Try https://sodastream.com . The soda can be sweetened with syrups they sell, or sweeten with anything you like, like Mangrove Honey which is salty and rich in itself. Add Scotch for a new drink called a "Southern Bee Sting". Squirt of lemon optional.
Honestly, I made my own using this[0] setup and I've never been happier. I had Sodastream before and the cost of refills and inconvenience of restocking them meant that I didn't actually use it that much. I bought some fruit extracts on Amazon, put a few mL in a 2L of water, and have delicious seltzer water without vendor lock-in. Now we need to refill our 10lb tank every few months, unless there's some leak/gasket problem (which has happened once or twice when the cats play near it).
You can make it more automated if you'd like with some sort of automatic agitation to dissolve the CO2, but it hasn't been too big of a bother for me to manually shake it yet.
We got a Sodastream for Christmas along with a SodaMod kit which comes with three food-grade tanks with paintball fill valves. That way you can fill them at a sporting goods store for $5 instead of exchanging them for $15. Related to the article, there's something very strange about the Sodastream Diet Cola that I haven't quite put my finger on. I prefer to add some lime juice to mask the flavor.
How do you get the carbonation levels to an equivalent level of commercial equivalents? I have this same setup (used mostly for beer)- but when I tried to carbonate water, it was always a bit on the flat side.
Honestly, I have the opposite experience. I pressurize around 50-55PSI and do at least 2 carbonation cycles, venting in-between. Using cold water is also key, so I keep a 2L full of flat water for later carbonation - we swap between 2-3 bottles. I've recarbonated flat Dr. Pepper and it truly tasted like a fresh cracked can, carbonation and all.
We've also tried carbonating blueberries, which was really interesting. It didn't work great, but we noticed the fizziness and it'll probably be something I try again soon - perhaps using a chamber with a bigger opening than a 2L's.
Can you still compile gcc code with -O0 (gcc option to turn optimization off) to get completely defined behavior? When doing so does it actually still turn off all optimizations? Also does -Os (optimization for size) still produce defined behavior?
> Can you still compile gcc code with -O0 (gcc option to turn optimization off) to get completely defined behavior?
No. The standard specifies what's undefined, optimization levels don't change it (though there are compiler flags such as -fwrapv which make undefined things defined).
However, turning off optimizations will make behavior easier to predict.
it used to be passed around never to use -O0 because it was much less used/tested and would generate wrong code more often. Not sure id that was folklore or true.
-O0 is "well tested" because everyone uses it for debug builds. If it produced incorrect results people would be fairly upset (and they are when it does…but it's not particularly common, because incorrect optimizations are generally the problem when codegen is incorrect.)
You mean on what basis do we justify ownership and property? As far as I can see there's no strong intrinsic justification for private property, but rather it's subordinate to other values like justice and well-being. History is filled with various approaches to property, and at least in my point of view I have to consider it as something decided by politics and culture.
Btw that doesn't mean that because you might disagree with your society's approach to property that it's morally defensible to steal, etc.
Pirates actually helped in the Revolutionary War: https://www.historynet.com/pirates-of-the-revolution.htm . Many pirates considered themselves free and held that legitimate comity between 2 people can exist without 3rd party control such as the Crown.
"All: please don't take HN threads into tedious flamewar on eternal flamewar topics. "Vax versus antivax" is one of the most tedious of them all. If you're tempted to post angrily about how wrong and bad the other side is, please inhibit that impulse. If your comment was going to repeat something we've all heard many times before, please don't post it.
Obviously the vax theme is topical in this case—that makes this a good chance to apply discernment and distinguish between thoughtful, substantive comments and shallow, dismissive ones. As that is what we all should be doing on HN anyway, practice is good."
