It depends on how much caffeine is in your cup. Rather than measuring the size of a cup, I would go by the amount of coffee, as in the weight of the beans, used to brew it. The actual amount of caffeine is not as easy to measure, and even for the same kind of beans, there is natural variation.
For a traditional Italian espresso, about 7g of coffee beans are extracted. For a third-wave double espresso, it's usually 18g or more.
In my opinion, 10x7g is a lot. 2x12g is more than enough for me.
Rather than measuring the size of a cup, I would go by the amount of coffee, as in the weight of the beans, used to brew it.
I feel this is more precise than the ml cup measuremnts, but if you wanted to be really precise, you'd have to specify the type of beans used (the caffeine content varies widely) and even the brewing method https://oldchicagocoffee.com/coffee-bean-caffeine-content-by....
And - there is an influence - even in the region the beans are grown. In the link I provided they even go so far as to differentiate as to genetics of the beans.
caffeine extraction is largely a function of time in contact with water. Espresso is quite quick brew, so has less caffeine than other brewing methods (yes, there are plenty of other factors)
There is no realistic scenario where, no matter your extractions or bean selections, 6-10 shots of espresso a day is not an enormous amount of caffeine
A grande americano at Starbucks is a 16 oz drink with three shots of espresso. Have one in the morning and one in the afternoon and you are at six shots of espresso. That doesn't seem all that enormous to me.
It was a slight attempt to highlight that the conversation about a purely subjective thing is missing the point entirely. In the context of scientific discovery trying to qualify the outcome based on an individual's personal interpretation of descriptive words is a fool's errand. Attempting to justify one's personal habits or predilections is squarely in the flat earther camp of scientific belief.
Manual dependency injection is fine, but it doesn't scale. Especially when you start refactoring things and dependencies need to be moved around.
The other issue is dynamic configuration. How do you handle replacing certain dependencies, e.g. for testing, or different runtime profiles? You could try to implement your own solution, but the more features you add, the closer you'd get to a custom DI framework. And then you'd have an actual mess, a naive non-standard solution for a solved problem, because you didn't want to read the manual for the standard implementation.
By the way, Spring dependency injection is mainly based on types. Annotations are not strictly necessary, you can interact with the Spring context in a procedural/functional manner, if you think that makes it better. You can also configure MVC (synchronous Servlet-based web) or Webflux (async web) routes functionally.
When a bean is missing, the app will fail to start, and you will get an error message explaning what's missing and which class depends on it. The easiest way to ensure this doesn't happen is to keep the empty @SpringBootTest test case that comes with the template. It doesn't have any assertions, but it will spin up a full Spring context, and fail if there is a configuration problem.
The only complicated part about Spring Boot is how the framework itself can be reconfigured through dependency injection. When you provide a certain "bean", this can affect the auto-configuration, so that other beans, which you might expect, are no longer automatically created. To debug this behavior, check out the relevant AutoConfiguration class (in your IDE, use the "go to class" shortcut and type something like FooAutoConfi..., e.g. JdbcAutoConfiguration).
In a good codebase, the configuration itself would be tested. For instance, if you did something a bit more complicated like connecting two JDBC databases at the same time, you would test that it read the configuration from the right sources and provides the expected beans.
3) The FCC is acting in the citizens' best interest and this is actually the best way to increase security for router consumers.
Are 2 and 3 valid assumptions at the moment? In the extremely polarized US, that probably depends on your political affiliation. From the outside, I can't tell if this is a power grab, protectionism or just a decision I cannot get behind. Vulnerabilities and backdoors in US network equipment prove that "Made in USA" does not necessarily improve security. What the ban does improve is the administration's control over what's sold.
> Is Google search engine that leads to NY Times or Fox News or Wikipedia and makes us manually choose sources as per our biases "better" than Google's Gemini engine that summarizes content from all the above sources and gives an average answer?
That's not what Google's AI mode does, though. It presents a bunch of sources along the answer, but in my experience, the sources in many cases don't actually back up the claims generated by the LLM.
Yeah, it would be interesting to know how much work is spent on it. I sometimes submit sites when I am targeted by a campaign, but I'm not sure if they end up in their deny-list.
Banks are slowly moving away from their old COBOL systems. It's about cost as much as it's about catching up with the neo-bank competition.
The main thing that makes this difficult is that in most cases the new system is supposed to be more capable. Transactional batch processing systems are replaced with event-based distributed systems. Much more difficult to get right.
Elon Musk sells self driving cars since 10 years that don't self drive but his cars are actually decent cars and his rockets are revolutionary. Also, who isn't selling magical AGI since the last 4 years?
I think i will judge the battery and the magical AGI separately. The guy also sells magical motors that appear to be real with people riding motorbikes with those motors.
For a traditional Italian espresso, about 7g of coffee beans are extracted. For a third-wave double espresso, it's usually 18g or more.
In my opinion, 10x7g is a lot. 2x12g is more than enough for me.
reply