There is way too much sensationalism around this law. All this law calls for is an OS-level “Are you over 18?” button, the kind that’s been all over the internet for decades. See the Ubuntu mailing list discussion for a possible technical approach. There does not appear to be any requirement for age verification beyond that of the system administrator, and reporting is by a total of four age brackets, so even the privacy impact is limited.

The benefit of something like this is that age can be enforced by the system administrator rather than the user, so parents can set their kids’ computers with an accurate age bracket. Meanwhile, all of us with just a single user can set the highest age brackets and move on with our lives. Now, as the CEO of System76 says, kids will find ways around it, and we shouldn’t discourage kids from controlling their own computers, but he says “If there is any solace in these two laws, it’s that they don’t have any real restrictions”.

But that same article notes that New York has a proposed bill S8102A that is much more draconian. California’s law is a minor nuisance, while New York’s bill sounds like an outright danger. Please focus on a real threat, especially considering it’s much easier to change laws while they’re still only bills.

Distrobox might be the easiest way. If you use a custom HOME directory you can even keep the build artefacts isolated.

Nice review of the historical trajectory of desktop Linux. I was surprised that the article mentioned Homebrew rather than Distrobox. This is the first time I’ve seen Homebrew given as a solution for command-line tools on an image-based desktop.

That centralized low-power machine can even be your phone, if it has enough storage for your needs.

This is exactly how I use Syncthing, and as the author says, it sure would be nice if more things were just files. Really, most things are stored locally as files, but not always in a way that plays nice with syncing. Like, I can sync my Firefox profile between machines (it’s all in one folder), but I found it prone to conflicts, with little to resolve those conflicts.

In a similar vein, local-first apps built with Conflict-free replicated data types (CRDTs) can be another way to avoid server dependency. I haven’t seen any significant apps built this way yet (just occasional blog posts about it). I imagine the CRDT approach would work better for individual apps, since conflict resolution can be written in a way that works best for a given app, but I also imagine that such apps would not play nicely with a generic sync solution like Syncthing.

Thanks, that’s an excellent article, and it’s exactly what I was looking for.

I got hung up on this line:

This requires deterministic math with explicit rounding modes and precision, not the platform-dependent behavior you get with floats.

Aren’t floats mostly standardized these days? The article even mentions that standard. Has anyone here seen platform-dependent float behaviour?

Not that this affects the article’s main point, which is perfectly reasonable.

Yes, but not all clients expose dependent tasks (which is sadly a common issue with open standards: they aren’t always properly implemented). I’m using Tasks.org on my phone (which supports dependent tasks), synchronizing to a Nextcloud server with the Tasks app (which supports dependent tasks now, but didn’t for a long time), which also syncs to Thunderbird (which does not appear to show dependent tasks as dependents).

Edit: remembered that the Nextcloud Tasks app has long supported dependent tasks. I was thinking of recurring tasks, which it does not support. Again, open standards aren’t always fully implemented.

I think CalDAV (which uses the iCalendar format) may be the closest thing. It covers calendar items, obviously, but also task and journal items.

And here I was thinking of https://xkcd.com/664/

Also worth noting this article is nearly five years old. Rust’s first stable release was nearly nine years ago, so its (stable) age has more than doubled since then. I expect Rust would look a lot more mature if the article was written today.

Thanks for the update and graphs. That is an amazing improvement. In the “after” plot, it looks like any acceleration from the train is well below the noise level of your accelerometer. So, within the limits of your measuring equipment, you’ve effectively eliminated all train vibration. If I were in your place, I would declare success and move on with life! Don’t even bother with foam and rubber feet, because this configuration is working great.

But you could analyze further if you really want; there could be some train signal hiding in all that noise. Since there’s periodic noise in the Z axis, you could take a reading during a still time (computer off, no trains) and see where your spikes are in the frequency domain. Then you could apply a filter (or filters) to cut out that periodic noise.

But unless you’re really into learning about signal analysis, I’d say you could skip it.

None of the included experiments look to be exactly what you need. For characterizing your isolator, the included Acceleration Spectrum is close, though it records continuously, making it difficult to use to record impact response. For evaluating actual train vibrations, the user-defined Integrated Acceleration might be a start, but it doesn’t include the filtering needed to get good information. You could define your own experiments, but that’s probably even harder than analyzing the CSV data on your computer. At least on your computer you can change your analysis freely and immediately see results, rather than re-running the experiment every time.

Wow, I hadn’t heard of phyphox before (hadn’t even noticed @khorak@lemmy.dbzer0.com mentioned it in the OP). That’s very cool and I’ve installed it now.

I work in railway noise and vibration mitigation, and @scrion@lemmy.world has given you a great starting point. When we build rails and want to mitigate ground-borne noise and vibration (typically up to ~200 Hz), we generally mount the rails on soft pads and add extra mass to isolate the rails from the surroundings. The exact same approach will work at your computer. We don’t typically use tuned mass dampers for ground-borne vibration, so I think that will be overkill for you, but you can try if you like.

I wanted to suggest that, in addition to the feet/foam/plywood, you can also add a big chunk of something heavy to help with isolation. Like put a heavy rock on top of the foam, and your computer on the rock. The trick is this: if k is the stiffness of your foam, and m is the mass of everything on top of the foam, then your isolating frequency is at √(2k/m). All frequencies above the isolating frequency will by mitigated (the further above, the more they’re mitigated), while all frequencies below will be amplified.

(Quick aside if you actually want to calculate frequency with √(2k/m): check that your units for k and m are compatible, you should end up with a result in units of 1/s, which is actually radians per second, then multiply by 2π radians per cycle to convert to Hertz).

When it comes to measuring results, since your problem is in low frequencies, you can probably use your phone’s accelerometer assuming it reads fast enough (the sample rate must be at least double the highest frequency you care about). Mount it as rigidly as you can to your computer, since if the connection is soft, the phone will be in its own isolating system. The quickest way to test your isolator would be to hit close to the base with a hammer; impacts excite a wide range of frequencies equally, so in the frequency domain you should see vibration amplitudes following a shape something like these.

But as @scrion@lemmy.world notes below, you don’t really care about your isolator’s response, you care about what trains are doing to your computer. However, he said one thing I disagree with: it’s not the amplitude of the acceleration that you care about, it’s the amplitude of energy, and therefore velocity. This article gives a good introduction to ways you could analyze that. But now we’re getting way in to the weeds on what should be a simple project!

One last aside: if the vibrations in your building are bad enough, you could raise it as an issue with the metro operator. The US Federal Transit Administration sets standards that are commonly followed even outside of the US (see Table 8-1 in their Noise and Vibration Manual); if your measurements show vibration exceeding those limits then they might pay me to fix it :D.

I’ve also been on freedns.afraid.org for many years. Back when I switched from dyndns, it wasn’t possible to get Let’s Encrypt certificates on afraid.org’s domains, but that might have changed. I worked around it by taking a domain I already owned and using a CNAME to point it at my afraid.org domain.