Skip to main content


I love it when the photo of a component and the schematic drawing on the data sheet disagree with each other.

(e.g.: digikey.ca/en/products/detail/…)

Guess I'll have to wait 'till I have the physical component in my possession to find out for sure.

in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

Never mind. I just saw the alternate drawing on the second page.


It's been a while, but I just put a DigiKey order through. Gonna build a thing!





For all the filtering options that DigiKey has on their web site, I wish you could filter based on minimum order quantity.

No, I do not want to buy 3000 voltage regulators.



bear/man
So, I mentioned the whole bear/man debate to Katy, and she gave a perspective I hadn't even thought to consider. Sharing (paraphrased) with her permission:
When a bear attacks you, you generally die and then it's over. When a man attacks, you live with that trauma for life.



The great thing about being an adult is that if you want to have candy for dinner, nobody is going to stop you.

The terrible thing about being an adult is that if you want to have candy for dinner, nobody is going to stop you.




Is anyone else running the community edition of #Nextcloud getting a notification in the Android app that their server is at "end of life" and to upgrade despite being on the latest version? Are they killing off the community edition or something?

𝚛𝚊𝚝 reshared this.

in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

Yes, Just checked. I am. I'm running a #self-hosted #nextcloud instance, version 25.0.10. I've been scared of update since I saw an issue a month or so ago with a bug that scared me (can't recall details sorry!)

Edit... just re-read this...I'm not latest version!

This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Tom

@Tom I always do a backup immediately before an update in the event that something goes sideways. So far, I've never had to roll back, but it's a good thing to do regardless.
@Tom
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

Yep, however the frequency of upgrades does also scare me. Move fast and break stuff! I must upgrade...v29...but four versions to hop!
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

No, this shouldn't happen. What Nextcloud version do you use? Sometimes, if dependencies like the min. PHP version changes, the server doesn't show the update if the dependencies are not met. In such a situation it might look like you are on the latest version, while you are not.
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

This explains it, Nc25 is out of life since October 2023, see the link I posted. The latest version is Nc29. I assume that you need to update your PHP version in order to update your Nextcloud.
in reply to Björn Schießle

Here you can find the latest versions and compare it to your version: github.com/nextcloud/server/wi…
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

As said, one explanation would be that you run PHP 7.4 which was deprecated in Nextxloud 25 and is no longer supported in Nextxloud 26. In this case you are on "the latest version for your system" but not on the latest in general
in reply to Björn Schießle

@Björn Schießle I think I figured out my problem. I'm running an older version of PHP that is no longer supported by later versions.

Edit: It irks me that it didn't warn me about this before now though.



More Rust stuff

Something that's been bothering me about lifetimes.

When I got to this section in the book, I couldn't (and still can't) understand why it's necessary to specify lifetimes for the references a struct holds. I mean, if I have:

struct Foo<'a> {
    bar: &'a String,
}

Shouldn't it just be assumed that the data referenced by Foo::bar should have to live at least as long as the Foo object itself? Why does this have to be explicitly stated? Is there some scenario where you would want this to not be the case?

Edit: formatting fix

in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

Lifetime elision only applies on function signatures. It might be because no one has done the work? Though I think it's nice to be explicit that the struct holds a reference to something.

Explicit lifetimes would be necessary for a struct with multiple references (or I guess a rule that says they're either all the same or all unique). These are not the same:

struct Foo<'a> {
  bar: &'a String,
  baz: &'a String,
}
struct Foo<'a, 'b> {
  bar: &'a String,
  baz: &'b String,
}

More info on the elision rules is at the Rustonomicon.
in reply to Ryan Frame

@Ryan Frame This makes sense. One would think however that they could infer it if there's only one reference in the struct the say way you don't have to specify a lifetime for methods that only have a &self and return a reference.

















This website uses cookies. If you continue browsing this website, you agree to the usage of cookies.