I turned off most GitHub emails and mostly use the Notification Centre for discovering things I need to know about. It's not entirely proof against phishing this way, but it doesn't get to use email to appear more legitimate.
Depends on what you’re doing. For best cookies, you want to cream the butter with the sugar, then add the eggs, and finally add the flour. If you’re interested and can find one, it’s worth taking a vegan baking class. You learn a lot about ingredient substitutions for baking, about what the different non-vegan ingredients are doing that you have to compensate for…and it does something that I’ve only recently started seeing happen in non-vegan baking recipes: it separates the wet ingredients from the dry ingredients.
That is, when baking, you can usually (again, exceptions for creaming the sugar in butter, etc.) take all of your dry ingredients and mix/sift them together, and then you pour your wet ingredients in a well you’ve made in the dry ingredients (these can also usually be mixed together).
No need to cakesplain, that was an example with three ingredients of the top of my head, very, very obviously the exact ingredients and bracket assignments vary depending on what you are making.
But for shortbread or fork biscuits those three could indeed all go in the bowl in one go (but that one admittedly doesn't really need a bracket because the recipe is "put in bowl, mix with hands, bake").
It's not just online recipes, but cookbooks written for the Better Home & Gardens crowd. The ones who write "curry powder" (and mean the yellow McCormick stuff which is so bland as to have almost no flavour) or call for one clove of garlic in their recipe.
I joke with folks that my assumption with "one clove of garlic" is that they really mean "one head of garlic" if you want any flavour. (And if the recipe title has "garlic" in it and you are using one clove, you’re lying.)
There is a material difference between the older Apple Watch (where the charging puck uses USB A) and the newer Apple Watch and/or the Ultra (where the charging puck uses USB C). Plugged into an appropriate source, the USB C puck gets much faster charging and is usually sufficient for a day's wear after about 10 minutes (depending, of course, on what the day includes).
Charging to 80% is likely to be more than enough for most uses, and topping it up with another 15% just before bed is enough for overnight (probably).
I had the Series 4 previously and the Ultra 2 now; with the older watch, I would charge it for about an hour while watching TV in the evening. With the Ultra 2, I charge it for about 20 minutes here and there depending on what I’m doing and whether I remember. I’m currently at 39% which will be just fine for my hourlong exercise ride (with GPS), and then I can toss it on the charger while I shower and it’ll probably be at 70% which is good enough for another full day.
The 1brc shell script uses `#!/bin/bash` instead of `#!/usr/bin/env bash`. Using `#!/usr/bin/env bash` is the only safe way to pick up a `bash` that’s in your $PATH before `/usr/bin`. (You could do `#! bash`, but that way lies madness.)
In Canada and most of Europe, Joe Biden would be a hair right of centre-right on most things and centre-right on a few other topics. Only in America is he centre-left, which says a lot about America's Overton window shift.
Biden sounds a lot like Stephen Harper (pre-barbaric-practices-hotline) and just to the right of Brian Mulroney. Joe Clark would be well to his left.
Comparing political rights, lefts and centers across cultures is futile, it's apples and oranges. For example, compare the immigration and integration policies of Biden [or the US] to that of Europe, and you'll find that he and most democrats are, for the most part, further "left."
Looking at the past 10-20 years, how are the immigration policies of the US or the Biden administration [1] further left than France, Germany or the UK - even under a conservative government post-Brexit? The US does have jus soli but I don't consider that to be a left wing thing.
1. Biden was promoting - and willing to sign into law - a border bill written by a Republican; it very nearly passed as it initially had bipartisan support before being scuppered by a presidential candidate.
Amazon and Apple did not decide such a thing. Apple and the publishers had worked out an agreement to raise the price of ebooks to be closer to that of new releases to counter the monopolistic cheap-to-the-point-of-failing-authors approach from Amazon.
The US Government got involved in that agreement and declared it illegal because it hurt Amazon's bottom line…and the publishing industry is in a much worse situation with Amazon controlling even more of the income than ever, while now diverting revenue to shitty LLM-publishers and away from humans who try to write things that people want to read.
Basically, that decision by the government was wrong, and we’re all suffering for it. Upcoming decisions and the DMA are different, but they are making many of the same mistakes as the US Government did with the publishing agreement, in that these intervention will:
- reduce overall security on devices that must be more secure than personal computers because they often act as payment devices, personal IDs, and other matters (this is not guaranteed, but many of the moves being advocated are going to lead to bad actors getting to pretend that they are equivalent to the operating system, or provide access to Secure Enclave data in ways that encourage large criminal and nation state attacks on the ecosystem)
- reduce overall payment security and convenience for real people (you think that cancelling a NYT subscription is hard, let Tim Sweeney design a payment flow and it will take a personal visit to Epic to cancel a subscription, and even then it will take more time than it should)
Everyone focuses on the 30%. It should be lower; there should be wider access and less gatekeeping‡. But if you want it to be zero, start taking on the PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo Switch monopolies, too as they charge as much and sometimes more.
‡ I think that Apple (and probably Google) need to get over their American prudishness. This would require having better categorization and parental controls that could be enabled by device owners and even providing applications ways of applying parental controls (let Tumblr bring its adult-oriented content back, but enable the Tumblr app to apply parental controls via an API). There are other changes that I would like to see, but absolutely none of them involve letting Tim Sweeney / Epic get involved in taking payment details, because I trust him far less than I trust Tim Cook / Apple (or even Google).
> Apple and the publishers had worked out an agreement to raise the price of ebooks to be closer to that of new releases to counter the monopolistic cheap-to-the-point-of-failing-authors approach from Amazon.
Thats called anti-competive behavior to raise prices.
Price dumping isn't a thing. Its basically not illegal, and is instead something that the US government, and its population, want to encourage.
I am sure that there are some outdated economics textbooks that put out this hypothetical of the extremely rare "bad kind" of price dumping, and one or 2 long irrelevant court cases. But these days, its basically not a bad thing.
Complaints about price dumping are almost never done in good faith. Instead, they are done by monopolistic entities that want to screw over customers by illegally coordinating price increases.
> Basically, that decision by the government was wrong, and we’re all suffering for it.
I am going to say that the monopolistic group of sellers who were trying to raise prices was wrong. And the law supports me.
> But if you want it to be zero, start taking on the PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo Switch monopolies, too as they charge as much and sometimes more.
Or, instead of that, we can use the government to force it to be zero in whatever ways that we can, even if we don't effect other markets.
Those other markets, while maybe deserving of some scrutiny, are smaller than the smartphone market. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to care about the much larger and more important market, and to make those fees 0.
> letting Tim Sweeney / Epic get involved in taking payment details, because I trust him far less than I trust Tim Cook / Apple
Then use your consumer rights to not install the epic app store. And leave other people's phone's alone.
For some advocates, sure. I was there, too — although at the beginning of my career and not deeply involved in most licensing discussions until the founding of Mozilla (where I argued against the GNU GPL and was generally pleased with the result of the MPL). However, from ~1990, I remember sharing some code where I "more or less" made my code public domain but recommended people consider the GNU GPL as part of the README (I don't have the source code available, so I don't recall).
Your characterization is quit easily refutable, because at the time that OSI was founded, there was already an explosion of possible licenses and RMS and other GNUnatics were making lots of noise about GNU/Linux and trying to be as maximalist as possible while presenting any choice other than the GNU GPL as "against freedom".
This certainly would not have held well with people who were using the MIT Licence or BSD licences (created around the same time as the GNU GPL v1), who believed (and continue to believe) that there were options other than a restrictive viral licence‡. Yes, some of the people involved vilified the "free software principles", but there were also GNU "advocates" who were making RMS look tame with their wording (I recall someone telling me to enjoy "software slavery" because I preferred licences other than the GNU GPL).
The "Free Software" advocates were pretending that the goals of their licence were the only goals that should matter for all authors and consumers of software. That is not and never has been the case, so it is unsurprising that there was a bit of reaction to such extremism.
OSI and the open source label were a move to make things easier for corporations to accept and understand by providing (a) a clear unifying definition, and (b) a set of licences and guidelines for knowing what licenses did what and the risks and obligations they presented to people who used software under those licences.
‡ Don't @ me on this, because both the virality and restrictiveness are features of the GNU GPL. If it weren't for the nonsense in the preamble, it would be a good licence. As it is, it is an effective if rampantly misrepresented licence.
reply