TheHolm

joined 2 years ago
[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 3 points 5 months ago
[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Very often you do not need "higher volumes of cargo." And you still need trucks to get cargo from train to final destination. Rail is dead for a reason.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If you care about security you build it is own. No need to trust random dude in the internet. After all It just fire and forget. Copy whatever "code" is used to build container you are after, verify it once and than just rebuild it periodically to pull patches from more reliable sources.
Docker security is a joke, no need to make it worse.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 0 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Rail is bloody expensive to build and to maintain. Not to mention that you still need trucks to deliver from train station to the destination. Trucks makes much more sense.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 2 points 5 months ago (6 children)

I did not realize that rego is state specific. IMHO NSW has most sane method.
In NSW your hatchback will cost $270 and 3 tonne SUV $949. https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/vehicle-registration/fees-concessions-and-forms/vehicle-registration-fees

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 1 points 5 months ago

And even with this batteries do not save you money.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone -1 points 5 months ago

If you using bind mounts - you are using dockers in wrong way. Use named volumes.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Woodpecker. No BS CI which can be attached to pretty much anything. It just need a webhook and way to pull your project.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 1 points 5 months ago

This is wrong. Need to mourn and continue,not show weakness.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It seems my cat is sleeping on duty :-) ( he is 17 y.o. so it is excusable ) or I have brave and very hungry possums around.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)
[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 1 points 5 months ago

"Second, under US fuel economy rules, fuel-efficiency targets are adjusted based on the size of the vehicle’s “footprint” — the area between its wheels. In practice, this means larger vehicles are allowed to consume more fuel while still meeting the target."

So this is the problem (in US) remove that rule and cars will shrink again. Deformities often caused by unnatural pressure, and this is an example.

view more: ‹ prev next ›