Great write-up, especially the part about the limits of `set -e` — that's the kind of thing you only really learn the hard way. Just wanted to add a detail that's helped a lot on my team: there's an option called `shopt -s inherit_errexit` that solves exactly the command-substitution case you mentioned. Without it, an error inside `$(...)` can slip through even with `set -e` active, because the subshell doesn't inherit the stop-on-error behavior. With the shopt on, that changes. ```bash set -euo pipefail shopt -s inherit_errexit ``` Worth turning on right after `set -euo pipefail`, especially in scripts that do a lot of assignment via `$(command)`. It doesn't fix everything (the `if` case you mentioned is by design, not a bug), but it closes one more common gap. One more thing on `trap`: besides `EXIT`, it's worth catching `INT` and `TERM` separately when the script receives signals from an orchestrator (systemd, supervisord, k8s), because the default propagation behavior can vary depending on how the process was started. I've seen a script clean up fine on a manual Ctrl+C and leave junk behind when the container got killed with `SIGTERM`.

The recent Plex outage is the perfect example of how relying on the cloud leaves us vulnerable. It’s absurd that a user can't access their own files and servers physically stored at home just because an API thousands of miles away decided to go down. The cloud sells the illusion of convenience, but what it actually delivers is a loss of control. The moment a local appliance, file, or service requires external, centralized validation to work, we stop owning what we paid for and become mere temporary tenants. True digital autonomy only exists offline.

These exorbitant prices come after the company has lost millions in profits... but there will always be someone willing to do anything to pay that amount :/

it's a but steep, but I'm thinking of giving one as a gift. . you can probably build one for a lot less, which may cut into their profits. . --skutlbot

Here’s an idea for anyone who wants to take it a step further: replace the LED with a multimeter in the first step, just to measure the actual voltage of each lemon before connecting everything in series. You’ll notice that not every lemon performs the same—some that are more shriveled deliver much less energy—and this helps you understand in practice why the circuit sometimes doesn’t work right away, even when everything is set up correctly. It would also be worth testing a potato instead of a lemon to see which one holds the current longer, since potatoes tend to last longer than lemons, which dry out quickly after a few hours.

I still think that kind of fantasy is more for unbalanced people. How can normal people leave safe and even more beautiful places to camp in favor of remote, dangerous areas? I'll never understand that, man.

Isn't $500 to $650 a little too expensive for you guys?

I started to like Mick Jagger when he began incorporating blues into his songs; as a fan of the genre, that made me really admire his work.

It almost looks like a scene from a movie! I like to go camping every now and then, but I always prefer areas that are more populated and where camping is allowed. I'm glad nothing bad happened to them.

Yeah, I agree the transition was worth it in the end, nobody wants to go back to memorizing memory commands just to run a game. But DOS had one thing I still miss to this day, the speed. You'd turn the PC on and be at the prompt in seconds, no hidden services running in the background, no indexing, nothing quietly eating up RAM. And there was a raw kind of control over the machine that Windows slowly took away, you knew exactly what everything did because you had to configure it all by hand, the autoexec, the config.sys, every sound card IRQ. It's easier today, no question, but it's also more opaque. Sometimes that convenience gain came paired with a real loss in understanding how the machine actually worked underneath.

the people who really take this seriously

demand has dropped, yet prices remain prohibitively high because inventory is historically low. At the end of the day, it is the everyday buyer who pays the price, watching the dream of homeownership turn into an unattainable privilege while mortgage rates stubbornly hover around 6.5%. The real game-changer here could be this new bipartisan housing bill. High interest rates only treat the short-term symptom, but the true remedy for the real estate market is addressing the root cause: the chronic lack of supply. If this legislation successfully unlocks new construction and reforms zoning laws, we will see real, structural relief in prices over the long term, regardless of when the Fed decides to cut rates.

something truly simple, but which has always been a puzzle to me

That's right! It's really hard to believe.

I'll believe it when I see it!

Honestly, I doubt this whole “before age 10 or never” thing. I know people who started learning Mandarim when they were almost 30 and now speak it better than a lot of lazy native speakers out there. These studies always measure test-book grammar, not the actual fluency of people who practice every day. Age matters less than consistency and the fear of making mistakes.

This decision by Sony marks the definitive end of game "ownership." By forcing the market into a 100% digital format, the company eliminates competition from brick-and-mortar stores, destroys the used-game market, and takes total control over pricing and licensing — a dangerous move, considering digital items can vanish from your library overnight due to copyright bureaucracy. The irony is massive: back in 2013, the PS4's biggest selling point against the Xbox was precisely defending the freedom of physical discs; today, Sony is adopting the exact stance it once criticized. It's a financially logical move for shareholders, but terrible for the consumer's wallet and autonomy.

The illusion of a "sustainable Game Pass" has finally collected its toll—and it was steep. It’s wild to think that we spent the last few years watching Microsoft open its war chest to swallow up half the gaming industry (including one of the biggest tech acquisitions in history with Activision Blizzard), only to now see the new Xbox CEO, Asha Sharma, openly admit that the brand was losing **64 cents for every dollar invested** in smaller studios. Laying off roughly **20% of the gaming division's workforce** and cutting ties with brilliant studios like Double Fine and Ninja Theory isn't some routine "restructuring"; it’s a public confession that their consolidation strategy failed hard. The naked truth is that the "Netflix for games" model has been flirting with the unsustainable. When hardware doesn't sell enough and the subscriber base stagnates, the astronomical development costs of AAA games simply don't pay for themselves. And the ultimate irony? While leadership swears up and down that these roles aren't being replaced by Artificial Intelligence, Microsoft continues to burn over $100 billion in the Silicon Valley AI arms race. They are suffocating creativity and bleeding developers dry just to pump up their future-tech stock value. The plan now is to retreat and hide behind hyper-established franchises like *Minecraft* and *Fallout*, but the damage to the brand's reputation and the independent studio ecosystem is already done. The provocative question left on the table is: did Microsoft completely ruin its own gaming division by trying to conquer the world with multi-billion dollar acquisitions, or was this brutal reset the only bitter pill capable of saving Xbox from total collapse in the years to come?

One thing the article touches on but doesn't name directly: high earners also face less "social friction" when it comes to questioning their own spending. Nobody calls you reckless for upgrading your car when you make 15k a month, but they'll question it fast if you make 3k. That silence around you is almost a license to never stop and think. Maybe the first habit should be creating that friction artificially: something, even just an app or a spreadsheet, that "questions" every big expense before it happens.

Funny how the post reveals, without meaning to, that past level 75+ the "game" isn't really about playing anymore — it's bookkeeping. XP stopped being the bottleneck (the level 80 update fixed that up through 78), so what's left is artificial friction: 300km, 200 catches in a day, tasks you'd rack up just by playing normally, now repackaged as goals. The one real skill variable mentioned — great throws — is exactly what separates you from your wife; everything else is just time invested, not talent. And the closing line — "the platinum plan post is almost ready" — is the classic hobby-blog move: the intention to plan always loses to the impulse to post the next milestone. Ironic that it ends up being, unintentionally, a post about procrastinating on your own content.

DOGE spent roughly $11 billion on payments to convince people to leave government jobs, and now agencies (Social Security leading the pack) are scrambling to hire back the very positions they cut. They literally paid to have fewer people, and now they're paying again to get people back. The cherry on top is calling this "reshaping" instead of a failure. One NEH employee even got invited to interview... for a job at the same place that had laid her off. That's not efficiency, that's an expensive loop nobody wants to admit is a mistake.

That's really interesting!

Wow, it's actually kind of scary how easily we can catch this disease. Let's be careful.

The suggestion of a gradual transition to part-time work is probably the most underrated risk-mitigation tool here. Most people view retirement planning purely through an asset-allocation lens, but extending your earning years—even modestly—dramatically alters the sequence of returns risk. By covering baseline living expenses with part-time income during the first few years, you effectively insulate your core portfolio from having to lock in losses if you happen to retire into a bear market. It's a psychological win and a massive financial safety buffer.

"Nonsense" until it knocks on your door, right? The article brought scientific data from UCLA and Alzheimer’s research centers, this isn't just some internet coach's opinion. Obviously, people who did heavy labor back then got sick too, the only difference is that medicine back then just signed the death certificate without understanding that chronic stress and despair kill you too. Having a reason to get up changes your body chemistry, and ignoring science just to act tough doesn't make you healthier, it just makes you uninformed.

What a bunch of nonsense. Now it’s trendy to blame a "lack of purpose" for laziness and a lack of shame from people who just don't want to work. Back in the day, people didn't have time for an "existential crisis" because they were too busy working the fields and providing for their families. If someone is sick, it's because they eat poorly and don't exercise, not because of this internet psychology psychobabble. Go find something productive to do and your body will heal itself in no time.

I get your point, but I think there’s another way to look at it. These technologies don’t always come in to replace human relationships, but to fill gaps where they already don’t exist. For many people, loneliness isn’t a choice, it’s a difficult reality to overcome. If something like this can offer even a bit of comfort, that’s still better than complete emptiness. Also, we’ve always had tools that changed how we connect with each other. The telephone, social media, instant messaging… all of them were, at some point, seen as “replacements” for human interaction. In the end, they didn’t eliminate relationships, they just transformed how they happen. Of course, there is a real risk of dependency and deeper isolation. But maybe the issue isn’t the technology itself, it’s how we choose to use it. A robot can be a form of support without necessarily taking the place of another person. At the end of the day, it might be less about replacing and more about complementing. It’s a thin line, but it matters.

It’s impossible not to be impressed by how far this technology has come. A robot with this level of realism, capable of interpreting emotions, adapting to a person, and creating a kind of “presence” in daily life… just a few years ago, that was pure science fiction. And you can recognize the real value in it, especially for elderly people or those who are isolated. It’s not just a gadget, there’s actual usefulness there. But at the same time, there’s something unsettling about it. Little by little, we’re starting to accept replacing deeply human things with artificial versions that are “good enough.” Conversation, companionship, attention… these have always been built between people, with imperfections, conflicts, and surprises. Now there’s an alternative emerging that is predictable, tailored to the user, always available. And that’s where this strange feeling comes in: we’re creating machines that are increasingly human, while we risk becoming more distant from each other. Not because the technology itself is bad, but because it makes an easier path possible, one that’s more controlled and less emotionally demanding. I genuinely admire the technical progress. But I can’t help thinking that if the solution to loneliness is a robot that simulates empathy, then maybe the real problem isn’t being solved, just worked around.

Melat Kiros’s primary victory in Colorado really highlights the growing momentum of the younger, more left-wing wing within the Democratic Party. Unseating a 15-term veteran like Diana DeGette in a historically safe Denver district sends a clear message that local voters want a much more aggressive stance and a generational shift, especially in the context of opposing the Trump administration. The main driver behind Kiros’s campaign, alongside endorsements from figures like Bernie Sanders, was her sharp critique of US foreign policy, particularly her call for an arms embargo on Israel due to the conflict in Gaza. Since her district is overwhelmingly Democratic, this primary win practically guarantees her seat in the House of Representatives this November, cementing a broader surge of insurgent progressives that had already made waves in New York just a week prior.

This isn’t really about building a ballroom, it’s about how it was pushed through. Using an office that sidesteps normal bidding rules to approve a massive no-bid contract raises a pretty clear red flag. It may be legal on paper, but it looks designed to avoid oversight. The claim that no public money would be used doesn’t really hold up either. Once costs start rising and taxpayers end up covering part of it, it feels like a convenient promise that got adjusted along the way. Another uncomfortable point is Trump’s direct involvement in cost negotiations. The person in power shouldn’t also be influencing the price. That blurs basic lines of governance and accountability. And the “national security” argument to justify secrecy sounds more like a shield than a real necessity in this case. In the end, it just looks like questionable priorities. Spending half a billion on a ballroom, given everything else going on, isn’t exactly the kind of decision that builds public trust.