Nice! I built something along these lines but far more janky. My setup is a clamp-mount mic boom arm and an L-shaped bracket, along with a mic-to-1/4" adapter. Boom clamps to the monitor arm, reaches over the monitor, then the short end of the L is attached to the arm via the adapter. My webcam has a 1/4" screw built in, so that attaches to the long side of the L.
I've been using it for years, works great to get the camera down for calls and back up out of the way when not needed. Only problem is that it's not super stable so I have a small spirit level insert glued to the top of the camera to make adjustments easier.
Excellent. Tiny affordances like this should be more commonplace, IMO.
I think this probably also helps when truly clueless users drop the link into an agent directly, because then the agent will relay the message to the user.
i have learned that if the request accepts html, just give them that, however, some agents will ask for text/markdown, so just give them that.
you can even take OPs ideas further: text/html? serve html help page; text/markdown? serve the same but pure text, maybe nudge the agent on how to install the mcp; application/json? pass through to the mcp app.
It's not a new usage by any means. Like almost all slang it originated with Black drag and LGBT+ subcultures and only semi-recently (within the last 10-15 years maybe?) broke containment in the US.
As a verb, "to clock" means something like "to notice" or maybe in this case "to highlight, with specificity".
I feel like I'm way more cynical than most people around here about LLMs but if we accept the parent comment's framing, why can't we just use an LLM to write a throw-away converter to whatever new format is necessary? Yes of course it'll probably be lossy occasionally but the question will be, is that ok for the user doing the conversion?
Edit to be slightly less obtuse: surely you're not implying that a common carrier be allowed to discriminate based on facts about a passenger's body without making reasonable accommodations. Surely you're not implying that obese people not be allowed to fly at all. Surely you're not suggesting that fat people should just remove themselves from society so you don't have to deal with them.
Therefore, obese people should get free upgrades to economy plus or better. Thanks for the idea!
I'll imply those things. If you don't fit in the seat, you should have to buy two seats is a not very controversial opinion on the internet IMO. I think that opinion basically violates all of your "surely"s already.
Where do you draw the line? A 250lb person probably mostly fits in their seat still, but at some point a person is just physically going to take up two seats. Do you really think the airline should be responsible for flying them in business class (premium economy doesn't give you more width on most/all airlines)? Does it matter if their weight is due to a medical condition or just laziness? What if they're so big that even a first class seat won't contain them?
The issue is for the airline to solve, since they are the ones trying to make seats comically small.
Also, you have to include other attributes. E.g. Not my problem that you have freakishly long legs, if you have to prevent me reclining then maybe you should have to pay for premium economy. And what if you are broad shouldered? Same deal, not my problem, you have to stay inside the boundaries of your own seat.
I would rather we used regulation to make economy seats a bit larger. Call it a safety issue, since it is.
Our house came with one and we upgraded the unit a few years ago. It's very efficient in terms of units of energy consumed, but in my area of the world gas is significantly cheaper than electricity so it ends up being expensive to run.
That said, we will install solar at some point and then it'll be "free" HVAC.
> they end up coming up with something equivalent to IPv6
Not just that. Almost every single thing people think up that's "better" is something that was considered and rejected by the IPv6 design process, almost always for well-considered reasons.
The converse also happens: people look at something IPv6 supports and says "that's crazy, why would that be allowed/designed for", without knowing that IPv4 does it too.
A reasonably fair comparison. The ISPs had a much stronger incentive to finish the migration, though, because the 3g spectrum could just get turned around and used for 4g after rollout. IPv6 doesn't really have that strong of an incentive structure now that CGNAT is a well-developed technology.
I've been using it for years, works great to get the camera down for calls and back up out of the way when not needed. Only problem is that it's not super stable so I have a small spirit level insert glued to the top of the camera to make adjustments easier.
Edit: somewhat recent photo of my setup, including the webcam: https://imgur.com/a/ip3ff4F
reply