The demo docs site says the feature is only available to 'Ultimate' members, while the linked page is ambiguous. Is it the case that Sidekick is only available for such Kagi members?
2,552 karma · joined November 8, 2013
I'd be curious if there is a study that has looked into the thresholds for different use cases at which spam account creation drops to negligible amounts and how much price vs anonymity vs difficulty factors into it.
Browsers have thankfully accommodated for such subjective preferences even without site theme choices though via reader modes and userstyles (whether browser or user-forced).
[1] https://twitter.com/Tyler_A_Harper/status/175542617047083841...
So I suppose for the users affected their connection is slower than pulling off the disc.
Side note but it was the original maintainer (zedeus) a few weeks back who declared 'Nitter is dead' in a Github issue.
Such spacial-based memory triggers I've also seen demonstrated by magician/skeptic Derren Brown, where recall of the participant is manipulated via location-based touch or gestures (both for remembering and forgetting things).
It's hard to imagine a company that size would name it so deliberately without realizing it would cause confusion in search engine results and such.
A good faith assumption would be they wanted to make Windows more familiar to users of both but it also means that Windows will get mentioned in more Linux results over time to disambiguate it.
The nreal glasses show that a more compact sunglasses form factor is possible, though it's not doing anything cutting-edge, lens or compute-wise.
Which given the lawyers' concerns in this article is curious the 180 they did.
Yeah it would be nice there were a way to limit the entire scope of an addon's permissions to a whitelist of domains. Chromium has a way of whitelisting domains an addon can run on[1] but I've assumed it doesn't affects the broader permissions you mention (general history, etc).
[1] Click 'Details' of the addon and switch the 'Allow this extension to read and change all your data on websites you visit' option to 'On specific sites' then add the sites to the whitelist.
- Virtually immediately following the Songtrader acquisition using the credit card checkout began giving 'security code mismatch' errors. This is a false positive and clicking the 'Complete purchase' button about a minute later is the workaround I've been using since. I'd never experienced the error in the years prior and this has been tried with multiple different cards.
- There's no longer a live ticker on the home page showing the latest track/album purchases around the world.
This obviously has some real positives for learning (if the responses could be accurate) since you're more likely to continue eagerly the less ashamed you are asking 'dumb' questions to more rapidly gain an understanding of something (anonymous accounts online similarly facilitate shame-free question asking).
I wonder though if it might be having an effect where people begin to prefer AI over humans since with real humans, whether online or IRL, there's no consistency of response—people could be cranky, disinterested in responding or criticize someone for even asking.
So the more one interacts with an ever-willing, ever-pleasant, non-judgemental, human-esque answer machine—even if it's hallucinating things—I could see how it could become more of a go-to and even a trust begin to grow from familiarity and its generally polite ability to listen.
I always like to mention that that Chromium currently allows saving to MTHML (a self-contained single HTML file, with attachments/images). In Vivaldi (Chromium based) the appropriate launch argument (`--save-page-as-mhtml`) is enabled by default.
Firefox used to support MHTML as well until 2017 via an addon. Now days on FF an alternative called SingleFile saves to a literally renamed zip, for a similar purpose.
There are particular search parameters that DDG changed the behavior of, including exclusion and double quoting, which are now, according to even their own docs, more a hint of the direction results should go rather than any explicit/literal command (ime these virtually never work, which was a motivation for documenting failures, and they actually removed them from their docs temporarily at one point earlier this year).
There's a power tools review/news site that returns zero hits for the actual domain when searching its name (which is the same as its .com address). While for some domains even searching using the `site:` parameter will give far fewer results when paired with a query than just searching the domain name + query sans the TLD (the router firmware site openwrt.org is among such).
It's a mess and reporting it hasn't any difference ime in the past 3 years. So I'd be reluctant to say irrelevant results are due to censorship unless there was more evidence.
Even if one wants a particular version for testing. Chromium doesn't do this ime. And this isn't to say it's a reason not to use FF but it is a counter-example to simply being able to dismiss something without it being annoying.
There are three sizes of Ultra HD (4K) Blu-Ray discs: BD-50, BD-66 and BD-100, with the latter two seeming the most common ime. Various releases, particularly if the run time isn't excessive, will encode them to fit on the less expensive, smaller capacity disc (IIRC BD-100 is harder to manufacture due to tolerances).
The other aspect is of course streaming/online digital encodes, which always optimize for filesize. One comparison of half a dozen 4K streaming services by a user on the enthusiast Blu-Ray.com forum found iTunes was about tied with the highest peak bitrate (~31Mbps), which is still only about 1080p Blu-Ray bitrate (Ultra HD Blu-Ray by comparison can be as high as 90Mbps).
What's ironic is when a film is released with the original grain very clearly intact, like Blade Runner: Final Cut, I've seen some comment their other family members have thought there was too much grain (tbf there are some very grain heavy—but lovely—scenes).
I think the effect of years of smartphones auto denoising all photos has contributed to some of this lack of pushback by non-enthusiasts.
Just a handful from one notes file:
- No percentage document scaling drop-down option, despite featuring some uncommonly used units for design work. Instead it's hidden as a non-discoverable feature where you enter a percentage in the pixel field and it auto-converts to that absolute pixel value in-situ...
- Re-opening a document doesn't restore the state of opened/closed groups in the layer panel
- Lack of keyboard navigation for UI dialogs
- Lack of smart objects equivalent (only workaround is placing pre-existing documents).
- Can't paste clipboard contents directly as mask. In PS this is trivial using quick masks and the way they handle masks in general. Brought up in topics as old as 8 years. Agreed with sibling that masking needs love.
- Up until v2 (afaict) there was no way to disable layer auto select for the move tool
- Default zoom when opening documents can't be set to 100%
- Only has binary layer lock option, rather than separate move/edit/etc locking
- Lack of blend/interpolation of vector paths feature (another old and popular requested feature Adobe has had for decades)
- Have experienced random crashes for simple actions (opening menus, preferences, pressing warp transform, dragging layers).
- Vector node editing takes a dive in speed after just a dozen paths in a single layer. Only workaround is using multiple paths instead.
The list goes on. That said Affinity is usable if you don't mind dozens of little things that have been ironed out and included for a long time in PS. And to be fair, it's very fairly priced as such.
For this to be true they'd either need their own trackers on every single website online (or be ingesting from those that do but at which point it's not Elsevier's tracking) or be have software/browser addon installed on the clients' system.
Only a small handful of companies have approached the near-ubiquity of webpage presence of the former that made cross-internet tracking a realistic scenario (see eg. past critique of Google/Facebook embeds) but afaict the only thing being interpreted here is a line in a privacy policy that is very likely being misinterpreted.
Certainly the report doesn't make any claim about ubiquitous internet tracking in its key findings summaries. Contrast that to how Fight for the Future has run with it:
> Elsevier tracks more than what books someone reads—it surveils readers’ search and browsing history across the whole web, collects their locations, and builds profiles based on inferences from this data.
Am I missing something where it goes from reading Elsevier's books and using their site to making the leap to internet-wide surveillance?
From skimming through the SPARC report they cite it seems various findings are based on privacy policy language, one of which states that 'browsing history', 'search history' and 'interactions with our and other websites' may be collected, though this reads like it may just involve their own sites' analytics with only the latter involving other sites (which could be just outlinks but is unclear).
While the rest of the report seems to just cover some overviews of their own cookies and open-ended concerns about third-party scripts (which include general CDNs and their own analytics hosted by third-parties).
This led to mass negative reviews and refunds and calls of it being a scam, which the company denied.