ggppjj @ ggppjj @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

484

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't think that email and browser history are similar enough to make a meaningful comparison, honestly.

Maybe someone could say that, but I am not.

I see a specific instance of a specific bad feature being specifically abused. I don't care to entertain whatabouts.

I accept that it's how things are, I just personally feel as though the only way this feature could ever work as it does now is with the implementation it has now, and that the convenience of single page webapps that use history manipulation is not worth the insane annoyance of helping my grandma get out of websites that tell her that she has been hacked by the FBI.

I'm frustrated that removing bad functionality is being treated as a slippery slope with obviously bad and impossible jokes as the examples chosen.

I see a bad feature being abused, and I don't see the removal of that bad feature as a dangerous path to getting rid of email. I don't ascribe the same weight that you seem to towards precedent in this matter.

I'd prefer an independently owned small store, as someone who installs cash register systems for independently owned stores primarily in rural West Virginia.

You appear to have accidentally responded to a different thread of comments. I mean this genuinely and not sarcastically.

... With all currants in it? Just like mother used to forge.

It's the Handset Protocol/Handsfree Protocol that was developed for simultaneous sending and receiving of voice data. They're the only protocols that support sending and receiving voice at the same time, and they do that by sending mono telephone quality audio and receiving mono telephone quality audio.

It's why most gaming headsets, even ones with Bluetooth, include a small RF dongle separately. Bluetooth is technically incapable of high-quality audio when recording.

Nothing better than selling a single-purpose bit of plastic intended to go into the microwave and boil water that is functionally a replacement for a bowl that you presumably already have that expressly states that you can only use it for up to 5 years.

Well, the Starlink could be connected by an admin to a computer that is connected to SIPRNet, right? It exposes itself as just a router.

I mean, assuming the Starlink was brought on board by someone with authorization to be on board, any possible adversarial situation would necessarily be an internal issue to begin with.

Personally, I think the most likely answer involves an Xbox.

Until we can finally kill HSP/HFP, I'm never gonna be happy with Bluetooth. Using a headset mic shouldn't blast you back to the telephone era.

You can't connect a star link to siprnet.

Can you connect a computer? Because if so, that same computer can then be connected to the starlink, no?

I know absolutely nothing about secure government networking, I'm just kind of assuming that something has to be able to connect to both individually and also simultaneously.

That scene scared the shit out of me more than any horror movie ever could.

I'm a self-taught C# dev, I've found tremendous success specifically just describing what I want to do in dumb language that I'd feel stupid asking people IRL about and that aren't googleable without knowing what both the terms "null-coalescing" and "non-merchandise supergroup" are describing.

There are a lot of patterns that don't have obvious names and that aren't easily described without describing a specific scenario in a way that might only make sense institutionally, or with additional context that your average person might not have. ChatGPT is fairly good at being the "buddy that you have a bunch of in-jokes with that can remember things better than you". I can skip a lot of explaining why I need to do a thing a certain way like I can with my coworkers (who all aren't programmers), and I can get helpful answers for programming questions that my coworkers don't know the answers to.

It's frustrating to see this incredibly advanced context-aware autocorrect on steroids get used in ways that don't acknowledge the inherent strengths of what LLMs are actually great at doing. It's infuriating to have that potential be actively misused and packaged as a service and have that mediocre service sold to you once a month as a necessity by idiots in suits watching a line on a chart.

Nano is the tool that people use when they don't have a need for TUI editors in general and therefore don't want to have to memorize how people with teletypes decided things should have been done 75 years ago and who also don't want to get dragged into endless pointless bickering arguments about which set of greybeards was objectively right about their sets of preferences.

I'm glad people enjoy the editors they use and also I just wanna change a single fuckin line in a config file every once in a while without needing to consult a reference guide.

They don't seem to provide a source for that. It's probably fake, and also this post is frustratingly clickbaity for my tastes.

I've never used unity either, sounds like they used a property that means "variable time between frames" in a context that is expecting a constant.

Almost sounds like they were setting up a "thing happens faster if your CPU is faster" type of logical bug that the engine is at least preventing internally.

More that they're using the official IFPS PLUs instead of using the random numbers that this grocery store decided to use.

Bananas are standardized at PLU 4011, but this store has been using PLU 14 out of convenience to them at the expense of government agencies that need the correct numbers to approve purchases made with state-run welfare programs that restrict their use to specific produce items, like WIC.

Or with powers that uh...

Aren't good for anyone near and including them.

I've been contemplating sending a business rival a bottle of whiskey for proper capatilization on the word "FastLane" as well as strict adherence to correct PLU usage in the face of absurd custom store-level PLUs, 100% get it.

I apologize, because I was assuming and did delete the comment after checking myself. It was unfair to you for me to have done it that way.