litchralee @ litchralee @sh.itjust.works

Posts

121

Comments

1,127

Joined

2 yr. ago

Oh, that does quite change how I had originally read the line.

Does "synthetic prejudice" allude to something else as well?

I'm only saddened that "luditry" does not show up as a word in my normal dictionary references, ostensibly meaning the same as "lewdness".

I go barefoot because homegym, but I once got the recommendation to look for water shoes. That is, thin shoes with a rubber sole meant for use at the pool. But that also makes them reasonable as a flat sole shoe for gym.

Let me make sure I understand everything correctly. You have an OpenWRT router which terminates a Wireguard tunnel, which your phone will connect to from somewhere on the Internet. When the Wireguard tunnel lands within the router in the new subnet 192.168.2 0/24, you have iptable rules that will:

• Reject all packets on the INPUT chain (from subnet to OpenWRT)
• Reject all packets on the OUTPUT chain (from OpenWRT to subnet)
• Route packets from phone to service on TCP port 8080, on the FORWARD chain
• Allow established connections, on the FORWARD chain
• Reject all other packets on the FORWARD chain

So far, this seems alright. But where does the service run? Is it on your LAN subnet or the isolated 192.168.2.0/24 subnet? The diagram you included suggests that the service runs on an existing machine on your LAN, so that would imply that the router must also do address translation from the isolated subnet to your LAN subnet.

That's doable, but ideally the service would be homed onto the isolated subnet. But perhaps I misunderstood part of the configuration.

Clickbait headline, and the article isn't exactly filled with substance either. Downvoted because it wasn't even worth reading, when a simple web search reveals much better resources for folks getting started.

It took me a few reads to internalize everything that you wrote, and it's food-for-thought for when I level-up to adding another machine to my garage. It does seem that I can wait on the jointer for a long while, and on the thickness planer until my projects start using wider boards or I get really tired of hand planing those.

Good to know that the combo planer/jointer is not exactly optimal, and I'll have to keep an eye out for either separate machine that happens to be for sale on the used market.

I have no other tool that could take a quarter inch off the thickness of a 10 inch wide board; the only tool I have that is appropriate for this task is my thickness planer.

As it happens, this was precisely what I also had to do for an earlier project, and I ended up using my router table to do it. It was an awful slog of a time, and I hope to never repeat that ever again. Throughout the ordeal, I kept thinking about how a CNC mill would have made quick work of it, but I suspect a used thickness planer is going to be a lot more affordable for me

If a normal bench plane is a chisel wearing a pair of steel toed boots, a shoulder plane is a chisel wearing strappy wedge heeled sandals.

This made me laugh, but was also effective at explaining the difference, as did some more image results that specifically show the iron of each plane.

At last, my collection of 3M Super 77 comes in handy!

Yes, most of what I typically have on hand is dimensional lumber. So it's already mostly alright, but the surfaces might not all be square and I need to figure out ways to keep those errors from propagating.

Oh, I see. So a shoulder plane's blade actually has exposure on three sides, and can cut the bottom and the sides simultaneously?

Ah! That makes much more sense

I figured that a shoulder plane and shooting board would be two disparate tools, but for my own knowledge, I haven't figured out why exactly a shoulder plane with a shooting board doesn't work. Is it because a shoulder plane tends to be short?

Thanks for this additional detail! I'm currently leaning on going with the shoulder plane, with intention to add a machine planer in future for dealing with larger material all at once. Would that be a sound plan?

Thank you for the detailed clarification!

In review, it sounds like a shoulder plane would prove its worth for very small, fiddly work that a general-purpose plane couldn't reach, but it would be slower for flattening the poor stock that I often use. Would this mean a shoulder plane plus a machine planer be a reasonable combination, with the latter introduced later to enable larger-scale flattening?

The body of the plane is square to the sole, making 90° easily achievable by riding the side of the plane on an adjacent 90° surface

This might be the feature which sways my decision, since I think it means I can devise a simple jig for any size of stock by clamping to a known flat surface (or even just a surface that's more flat than the stock) and guide the shoulder plane that way, to prepare for joining. I didn't mention in my original post, but I also occasionally do "coarse metalworking" where all the stock I use is already nice and straight and flat, which would make good guiding surfaces for a shoulder plane (on wood lol).

Hmm, I think a nearby recycled building materials store might have exactly this. Do I understand correctly that this offcut would only be used as a smooth, abrasive surface?

That plane is gorgeous. To be clear, you would recommend this plane not just for my described use-cases but for all sorts of things, if I could only buy just one plane at this time?

Firstly, thank you for such a detailed reply!

This far, my woodworking would not be described as "fine woodworking" but rather as "coarse woodworking" haha. That is, I'm mostly putting together functional pieces where it's permissible to be ugly-as-sin but should be structurally sound. Hence why I initially only considered fixing up the joints, to make wavy bits of wood come together.

You'll need to get or make some winding sticks, a decent try square, and a straight edge, and you can straighten a board of any size, given enough cardio. Or, do like I did and buy a jointer and a planer.

But I take your point that a jointer and planer (is there such a thing as a combo?) would be fixing the root issue, with additional benefits. Certainly, if I could get my positional precision tighter than 1/8-inch deviation from my plans, I'd be thrilled. I may later circle back for these tools, after trying hand planing for a few pieces.

So, as long as your miter saw's fence is straight, if you cut one board on one side of the blade, and the other on the other, those angles should be complementary/supplementary. Say your miter saw is swung to 44 degrees rather than 45. Well the other side should be 136, or if you invert the board, 46 degrees.

This part makes sense, and there's much that I should adjust on my miter saw. Let me expand on exactly what I was trying to do last time that necessitated some geometric creativity. Basically, I wanted a cut where the miter saw would be turned 70 degrees, then another cut at the complementary 20 degree. My saw can only swing left or right by about ~60 degrees. So that's why I set the saw for 20 degrees to the right, fed the piece from the left side. Then for the 70 degree cut, fed the piece from the front into the saw, such that I get the complementary angle of 70 even though the saw is still set at 20.

For reference, this is how pointy the 70 deg was to look. The 20 deg cut is not pictured.

A shooting board is a simple jig used to guide a plane precisely past the work, quite often holding teh stock at a 90 or 45 degree angle to the plane such that the plane cuts the end of the work to the desired angle.

TIL a shooting board. It also answers the question of how I'd keep a hand plane steady if the end grain might be quite small. And I could use my new hand plane to help construct a shooting board.

I suspect I now have projects for all remaining weekends of this month lol! Thank you again!

+1 because this is a much more concise description of free vs open source, the exact obligations of the (A)GPL license, and of use vs distribution, than what I've written in the past vis-a-vis proposals of non-free licenses like SSPL and Futo.

I'm a bit short on time, but I think "streaming" needs to be broken down into categories of scale. Streaming video from your home Plex server (shout-out to !homelab@lemmy.ml) is a lot different than Netflix's video delivery system.

The latter intentionally stores the same content in multiple geographies, then with caches at local data centers, and sometimes even caches within your ISP's network. All of this to distribute the load of millions of users, who can just as easily be in Florida as they might be in Oregon. The duplication and redundancy means a lot of power draw, well more than just a few disks spinning up.

Whereas a home server has just one copy of the content, and since it might not always be streaming a video to you, can save power by spinning down drives or other optimizations. It is simply not possible to describe "streaming" when such radically different delivery mechanisms can all plausible be considered as streaming.

I did indeed have a chuckle, but also, this shouldn't be too foreign compared to other, more-popular languages. The construction of func param1 param2 can be found in POSIX shell, with Bash scripts regularly using that construction to pass arguments around. And although wrapping that call with parenthesis would create a subshell, it should still work and thus you could have a Lisp-like invocation in your sh script. Although if you want one of those parameters to be evaluated, then you're forced to use the $() construction, which adds the dollar symbol.

As for Lisp code that often looks like symbol soup, like (= 0 retcode), the equal-sign is just the name for the numerical equality function, which takes two numbers. The idea of using "=" as the function name should not be abnormal for Java or C++ programmers, because operator overload allows doing exactly that.

So although it does look kinda wonky for anyone that hasn't seen Lisp in school, sufficient exposure to popular codebases and languages should impart an intuition as to how Lisp code is written. And one doesn't even need to use an RPN calculator, although that also aids understanding of Lisp.

Addendum: perhaps in a century, contemporary programmers will find it bizarre that C used the equal-sign to mean assignment rather than equality, when the <= arrow would more accurately describe assignment, while also avoiding the common error of mixing up = and == in an if-conditional. What looks normal today will not necessarily be so obvious in hindsight.