krick

You do you, but that is enough of a red flag to actually mention when somebody recommends Dynadot to everyone else without much elaboration.

Also, banks are really different from domain registrars in several important and relevant respects, but, for the record, I don't have to tell it to the banks I use, and if I did, I'd probably be looking for a bank that I don't have to tell it to.

It asks you to choose 4 (four!) "secret questions" as a "security" measure. I decided that keeping your domains with an organization that insists on idiotic practices that are firmly forbidden by every sensible security practices guide (OWASP, NIST 800-63, anything, really) since like 2015 is not a very wise choice.

There are in that very Reddit thread though.

Damn, that's a leet social security number.

Ok, so let's say you are an Orthodox Jew business owner. Can you let your goyim to continue making profit for you on Saturday, or "does that itself take away from the spirit and sanctity of the day" too? I don't see how it's different from the problem at hand.

More seriously, though, thinking about this pretty silly (in my view) question makes me want to talk to some Rabbis to clarify some things. AFAIK, the existence of free will is pretty fundamental to Judaism (unlike Islam or branches of Protestantism), and having pretty materialistic views on the question of free will myself (i.e. it doesn't exist, obviously), I struggle to imagine how the alternative views can survive contemplating if you can let your AI-agent run on Saturdays. I mean, I think I understand how, say, Orthodox Christians can keep these views today, but they don't really have such meticulous legal system built upon purely theological discussions. So, as an Orthodox Christian, even if you fully understand the implications (which, of course, most people don't, but that's besides the point) it isn't really a problem to consciously accept whatever beliefs about free will while still being very materialistic about most practical questions. But since my knowledge of Jewish theology is extremely limited, I have no idea if you even have to have some specific views about determinism for halakha to be self-consistent.

Probably even luminescent paint to be sure it can be seen in the dark. This is even more valuable than a sparkly gemstone, I suppose, that's almost magical!

I wonder what exactly these laws prohibit. Like, does it apply to a fully encrypted cold-copy on Amazon Glacier? If you don't store the encryption key outside of UAE, I'd say this isn't even the same data that gets transferred to the third party, it's just some random blob. But I have no idea if the authorities of that country would agree and if it's even actually enforced for that matter, or if it's one of those laws that actually cause problems only if you follow them.

That is actually surprising to me. Claims like that are pretty common, they make sense and they should be true, so even though I don't really know AWS (/Backblaze/Azure/whatever) redundancy planning in enough detail, I used to trust them. It's really worrying when they outright say it will be ok, and then a week later it turns out to be not ok.

That's very unpleasant to hear. It's sad to be reminded that Rust compiler is not magic and cannot just... do these things somehow. Sure, all abstractions do have some cost, but, man, 17% performance gain by virtue of replacing enum with this monstrosity? That's very annoying.

I shouldn't be surprised, given I saw plenty of nicely functioning legacy codebases, but still, somehow this isn't the news I was expecting to hear in 2026.

Obviously it's bad and we can all say "fuck Microsoft" once more, but "we" probably don't use Windows anyway, right? I have no idea, really, but if you willingly use closed-source spyware that is notorious (for AT LEAST 15 years) for all kinds of invasive telemetry it forces upon you, you probably wouldn't find this new piece of information concerning anyway.

And ironically, I think that this one is kinda fair. I mean, you specifically asked your software to generate whatever pseudo-random bytes it wishes to loosely based on some text prompt. It did that. Now, apparently, these pseudo-random bytes turn out to be personally identifiable. So what? I suppose they didn't claim their PRNG to be cryptography-grade. They could even make it seem like an accident, should they be bothered to. Make it way less obvious.

Now if it would insert watermarks on save (like printers do), that would be really outrageous. But when you trust software to produce "whatever", you probably shouldn't be really mad about it doing anything more than you asked to.

I still just use Greasemonkey. What is even the point of both successors on Firefox?

Clearly you have no idea how the head of EC is chosen. Because of the two only Trump was actually elected by the people.

Yep, that's right.

Actually, they do, sort of. At least, if you use GLSL shaders. I remember some demo project using it in a way that made it appear that the website "sees" another window with the same website, which blew my mind when I saw it first. Cannot recall the name or anything else to locate it.

Screenshots would be helpful, because (you may be surprised to learn that) it is not entirely obvious which mode of behavior is supposed to be "wrong".

Anyway, I wouldn't say it currently behaves nicely (like something I would like to reuse anywhere whatsoever). Tested on Firefox opening Bookmarks on the left. First off, there is this ugly flicker, as browser first renders the "wrong" version, then your JS "fixes" it. Second, there is some concurrency problem, as by opening and closing Bookmarks repeatedly I somehow managed to render both versions: centered to viewport and covered by sidebar.

And, yeah, as others have said, I also think that allowing sidebar to cover your webpage content is absolutely bogus and don't foresee myself wanting this behavior, ever. But that's up to you.

I don't understand what's the conclusion is. I was supposed to "disagree initially and be convinced by the end", but I ended up losing sight of what I was supposed to agree/disagree, and what should I've been convinced of.

It starts with the premise of "C/C++ have pretty fucked up type systems, and look how much nicer integer type names are in Rust" and also that we should use unsigned integers as the first approximation if we are trying to model ℕ. Was I supposed to disagree with that? It didn't seem like the author was arguing against them, and they seem like pretty trivial, obviously true statements.

Then it starts to talk about how we cannot properly use unsigned in C/C++, because it's fucked up, and it cannot be fixed properly because the proper handling of integers is too expensive. This all sounds sadly familiar and we are nodding and saying: "Well, such is life." But at least we still have Rust, that doesn't suffer from the same inherent UB curse, right? I mean, I'm not deep enough into the details of current compiler implementation, but I've got the impression that the described problems don't apply to Rust. All good then? (edit: obviously, except for the fact that we still allow wrapping in prod builds, because it's expensive not to. But we all knew this already.)

Then it follows up with some pretty contrived (IMO) example of how we cannot mindlessly swap int with uint (obviously? I mean, you basically explicitly check for `i == -1` in this example), framing is as "uint is unintuitve". Was it supposed to be a strawman? It surely is a strawman, but the author doesn't argue against it.

And then a couple more of statements to the support of Stroustrup's "just use signed" (in C/C++), which also don't seem to apply to (saner) Rusts choices.

And then it ends w/o a conclusion. So, what was the conclusion supposed to be, please? I really don't understand what the author tried to convey.

I'm only interested in how it treats multiline commands in bash. It's the only thing that the default history doesn't do consistently (unless you make it replace \n with ;, which is just unuable). Otherwise, fzf + history works just fine.

Aren't they? Pictures are quite small, but B50 is clearly a stork. B100 looks like some kind of heron maybe, not sure. B10 is a kingfisher, I suppose. I don't know, they look real enough to me.

Why, though? I'd much prefer not to carry any coins at all, ever since I gave up and stopped fighting the Big Brother (I applaud everyone who still does, but it just didn't seem like my struggle was productive). I mean, to think of it, coins never were very nice to use, I just wasn't bothered by it, because the volume of cash on me was quite significant anyway. Now it's not and I just don't carry any coins at all. Paper is so much nicer to handle. I still need to have some cash just in case, but I'd simply "forgive" any change below 1€ now. I don't feel rich enough to forgive everything below 5€ though.

Hope it's the birds. I suppose there's no way to vote or anything with the current level of technological advancement, and the final design will be chosen by professional choosers that are handsomely paid for their hard work?

Yeah, this is insufferable. The title was interesting enough to click, but I don't know what to make of the audience that actually perceives this as a good source of information.

Yes, they did, and many still do write it on the package, but it is, and always was a myth born God knows when out of precaution, because nobody really knows anything about how all this stuff really works now, and they did know even less than that 30 years ago. There never really was any evidence that you have to cycle it, and nobody (aside from the manufacturers) ever says it anymore. It makes about as much sense as cycling protein powder.

As for pills, yes, there is about every form of creatine supplement now, even chewing gum, but this is just dumb, how much of creatine do you think you can consume this way in a day?

I have no idea. Doesn't seem implausible to me. Apparently, ≈75% of the world population has internet access now. And if a person has internet access, is it that unlikely that he was successfully targeted by at least one of these idiotic marketing campaigns (turn your photo into a barbie doll or whatever)? 10% sounds plausible to me, more or less. So maybe not really literally a 1B, but doesn't need to be very far from the real numbers, IMO.

If you seriously have this question, read "War with the Newts". Really do, make it your priority this week. If you did and this is a rhetoric question... Well, I do hope that if every single person on the planet would have read "War with the Newts" and made the right conclusions, maybe there would be a chance to change the course. But that's only because I choose to believe in miracles, otherwise I wouldn't know how to live.

(TL;DR: we won't.)

Apparently this is totally legit marketing strategy now. It truly is, especially if there are enough people who think that shitting your pants is cool, and the people that form the "market" nowadays may have a very different idea from yours about what is cool. Their ideas about coolness are very different from mine, that's for sure.

Really considering Coros since Garmin introduced a subscription. It doesn't currently prevent me from using anything I want to use, it's just moving in the wrong direction, but I was annoyed by Garmin for a long time, and this is the last drop.

However, my understanding is that Coros just doesn't have an SDK. At all. So it's not really "lagging on features", it's a totally closed platform, that doesn't any have 3rd party apps at all, and will not have them, because it's impossible to write them. I don't know if it's enough of a reason to completely write them off as a competitor, but that does give me a pause. I mean, if I don't have a feature on Garmin, I can theoretically implement it myself, or even hope that somebody else did. If I don't have it on Coros, I will just have to make do.

> scary rebase -i commands that can leave your tree in a half-broken state if you so much as sneeze

Complete bullshit. Might as well say "scary screwdriver that can turn up in your recturm if you so much as sneeze". Sure, I believe that might have happened to you (heard stories from friends that work in the emergency room), but I run rebase -i 10 times during the time I work on each branch (literally: I don't even care to write "proper" commit messages while writing the code, will reorganize and clean them up later anyway), and it never happened to me.

Or even better just SET STRICT_TABLES, or whatever other opt-in feature you want. A couple of such statements in the beginning of your migration script (refactored in a way to be reused across all migration scripts) and you are done. I wouldn't want to learn WTF "2026.1 defaults" are.

FF just crashed immediately. Twice. Which kinda surprised me in a good way, because usually when it struggles for memory it just hangs there for a couple of minutes until it gets killed by the OS. Cannot remember it being killed that easily by another website.