Aarkon

joined 2 years ago
[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 7 points 5 months ago

Well, that or go to court for a movie collection. I'd phrase my statement differently, but I can see the appeal of the settlement.

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 6 points 5 months ago

Thanks for pointing that out.

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I guess this is probably the solution to my riddle. Thanks.

 

I was reading GitLab's documentation (see link) on how to write to a repository from within the CI pipeline and noticed something: The described Docker executor is able to authenticate e.g. against the Git repository with only a private SSH key, being told absolutely nothing about the user's name it is associated with.
If I'm correct, that would mean that technically, I could authenticate to an SSH server without supplying my name if I use a private key?

I know that when I don't supply a user explicitly like ssh user@server or via .ssh/config, the active environment's user is used automatically, that's not what I'm asking.

The public key contains a user name/email address string, I'm aware, is the same information also encoded into the private key as well? If yes, I don't see the need to hand that info to an SSH call. If no, how does the SSH server know which public key it's supposed to use to challenge my private key ownership? It would have to iterate over all saved keys, which sounds rather inefficient to me and potentially unsafe (timing attacks etc.).

I hope I'm somewhat clear, for some reason I find it really hard to phrase this question.

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 40 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Automounts as drive V:\

 
[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 4 points 7 months ago

I’m referring to this controversy, just in case that wasn’t obvious: https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/17/rust_foundation_apologizes_trademark_policy/

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

For representational reasons, I miss the logo of the Rust programming language, but I have the hint of an idea why the creator of the meme didn’t put it in there.

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 2 points 7 months ago

That sounds conclusive, too. After giving it some more thought, I believe larger parts might slip through that aren’t round but, like, cylindrical. No idea though if this does anything significant to the taste. Like always in science: Further research is required!

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 3 points 7 months ago

I’m less concerned about the money than the shelf space in my small-ish kitchen and that I have to justify another purchase to my SO, especially since "we have good coffee already!". 😄

I’ll look into the Toddy non the less. "Thanks" for another round of GAS! 🙈

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I do own a hand grinder and make nice pour overs and such most of the time. Thing is that the rest of my family hasn’t found the same joy in coffee as I have (yet), so they continue to buy the awful stuf. For many reasons, I’d like to make the best of that sort of raw material.

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I read your other comment and even replied to it IIRC, thanks for tuning in on the other discussion as well!

Doing some sort of immersion sounds reasonable when I can’t do cold brew. I also like the idea of implementing some advanced self filtering with a kitchen sieve, where I could easily just sieve the coffee again through the same grounds and probably catch most of the sediment that way.

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 4 points 7 months ago

That went to my watch list immediately, thx!

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Interesting. That goes against what Lance says in the video, but doesn’t sound implausible. Though I wonder how you can grind any larger than the setting of your grinder. Also, to my understanding, with slow feeding you only produce less of those finer grinds that come from mushing the beans together when grinding the whole dose at once. As I don’t have a particle size analyser at home, I’m only guessing here, though. 😄

 

My significant other doesn’t care nearly as much about coffee as I do, so we always have pre-ground supermarket coffee at home. Tastewise, it’s usually rather dull and bitter because apparently, that‘s what people expect coffee to taste like around here.

I wonder if there is a method/recipe that can compensate for those flaws. The Aeropress is pretty versatile, so going for lower temperatures and/or shorter extraction times comes to me as a natural first step in this investigation. Doing a pour over with this stuff feels like I‘m wasting precious V60 filter papers though tbh 😄

Any further suggestions? I own a V60, an Aeropress, a cheap drip coffee machine and the (in-) famous IKEA french press. My kettle only allows for adjustments in 10°C steps, but features a temperature display, so I can go reasonably precise on that end.

Cheers! ✌️

26
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by Aarkon@feddit.de to c/coffee@lemmy.world
 

My grinder (Timemore Chestnut) isn’t of the super fancy kind that won’t ever produce any fines. So after some initial skepticism about the video’s topic, I was intrigued and gave it a try. And oh boy, does it make for a change in the result: Where I would normally set the grinder to 14 clicks, now I’m at 9 (where lesser is finer) and the coffee is still more on the sour side.

With the Aeropress, I’m experimenting with longer brew times, no big deal. Overall, I think I’m getting a more even, more efficient extraction with more strength per gram of coffee without the harshness you get when grinding too fine.
But for pour over, I’m unsure if I should really go any finer. The bed already was sort of muddy the last time. Do you have any experience on the topic you’d like to share? Have you tried slow feeding, and if yes, are you still doing it, and are you doing it for everything or only certain brew methods?

 
view more: next ›