It's the easiest way to display complex graphics on the Kindle which take over the entire screen. Yes, I could use HTML and the browser, but there's a header and footer that I don't want to see (plus I'm not convinced the Kindle would stay awake). I could have sent text, but the renderer available at the CLI is extremely limited. I'm not sure if I could have tapped into a mobi/pdf renderer to make it show up similarly to an e-book, but I'm doubtful if I could have made a mobi file show up in landscape like this. I was also building on several other tutorials that use PNG files, so it just made sense to do this.
It's really just a question of the transit provider giving you access to the data. My display shows mostly light rail schedules with a few buses. If your transit provider has real-time data for trains you can display it, if not you can't.
I don't blame Node/JS for the reliability issues of the first version at all, they're simply not the tools that I prefer to work in.
> Each of the seven sections on the image represents a browser tab that Puppeteer needs to keep open in order to fetch screenshots. Remember that the Node.js server was running on a Raspberry Pi, it didn’t have an excess of memory to operate in and Chrome is not known for its svelte-ness.
> I picked Node.js for the first server because I was using Puppeteer. I don’t particularly like Javascript, so given the ability to start from scratch I happily pivoted to Rust.
> Next, since we’re not relying on a browser engine to render the display, we will be using a 2D graphics library to render a PNG directly. This should have a much lower resource cost than using an entire browser engine, at the cost of some decreased flexibility.
I imagine the Kindle is sold as a loss leader, plus whatever economies of scale/negotiating Amazon does pushes the price down heavily vs buying a single unit from an electronics retailer
(author here) I've also been thinking about this - I've since built out a Rust library (https://github.com/lily-mara/kindling) for scaffolding the server piece of this and I've been considering creating a Kindle client app that integrates with it. This is possible but would require using the Kindle Java SDK, which does not fill me with excitement.
That would be fantastic, although even just the way you've done this here is great. I've got a few old Kindles that would be good to convert to displays, and if I could just install a server and a client, it would take a lot of the work out of it.
No matter what, jailbreaking would be the most difficult step in the process, but the library I linked above takes a lot of the work out of it. It's entirely undocumented atm (I am surely the only one using it), but it comes with an install script you can run on the Kindle to do the setup once you have the jailbreak done.
this was the only thing I could think while reading the article, if you're not /a white guy/ a lot of this advice is not useful at best or dangerous at worst
Huh? Being white puts a target on your back in a lot of areas of the world, because you'll be assumed to be a naive tourist with money, and possibly drunk. I'm positive a Filipino person can move around Hanoi more easily than a white person from the perspective of random harassment.
Yes, sometimes being white is a boon, and people will treat you nicer or more respectfully than they would a brown person. I'm not trying to say being white is a negative, I'm saying it is really dependent on where you are traveling to.
Law enforcement are doing the right thing responding to potentially emergency situations. The problem isn't that they are responding to SWATing, the problem is people calling them in when there is no emergency.
> What I fear more than losing my
site, being sued, or dealing with police is living in a world where fat eunuchs can groom little boys into castrating themselves and
nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
They do have an agenda for sure. That wasn't the question, tho. The question was whether they condone or even encourage their users to target people with the goal of driving those people into suicide?
This might be well the case. I am not one of their users nor am I educated in this matter, so I'd like to know too. When somebody makes this claim, as has been made multiple times in the threads here, with demands to therefore remove kikifarms from the internet, I think it is reasonable to ask for at least some evidence of such a claim.
For context, because I didn't know and I'd think others might not either: Apparently Chloe Segal killed herself by going to a public park and lighting herself on fire, telling witnesses in a spoken suicide note her reasons were homelessness and mental health issues.
Josh Moon then playing "Fire" ("I am the God of hellfire and I bring you fire") is in extremely bad taste and outright vile. I can very well see this as gloating.
And yet, it does not prove kiwifarms direct involvement. It's a short extract from a stream he did. Playing devil's advocate for a second, it for example might very well have been a response to media at the time already claiming he/kiwifarms was to blame for the suicide and therefore a rather misguided attempt to poke fun at what he might have considered unfair reporting.
I don't see him gloating about getting Chloe Segal to kill herself in that tweet or video. What I see is him making fun of her death? Reminds me of a video I saw of a photo of Donald Rumsfeld being burnt when he died last year. What am I missing?
Are you suggesting that not removing those posts is tacit agreement with their content rather than a principled stance on free speech for it's members? It could be both of course, but I always err on the side of charity even if you don't think they deserve it.
It is support -- kiwifarms isn't a free-for-all, they have their list of "lolcows" (people who have a thread dedicated to them), and only moderators can add new threads.
So only moderators can add new threads, and I assume users can post in threads, and I assume the users are the ones posting that the people should kill themselves. So how does this translate into the moderators or site operators/owners endorsing the content of user posts?
Edit: to be clear, "allowing content" does not entail "endorsing content" per my original reply.
Perhaps the context where priests are part of an international organization that has paid off and silenced victims and covered for the priests for decades while the concern about transgender folks being groomers is all bullshit?
There's a big difference between talking shit about people and telling others to harass people until they get to the stage they commit suicide. You've shown me that he talks shit about people, you haven't shown me him having an agenda of trying to get these people he's talking about to kill themselves, which was one of my original claims.
It's difficult to take comments like this in good faith when the Github profile linked on your account prominently features your signature on a letter calling for Richard Stallman to be reinstated to the FSF after his resignation, following his comments defending sex with minors and child pornography.
The website does have an agenda of not being shut down, yes, this is why it is so intent on following US laws and cooperates with US authorities. The person trying to shut it down was being described in the terms above, so its not surprising this is the characterization being used. The website defends free expression under US law, i suppose that also is an agenda.
What law? She's not giving anyone hormones, you know. She shares information about informed consent clinics, the effects of hormones, and places to buy safe supplies.
Yeah, but not all parents have the best interests of their children at heart. This is generally recognized, and the reason why there is increasing clarification of the boundaries between the rights of parents and the rights of children. It's the reason that forced marriage and child brides have been outlawed in many countries. It's also the reason why child labour and child welfare, and protective services for children exist.
Should someone be providing HRT to children? Generally no. Has the child been prescribed that medication, and the parents are refusing, unable to, or actively preventing the child from getting that medication? Absolutely!
If this was in relation to insulin, antibiotics, or any other generally accepted medical prescription, the individual would be lauded. Because of transphobia and ignorance, sites like kiwifarms are being targetted by a bunch of relentless shitweasels who are hiding behind Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression, something which Cloudflare is under absolutely no legal requirement to provide.
I don't want tech companies to become the arbiters of free speech, but I also don't think companies are obligated to provide services to a website owned by a person who gleefully celebrated the suicide of a victim of harassment.
Now that I am not an employee there anymore, one thing I am absolutely thrilled to say is that the Fastly approach with a Good Neighbour policy is awesome, and that alone (among many awesome things over the 5 years I was there) makes it a better company to work for than CloudFlare.
Do you actually have something to add to the conversation? Your comments haven't particularly meaningful or insightful, so that's a genuine question.
There isn't a complete picture here. In this particular case, Keffals shared that she was supporting alternate paths to get HRT, and providing support for folks who were legally blocked from receiving gender affirming care due to laws passed by a government largely captured by right wing politicians.
Given the complexity of pursuing HRT, it's not unreasonable to reach the conclusion that a child in those circumstances being denied care is largely related to a lack of parental support, or from being actively prevented from getting treatment that doctors were clearly providing (since the government had to ban medical treatment in order to stop it).
What do I have to add? I am giving the opposing opinion here which from anecdotal experience is also the opinion of almost every parent I've met (n~=40) in contrast to the opinions of some people trying to give the impression that it's normal for children to be getting drugs from people they know online because that's what they want.
If the government bans some form of medical treatment and Keffals is trying to bypass this ban then this obviously would raise questions of legality.
reply