I have a relatively new house (built 2006). I came to the conclusion that the extra money spent on triple paned windows would be more effectively spent on improvements elsewhere. Like a heat pump or hybrid water heater.
In the end, we weren’t able to swing the windows at all, but did replace our crappy doors.
I looked at getting trippled paned windows a while back, and the benefits were marginal compared to double paned from the same company. It seems that once you’re already in the higher end of the market, they don’t do much over good double paned.
Racing sims can get crazy. Full wrap around monitors, motion rigs, load cell pedals. You can buy all the same equipment that F1 racing teams use, provided you’re willing to drop six figures.
That said, there’s some top sim racers that have a Logitech wheel clamped to a desk.
They already have Jensen doing his own sound effects at conference presentations. Do we expect him to sell his leather jacket to keep the company afloat, too?
Good enough for a fan, furnace, and AC setup. What we need going forward, though, is something that can intelligently use heat pumps to take into account electrical costs, current rooftop solar generation (if any), and the heat pump’s efficiency ratings in order to most efficiently balance between the heat pump and a regular furnace. Can choose the balance between either cheapest way to run or the least amount of CO2 (which won’t always match up). May also have to consider multi-stage setups where you can run it at low/medium/high levels.
I don’t think it’s impossible for a FOSS solution to do this, but I don’t think anyone has tackled it, either.
That reminds me of an old paper about how to create a compilable C program out of old game ROMs. Decompile to assembly. Implement a bunch of #define statements that implement all the ASM statements. Now compile it to a native binary on whatever platform.
Won’t likely be faster or more accurate than regular emulation methods, but it’s a neat idea considering that the source code on all this stuff was lost a long time ago.
Perl also has unless() for the very purpose in OP, which is a more sensible choice.
Oh, and if you need to reinforce your belief that Perl is a mess, the single-quote character can be used as a package separator instead of “::”. This was set in the 90s when nobody was quite sure of the right syntax for package separators, so it borrowed “::” from C++ and the single quote from Ada (I think).
That means the ifn’t() in OP can be interpreted as calling the t() function on the ifn package.
The “::” separator is vastly preferred, though. Single quotes run havoc on syntax highlighting text editors (since they can also be used for strings). About the only time I’ve seen it used is a joke module, Acme::don’t.