculate, custom development always is more expensive.

This is being produced in relatively low numbers (thousands) , so software development is a factor. Just plopping a scripted browser in kiosk mode on Debian is cheaper than ESP32 UI development.

I can still remeber the music from the single porn VHS tape I managed to obtain as a teenager.

I'm just old enough to have been vaccinated against smallpox.

I am bordering on aphantasia, i can't visualize an apple at all, just as an abstract drawing.

I can visualize numbers and graphs, for example 1-6 are easy with the symbols of a dice, 7 like six with a dot in the middle, 8 two rows of fours and 9 as a three by threw grid.

The thing is, I never visualize things literally, it's always abstract symbols - and understanding "more" requires better symbols.

Decimal system is also just a symbol, I can easily keep numbers in my mind up to six or seven digits.

Bigger, I have a bit of trouble with the scientific notation - I don't have concepts for numbers beyond 10^9, even these rather are a thousand million for me, conceptually. And speaking English right now doesn't help, as I'm from a big ladder country while the US is small ladder: 1 Billion (German) = 1000 billion (US).

"Hardcoded" numbers in the brain go to 4 or 5 or so, everything else is abstractions. piled on abstractions and how used you are to handling these.

In computers you deal with bytes, kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes, terabytes. I visualize the difference between 1kb and 1Tb, as I have experienced each of these stages. (My first computer had 1kb, the second one 64.... it was growing exponentially for years)

Ask any foot doctor, type G have injured a lot more people than type F have.

I saw it something like that in Germany on ARTE, but they didn't produce it themselves. Maybe BBC or so.

It was a documentary looking into several of the conspiracy theories, debunking them.

The airliner's aluminum is the simpler explanation for molten metal than any "thermite" ideas.

I just searched for it, also with chatpgt help, but can't point a finger to the three or for documentaries that seem to come up, it's too long that I've seen it.

What about an airliner's worth of pulverized aluminum?

And is Long John Thomas a word?

They don't always use the latin alphabet. In University I hated my prof using the same letter over and over again in different writing systems. x, chi, Gothic x, x with hat, x with dash, x as a vector etc. etx.

This was crazy hard for me as I internally verbalize when I read formulae, so I had to "invent" different pronunciations for evey different version of x. Because (for example) one is the vector, but the lowercase latin version is just the length of the vector.

Along with the fact that people use slightly different conventions and then conventions in math are different in the anglosphere vs here - I frequently couldn't understand a paper or script without having an idea how things worked in the first place. A didactical nightmare.

In programming things are a lot easier, because there's much more common convention for the field not being a few hundred years old.

Aaah, maybe that's even the simple answer to your overall post: Conventions, even if they are arbitrary, make things easier to understand.

I see i, j - I think counting loop variable. Does it matter it is i? No. Do I think "index"? Nope.

There are code bases where some clever persons used (for example) g or p for loop variables, they are just a tiny bit harder to read - until I get used to THAT convention.

When I write code, I always try to mirror, what's already there, to make it easier for the next guy - even if I don't like the style.

That's a very revealing view you have about BDSM. No, you don't need to like it or it doesn't need to be your thing, still I want to clean up a huge misconception:

Healthy BDSM is all about consent. It's the central part of it.

"Domination" is kind of a game, and you need a lot of trust to be able to play this. This trust is being established on a foundation of talking things through before on a level where I've rarely seen consent applied before.

This is something to take away, so while the domination and submission thing might totally not be your thing - and that's fine! - relying on explicit consent is something many vanilla people would benefit from.

Do you want this / I would like that / That's fine with me / Sorry, no that's not for me. And even on a "no" response thinking "thank you for telling me, now I know more about you". That's the base where to base eye to eye level relationships on. It requires a bit of courage and we're not used to it.

I do think you feel exactly this, things are about consent. And upbringing / media has shed a weird take on BDSM.

*= Btw BDSM in media has absolutely nothing to do with the real thing, as they just skip the part where people just talk for a long time.

Knuth is the perfect nerd, publishing a package where people are still discussing how to pronounce its name close to 50 years after.