Same, really love them, as you can wear them for hours and they cause no pressure or uncomfort. ANC is great too. I use them for work.

Depends what device you run, but Xournal++ is useful. Otherwise pdftk.

Reading this wholesome exchange, today I’m going to fight back extra hard against all the bullshit and act better.

Thank you both for reminding us.

It’s my daily driver. It has incredible compatibility and very nice features, for example the rule based filter actions, header matching, which immensely boosts my workflow efficiency. Not to mention the calendars and tasks integration and the great extensibility via the plugin system.

Thunderbird is a great example of community driven awesomeness.

Damn, finally got me to donate to Wikipedia. Years of successful ignorance down the drain - fucking thanks Elon. GUH

I’ve been burnt by my unix arrogance enough times

Same here, haha. As long as you stay away from ideas like “compiling your kernel from scratch” you’ll be fine.

Look up which distros come with drivers/documentation for your hardware (different for many MacBook versions) especially the WiFi/Bluetooth chipset.

Don’t try anything fancy, unless you have a surplus of life energy and time to waste.

2010 MacBook Pro, still runs Arch with ease (back when I set it up I had more time than I do now, would go with a less DIY-ish distro nowadays, probably something Debian based)

The only chore was to get the RTC alarm wake up working, which was a bit hacky.

1.2e-10 to 1.3e-10 range

While true, that’s not the message here. While chromium is in a lot of things, browsers for everyday use (like banking etc.) is a huge part. You can’t control what services you rely on use as a basis for their software, but you can absolutely not use the software and/or opt for the website instead.

If you can reduce your exposure to that vulnerability by a large fraction by simply switching browsers with equivalent experience, it should absolutely be mentioned. In fact, it could even be seen as an obligation/core purpose of news outlets.

Yeah, I think that’s straight up illegal and I would simply refuse to pay.

If they can retroactively change terms, why can’t I, as a bonafide counterparty in that agreement? Maybe something like a 100% discount on runtime fees for days that end with ‘y’.

Otherwise I could simply “retroactively apply” a 100% discount on my lease or new car purchase.

The correct answer and what all studios/devs should do: tell them to retroactively pound sand and ditch Unity for all future projects.

cutting people off from important information just because they live in a geographical region that doesn’t allow secret malware.

I think most disagree with your argument, that you need to tolerate ‘secret malware’ to access important information. That information can’t be THAT important or else it could be found elsewhere, completely without malware.

That idea has all kinds of problems. There’s a substantial amount of investment in education necessary and even then, immigration still doesn’t counteract population ageing/shrinking. If you can read or have any well developed skill, you have no business falling victim to fake fears like this.

Mhhhh…

^beans

Get 'vanced lmao

No testing a server side http-to-https upgrade/redirect without reconfiguring your browser. This seems like an unnecessary and bad idea.

This could be easily done better by promoting such server-side configurations as a default.

I mean, why should the browser attempt to correct inappropriately configured servers? Shouldn’t they rather be making PRs to NGINX/Apache/CAs or whatever?

Also: can’t this be exploited to spoof an unavailable HTTPS and coerce an unencrypted connection?

Imagine you want to test your redirect from 80 to 443 when setting up your webserver.

While I think for the normal user this enhances security by defaulting to HTTPS, however this makes no sense for a browser. This should be enforced server side, the browser is for browsing, i.e. viewing. Not controlling and competing with the server software for competency.

Chromium is really leaning into bad code practice with the disregard for “separation of concerns”.

That just makes it worse and totally deserved.

“You had one fucking job!”

Fine by me. Nice and cozy 🤗

This is true. However, I don’t see this happening as the website/browser isn’t really the problem with online banking, it’s more often the user.

On another note, how about no access at all, because this is a freaking huge attack surface for (D)DOS. Imagine you just invalidate signatures of all traffic to and from an attestation service. You could almost stop countries from functioning. That’s a serious vulnerability which we can easily do without.