Groxx

[delayed]

[delayed]

Ends in 'a' = female: a relatively safe assumption, as far as an assumption here can be safe, with no other context. A strong majority in many places will match that. Many of the exceptions will be obviously foreign names with traditional spelling, which can go either way (may follow that culture's patterns, may not, highly varied).

Ends in vowel (sound) = female: probably mostly true, in that I strongly suspect it's >50%, but it's unreliable enough that I'd avoid trying to base any assumptions off it.

Names really follow no rules at all here. For both good and bad. E.g. most recently I ran across a "La-sia" pronounced "ladashsia". If it's spelled vat-ik'Nff and pronounced "King George" and they're female, then that's what's correct.

I've used work profiles too. Together, that gives you a total of three installs of an app, all with strange (and different) interactions and limitations between them. All of which is quite different than you'd expect for a "let me have two of this app" feature (because it isn't one, though it's frequently propped up like it is).

Which is a massive pain to use for stuff like this, and it explicitly recommends against using it with apps that use notifications when you enable it. It shuts down constantly, like as soon as your phone locks (at least for me), and won't process push notifications until the space is opened again.

I really don't get why they don't just give you a thing to install something as many times as you want. It's insane that you still have to use these weird workarounds.

If it's within like 90% of your targets and it's a far easier development experience, but you need to optimize a small bit to fit in the budget, tools like this can be fantastically useful. Rewriting the whole thing in, like, C, complete with a coroutine stack, would be a hell of a lot more work than "avoid allocations here".

All I've ever seen that do is move "the top answer doesn't work" (usually with no reference to which top answer) to the top. I fully believe it can help, but uh. Nowhere near enough.

I mostly blame the near-complete abandonment of the product. It was quite clear even early on that it did not work very well for time-sensitive knowledge, and that having any of that cluttered the search results badly, but nothing at all was ever done to address that, despite nearly all of Stack Overflow fitting in that category.

IMO the uselessness of the answers just became more and more apparent, so fewer people contributed, so they rotted further. Good riddance, I say - it had a brief couple years where it was excellent because all information was new enough to be useful, and then it started dying like all stagnant things do.

Stack Exchanges that do not have such a bias for time-sensitive information are still going relatively well AFAICT, e.g. math exchange. The model works fine for some things, just not general tech assistance.

Linux and Windows touchpad hardware and software is significantly more widely varying, usually ranging from "good lord, did any human ever try this?" to "I hate it but it's usually functional", with only a few outliers in the "this does what I expect" realms. Touch screens on the other hand have a 1:1 mapping for everything, and very nearly all of them support 5+ fingers (not just 1 or 2), so they almost always work like you expect. (... when they work at all on Linux)

From past experience (not for quite a few years, but some at least): oh heck no. I loved simulating locally, but the deeply limited touch handling made it infeasible a lot of the time. The dev -> install -> run -> dev cycle is dramatically faster in the emulator, and you don't need to have multiple devices nearby if you're building custom UI for each size.

As a primary/only mode of use: oh hell no, it's awful. It's too far away from your hands, the ergonomics suck.

As an occasional "pinch to zoom that thing centered on my fingers, and adjust it to show what I want to someone 10 feet away" tool: it's fantastic. I could learn the key combo, but "use two fingers" is dramatically easier to remember and control.

Or to guide someone through something on screen, you can just tap it rather than having them mouse to precisely the control you meant. (yes this is often a terrible idea for teaching, but not everyone has fine motor control and sometimes there's random interruptions from other software - having them push those away can make it harder for them to learn/remember the actual goal)

Or for signing your name on a document, or anything else even slightly related to drawing.

Or if it's propped up on your chest in bed and your hands are naturally more comfortable on the screen than the keyboard (which is far too close).

Or if it's dark or you're at a low angle and can't read the keys.

It doesn't cost much, doesn't influence the display much, and is very useful occasionally. A great hardware feature to have IMO.

yeah, they've been quite logged-out hostile for a few years now. not quite as bad as instagram, but they seem to be holding that as their guiding-north-star...

Yea, or the ridiculous first-gen M1 with only two USB-C and an audio jack. One of which was of course used for charging.

Dongle hell is a real place.

Wild stuff, thank you! I've got quite a few monarch fans to send this to now...

The various privacy-maximalist cryptocurrencies also serve as a fairly effective example imo, like Monero and Zcash. E.g. it seems pretty reasonable to say "one vote" is "one fixed-value transaction", and the count per member is just "they have X transactions in their receiving account". Both of these (one optionally) hide sender and recipient (and amount) while still having verifiable account-value = number of votes.

"controlling" some kid-height character. the button-pressing seems almost frustrated with the lack of response, long holds with no (or opposite) change and sometimes mashing. are they supposed to be buttons a person pressed to direct it? or did it create those too?

>With the new 14-inch MacBook Pro, users can connect high-speed peripherals, transfer photos, work with multiple external displays, and more with its wide array of ports.

* looks inside *

4 kinds of ports. while being generous, and including the SD card slot and the headphone jack.

I don't know anyone who would consider 2-4 to be a "wide array".

Plus you can bet there will be a never-ending stream of "oops, a bug meant that toggle hasn't worked in 7 years, our bad. Have a free year of credit monitoring, on us!" announcements. Some might even be real accidents!

Then you'd get a certificate warning before visiting the site. Changing what IP you connect to for a domain doesn't bypass the certificate checks.

Given how ridiculously inefficient (i.e. extractive) private companies are in areas which were previously government run... yea I think at this point there might be stronger evidence that private companies are MUCH slower and less efficient. They can move faster at times, but they often do so with outrageously clear malicious intent, so that isn't exactly something to congratulate them for.

Particularly because so much of the code they're trained on has those flaws.

It's usually not too hard to work around stuff like this - wrap it and map it to an exhaustive type, and use tests to ensure that your `unreachable!()` is correct.

Plus like half of the time this happens to me, the summary is WILDLY inaccurate about what the source states.

LLMs are quite good at "I need a thing that does [vague description]" searches, FAR better than ~all "semantic" searches. But oh boy. I do not like them "answering" queries. Feels extremely dangerous.

I mean, kinda. There are likely some blinded algorithms possible[1] in voting systems, and some crypto-systems allow you to falsify entries/queries so you can lie[2] (i.e. you can provide "proof" that you voted for anyone, so you can appear "on their side" if needed).

Are there any voting systems that have both of those qualities? I'm not sure, but I hope so, and the relatively-widespread existence of both seems like there's at least some possibility that one could be built.

1: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3573428.3573750

2: message repudiation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol

In this system: I have no idea.

In any system, I suspect it is possible. There are strategies that allow doing private set intersections (or similar): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_set_intersection (i.e. a set with one member is "you", and you can check to see if you're in that 764, without knowing who the others are)

I'm not sure what strategies would also allow you to not reveal to the vote collectors where your vote went, but there might be something.

You can claim to be whatever AAGUID you like, but attestation is based on signature chains that your TPM verifies, for which there are very few, very flaky strategies (since that's the whole point of a TPM). GOS won't be passing attestation likely ever.

...yes? that's usually the case in open source software.

Distract them by withholding information, so you feel like more of an expert than they are, and they don't have enough concrete info to form an attack plan.

An effective strategy for lots of higher tier management. For both good and bad reasons - often they don't want the details, they want to know that you know the details. You're being paid to know those details, after all.

"This will reduce your profit by nearly 30%" is accurate, and real profit is about all anyone cares about (or should care about). Many people would not choose that, if they could choose, but it's effectively required at the moment.

Unless you're 100% profitable, its always a higher effective %. If you're running somewhere closer to 10% (remember that it needs to be after all costs/paychecks/etc), that's nearly a third of your profit.

Anything optional that skims off the top cuts into profits extremely quickly.