1,674 karma · joined July 23, 2013
> The project group was launched and introduced by Amazon, Apple, Google, Comcast and the Zigbee Alliance, now Connectivity Standards Alliance (CSA).
I'm having a real hard time believing that anything user-beneficial will come of this, unless you're willing to sell out your smarthome and privacy to big tech.
You may want to check out Snapcast. I use it to distribute audio to 6 clients on diverse hardware (several Raspberry Pis, a Windows PC, a Linux PC) and it handles synchronized playback very well, after tweaking the latency offsets for each device (once).
https://github.com/badaix/snapcast
(Edit: Ok, Snapcast doesn't get rid of the delay. But it does keep the players in sync, if you can tolerate some delay between source and speakers.)
Meanwhile, library developers didn't realize app devs would be feeding untrusted strings to their library.
I guess its debatable who's more at fault. I'd argue a logging library that executes the log entries as code is a hell of a footgun.
(Not a Java dev. Maybe log4j had obvious warnings on the tin? If nothing else, there is a UX lesson here.)
about:config
dom.event.clipboardevents.enabled = false> Some airports with international gates have two or even three bridges for larger aircraft with multiple entrances. In theory, this allows for faster disembarking of larger aircraft, though it is quite common, especially on aircraft such as Boeing 747s and Boeing 777s, to use one bridge for only passengers in first class and/or business class, while the other bridge is for the use of passengers in economy class. In some designs, the second jet bridge would even extend over the aircraft wing, being suspended from an overhead structure. This was, for example, originally adopted for most wide body gates at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. The Airbus A380 is unique in that both of its two passenger decks have outside access doors and so using loading bridges for each deck is possible, having the advantage of faster aircraft loading (in parallel).
Actually, now that I've think of it, I'm not sure I've ever seen the "large-screen credit card terminal with order entry" version in real life.
Having recently bought (and returned) the flagship Roomba, I struggle to see the difference between those two.
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking...
> EPA has established the health advisory levels at 70 parts per trillion
> What's a health advisory?
> ... health advisories are non-enforceable and non-regulatory ...
Would it be so expensive to have two intakes?
But does that mean it's unreasonable to require companies to do it? We already force plenty of engineering with regulation (GDPR, HIPAA, FERPA, PCI-DSS, SOX) because these are things society wants, even if the company would rather not.
Also, maybe the proprietary format doesn't need to work forever. Just add a disclaimer that it's only guaranteed for, say, 1 year? Or just "best effort"? All the file does is give the customer an incentive to return to Prezi later on. It would be in their own best interest to support this, if they weren't allowed to sidestep the whole issue by making it difficult to leave in the first place.
There's a lot of options of varying difficulty. But they already have code to produce PDF, and dumping some proprietary lossless representation of their internal format doesn't seem unreasonably difficult. If they're shy about their secret sauce, fine, encrypt that second copy. It's only for the case that this user wants to come back to the service later on.
I can imagine plenty of business reasons not to do this, but very few technical ones.
> If the first server, the one that is better in literally every way, costs ~16k/year... how much should the other one cost? Well, maybe 10, maybe 12, maybe 14?
> I don't know, but the answer certainly shouldn't be "Almost twice as much at 26k/year", that's the kind of answer that indicates something is broken.
> In a worst-case scenario, AWS is ~1.6x times as expensive, but again, that's paid yearly. If we compare paid monthly to paid hourly (not exactly fair) we get 37k vs 16k, if we do some napkin math calculations for equivalent storage cost (with equivalent speed via guaranteed iops) we easily get to ~3k/year extra. We have a 40k vs 16k difference, the AWS machine with the worst specs is 250% more expensive.
> But whether the worst AWS machine is 160% or 250% as expensive as the OVH one is not the relevant question here, the question is why are we seeing those astronomical differences in terms of cost to being with.
Let's be real, there's no benefit to involving the private/public setting here other than making the service more sticky / difficult to leave.
And, if your mail client’s UI allows, you can even send from <whatever>@yourdoma.in to avoid disclosing your “real” address when you reply.
My favorite use-case: you sign up for foo.com with foo@yourdomain.com. Then foo sells their contact database, and now you’re getting viagra spam all day. Ok, just add a filter to auto-trash anything addressed to foo@, and the problem is solved.
Also, Apple‘s streaming services being ever more annoyingly shoved in your face on menu screens.
Sounds like a job for a lawyer. Not that it will be cheap, but I’d guess neither is water damage?
Or just, you know, good old search engine optimization. I'd assume this is widely done in marketing/PR.