Like summer heat records, the past 3 protests have been the largest by percentage and by sheer population in US history.
GQP controls both the House and Senate, plus SCOTUS. And Republicans have been a monolithic bloc since Gingrich instituted a no-compromise policy. Even if Jeffries wasn't a waste of oxygen, there's not much more that could be done.
Oh. My. God. I thought you were just going to link a network dongle. "Yeah, I have a drawer of those". It never occurred to me that you could point it in the other direction.
I'm ordering a dozen. Okay, maybe 3. But still, those look amazing.
I have been using USB-C dongles like this for a hot minute now paired with a nice retractable travel cable. I have a couple of these, an HDMI male one, a DisplayPort male one - I can plug basically into any hotel TV or monitor in my travels and run a laptop, phone, whatever off of the cables in my bag for charging, data, or video.
Me too, I always have a dongle and an ethernet cable just in case but this removes the need for a cable (I always have 2+ usb-c cables). I've also just found something similar for HDMI, also removing the need to carry an HDMI cable. Trying to think of more things, not sure why I didn't think of searching for these before because I have made something similar for the console serial port connector for raspberry pi and Jetson boards.
ifconfig still probably works on Linux too but it's discouraged because, frankly, it sucks compared to ipconfig2. Most of macOS' CLI feels old and crusty. Which makes sense when you realize it's a fossilized niche BSD from the early 00's.
ifconfig(8) is meant for low level stuff. What Linux did was replace ifconfig with another low level (e.g. ipconfig2), which makes more sense there I suppose. But don't get the impression that ifconfig is the easiest way in macOS on the CLI, it's networksetup(8).
I would really disagree that opposing Trump hard enough is the reason. It’s probably the opposite, the entire party has become “oppose Trump” and has treated that like a platform instead of doing things actual voters want.
Well and leftist voters don't like neoliberals that seemingly sit around finding knew ways to jerk off corporations while pretending they are doing it for the working class.
I can dismiss/decline/silence popped up on my Pebble without breaking eye contact with the real life human I'm talking to.
In a car, I've handed my watch to my kids in the backseat so they can control music playback. There's no accidentally closing the media app because they fat fingered a stupid teeny tiny touchscreen. Nope. Just regular buttons that anyone with functioning hand-eye coordination can use.
And unlike the Garmin Instinct, the buttons are actually ergonomic. The Instinct was literally painful as you had to contort your hand. And on top of that, the UI was totally insane. I was never quite sure how to interact with it and frequently had to experiment to do basic actions. Nothing was consistent.
This is basically how solar hot water heaters work today (I have one). They are superheated during the day (75C/170F) with a mixing valve to produce warm, but not scalding, water to the tap. The tanks are also oversized with a backup electric heater for the top half of the tank.
It works pretty well for my climate. I wonder how it compares to PV panels driving an electric heater though. Neither is going to work very well during the winter but the hydronic based system probably needs to get above some base level of solar input to meaningfully heat the water. Whereas PV will always produce some electricity in the winter which can always be converted to heat.
> The only acceptable solution would be for apps and websites to simply include a recommended age. Allowing parents to configure their children’s devices to block services that require users to be older than the specified age or that do not provide an age rating.
I'm afraid you'd get the cookie banner problem but way worse. Everyone that's not Meta/Google/Apple would immediately add a legal CYA "18+" age rating and stop thinking any more about it.
That's how it should be. Make the Internet 18+ by default and sites targeted at younger audiences can add a more detailed rating. Let people configure their devices however they like it.
The whole problem with the regulation we have right now is that it assumes the Internet is for kids, and everything for adults must be hidden. When we really just should declare the whole Internet as 18+ and the sites for kids should be the specially marked exceptions.
Someone would complain that without ID verification kids would be able to sneak onto the regular Internet and therefore we should eliminate privacy on the regular Internet, just like they're doing now.
I never thought about that and I find it might actually be the right way for a solution... I was just looking into the Google Play Store now: in Brazil apps need to have an age rating, facebook and instagram for example are 16+, but browsers like firefox, chrome, etc are rated for 'all ages', even though you can access the whole internet through them. If we actually did what you said and inverted the logic: restrict everything to 18+ and specifically mark what is allowed to under-18s it would make parental controls much more effective.
So kids shouldn’t have access to sites like Wikipedia? Banning the internet is not the correct solution many kids depend on the internet to have access to education.
The argument could be made for banning social media but the whole internet I don’t think it’s the correct approach
If we had a "Safe for everyone" public internet and a locked down "Prove you are an adult" internet beside it, nothing prevents wikipedia from being on the Safe for Everyone internet.
Also, Encarta was a thing. Expensive though.
Some states would legislate wikipedia onto the "Adults only" web though because they don't like what it says about things like abortion and trans people.
A lot of ecommerce companies would probably be happy with a locked down adults only internet, because it would kick bot protection up a level, and would require a fairly robust solution to it.
Well... Wikipedia has content that some would consider offensive or unsuitable for children. I'm not in favor of limiting any access to Wikipedia, but I'd consider it a certainty that the day would come when Wikipedia had to decide whether to implement age restrictions or try to police content. I believe that event would change it's governance and social structure in a negative way and significantly degrade it as a public resource.
In the US, our content rating systems are absolutely as obtuse as "Nipple? R"
You traditionally can say one "Fuck" in a PG-13 movie, which will be about brutally displayed murder and violence and how awesome vigilante justice is. But if you have even a couple frames of a single (female, but like, that's its own insane can of worms) nipple, you cannot get lower than an R rating.
This is all well publicized, despite there not being public standards for the process, and the specific wording of the PG-13 advisory is "Some content may be unsuitable for children under 13", which is weird language to describe what actually happens in practice.
This is because the rating system is a weird club of "Parents of children in school" in los angeles. It's about as corruptible and sketchy as a system can get.
The ESRB is similar. Shooting lots of people? Well there's no blood so that can be for everyone. Oh, now you added some red particle effects? Sorry, now it's Mature.
GTA 3 had an M rating, but a person found that if you hacked the game and changed the code you could play a sex minigame. That caused the game to have an Adults Only rating. Even though it's not something you could do, see, or activate in game at all. And also the game already had functionality to have sex with a hooker and then murder them to get your money back.
It exists because the dumbest parents went apeshit over yet another fake controversy (Oh my god, D&D has demons!!!. OH MY GOD. This game about saving teenage girls from creatures in a crazy amount of costume who harm them with a 2 foot long grabby arm because the developers wanted to avoid unfortunate implications is JUST TOO SEXY FOR LITTLE TIMMY and we need to make congress bitch and moan about it for an entire week and ban anything that could ever be entertainment)
They are purposely arbitrary because their purpose is to make the crazy people who write letters to the FTC to arrest someone for daring to have a low cut shirt go the hell away. Those people have absurd and arbitrary triggers.
reply