Likewise. My last name contains a non-ascii character. In ~2009 I started at a company whose admin conveniently set up an account for me on their Ubuntu server... on which no-one could then log in locally because the login manager crashed when trying to display the list of users. I logged in via ssh and changed my name to the nearest ASCII equivalent.
I always feel slightly worried on sites that demand that I give my full legal name (such as the US ESTA form), and then refuse to handle it because it includes "illegal" characters.
"Legal name" is a catch-all term that usually means "approved for use on government issued ID". Are there instances when that's not always the case and some forms of ID (not just, say, an ID card, but also in tax filings, for example) actually have different rules? Amazingly, sometimes yes. But usually that's what it means.
Legal system as in court of law? They tend to use more letters than I have in my actual passport (definitely more than fits into mrz) and depending on which court we talk about they also use different alphabets. They also assume certain structure in those nsmes, which differs from one court to another.
Yes, I had a pleasure do deal with two courts that use two different alphabets this year. They one of the two referenced the other. The name written in neither of two matches whats actually written in my passport. It isn't a complicated name by any reasonable metric.
Taxes are easier -- they just ids and names are display only kind of stuff, sourced from the base registry.
This has happened to me with passwords containing foreign characters. The system would accept it, but further logons would be impossible. Now I always strip diacritics to be safe.
A friend mentioned using control characters in passwords... like ^F and ^B, but not ^C because that's the interrupt character. Feels vaguely risky to me (does ^U empty the line? does ^W delete the last word? does your terminal emulator do some weird encoding like it does for cursor keys?) but if it works, why not?
I suspect I have run into a couple bugs because of password generators putting characters that some backend system cannot process in the password. Halfwish they just did DKWhhjwqjkwqjmHSJKHAIUHQwdmlsadkl instead.
PETSCII? On the Commodore 64 you could press the Commodore key and Shift together to change character sets between lowercase and the graphical characters.
But the Unix login thing might have been because of teletypes? https://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/teletype/ claims that ASR 33 used 8-bit ASCII but was uppercase only - not sure if the "8-bit" claim can be true.
On some Unix (and Linux) systems, you can still enter a kind of retro mode with "stty olcuc iuclc" (output lowercase to uppercase, input uppercase to lowercase) and turning on Caps Lock.
Yes, you can do it with a "page rule", which the parent comment mentioned. The CloudFlare free tier has a budget of three page rules, which might mean that you have to bundle all your rss feeds in one folder so they share a path prefix.
Banking credentials are used a lot in Finland to sign into other services. This means you get phishing emails saying "your medical test results are available" or "you're getting a tax return" where the actual goal is to get into your bank account.
Finland tried to copy it, but the Finnish card (while based on the same technology) is used very little. Finnish banks already had their own OTP solutions, which they started offering for authentication on other web sites, so no-one wanted an extra authenticator on top of that. This of course means that you get phishing emails pretending to be from all sorts of government services, where the goal is to get your banking credentials and take your money.
Since then, mobile phone operators added their own authentication system based on credentials residing on your SIM card <https://mobiilivarmenne.fi/en/>. You prove your identity when getting a mobile phone contract and can then use that to log into many sites.
In ambient light the contrast is worse on the Daylight than the RM2 - the screen background is quite significantly darker.
However, the Daylight has a backlight which increases the contrast enormously. And it’s usable in the dark which the RM2 is not. The much faster refresh rate also gives it a more fluid feel.
What I didn’t anticipate is the difference the screen makes in how I use and perceive them:
As the RM2 is so simple and static it feels more like a notebook or book reader that happens to be battery powered, whereas the Daylight is definitely a gadget.
I’m more likely to use the RM2 to take notes or do some thinking and the Daylight as something to tinker with.
The remarkable is a lot more like paper and has that simple feel.
Daylight was created for the express purpose of being a portable computer you can use in direct sunlight. It can also just be your notebook but it does so much more than take notes.
I may be a little bit biased but I'd personally prefer a non-laggy device with a little bit worse contrast.
The Daylight screen is _amazing_ for reading technical books. The pen isn't anything special, and I don't like it's thickness, but good enough to get the job done.
Afaik we put the same kind of high polling rate Wacom digitizer that remarkable uses.
Any quirks you notice between it and the daylight would be fascinating to note! Wacom is the most fluid digital pen system on the market from what we could find, especially compared to Ntrig, USI and other approaches.
Also you can use other pens other than the one we included in the box
> Any quirks you notice between it and the daylight would be fascinating to note!
Okay, my Remarkable 2 is currently broken (screen breaks more than I wish. They don't have Apple's level of reliability yet .3rd replacement), so I can't test directly at the moment.
> Also you can use other pens other than the one we included in the box
Oh cool! The pen in box is good enough for me, but now I'm going to look into getting a thin one. Thanks!
The reMarkable has better contrast, viewing angle, and resolution, the Daylight has a far better refresh rate. There are other tradeoffs between them of course, but display-wise, those are the main ones
Depends what your reference is. E-ink displays without a lot of layers (especially Carta 1250) have pretty good contrast, on par with matte paper. Some devices with a thick frontlight layer and a Wacom layer and a touch layer are less impressive.
My Onyx BOOX has at best a background comparable to very dirty newsprint.
I find myself reading with the frontlight on under most indoors circumstances, unless I'm in direct sunlight. With the frontlight, it's fine. Text may be somewhat more washed out, but that bothers me less than a darkish background.
Under sunlight the contrast is actually about perfect, as white paper tends to be too blindingly bright.
My tablet has several layers: capacitive touch, Wacom, and frontlight, all of which probably contribute to the lower contrast.
Mind: I'm addressing your "bad contrast" question. I find the trade-offs reasonable, and for reading ebooks (as opposed to Web browsing or other app use), the frontlight battery consumption is quite reasonable.
If I'm just using the device casually (e.g., listening to podcasts or checking something quickly) it's fine to use w/o the frontlight, but for immersive reading I'll either have a strong reading light, frontlight, or head for a convenient sunbeam.
It's not really a scam but rather a technology that's still in its infancy. I think of it more like the Palm Treo and Blackberry: they're not great but hopefully we're progressing towards the iPhone. I wouldn't buy one at the moment, though.
We are talking about e-ink without added edge lighting. I found that if I have to crank up the internal lighting of an e-reader to get adequate contrast, then I may as well use a tablet, because it isn’t reflective illumination anymore to the eye.
Apparently he no longer has the "Autoweapons" article from 1987 on the web. It's probably on the Internet Archive somewhere.
(Previous Hacker News discussion on that article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8153341)
reply