Tangentially, Plan9 extends the notion of /dev/tty to something called the draw device. Meaning that a process can just map and use /dev/draw to provide graphics. Those graphics are rendered into the window of the process.
735 karma · joined December 22, 2011
I wonder why BioPerl (https://bioperl.org/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioPerl) has not been included, it would have been interesting. Perl is considered surprisingly fast for certain classes of tasks (for an interpreted language of course, no point in comparing to C for example).
My info could be outdated of course.
Been using FreeBSD for 20 years. If one's reason for using FreeBSD is that they dislike GNU/Linux, then something's very wrong from the start.
https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
See the last slide, combination with Azythromycin seems to help (they say). Azythromycin is the widely known Zithromax, less than 7€ to get a box of 500mg doses.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/canary-domain-use-appli...
Basically, make use-application-dns.net. return an error (any kind will do). Filter it in your recursor for example.
Having the browser change a fundamental behaviour that used to stand for decades is highly problematic. If nothing else, it is the network administrator who should have the final say on WHEN (if ever) DoH will get deployed inside their network.
Imagine my surprise when I cat'ed an .xpm file in 1996 and saw something that looked like C.
Definitely works and can help with focus very much, but don't know if it works equally well to types of personality different than mine.
That isn't to say that the article doesn't have a point though, far from it.
" This is certainly not an excuse for the clearly bad UI design the article describes for iOS, but unfortunately Apple is not the only one afflicted with that disease. The situation on Android is not exactly rosy either.
I get particularly aware of the serious UI problems when trying to use GPS navigation (waze, here, google maps) in a car. Buttons with various colours, contours and sizes, non-intuitive interactions where one has to swipe starting from various confined areas, annoying dialogs or confirmation screens appearing one after the other, sometimes even spontaneously. There is not even a modicum of consistency regarding the most basic elements, e.g. a yes-no question or a dismissible message.
I hate to say it, but the first iOS of 2016 was (and probably remains) a champion of elegant and consistent UI design. Today, it's almost as if the iOS and Android ecosystems are competing for who has the most unintuitive and confusing UI. "
I dare say there's bit of an irony in that assertion. 4 different operating systems, each of one of which uses a different init system. Pardon me, but that looks like the exact opposite of a monoculture.
Also, the rc system in FreeBSD could probably be ported with not too much effort into other operating systems, as it uses pure sh (not even bash). Surely, that cannot be considered monoculture. I would dare say that porting systemd into FreeBSD (or any of the other OSes you mentioned) should be more difficult.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
I get particularly aware of the serious UI problems when trying to use GPS navigation (waze, here, google maps) in a car. Buttons with various colours, contours and sizes, non-intuitive interactions where one has to swipe starting from various confined areas, annoying dialogs or confirmation screens appearing one after the other, sometimes even spontaneously. There is not even a modicum of consistency regarding the most basic elements, e.g. a yes-no question or a dismissible message.
I hate to say it, but the first iOS of 2016 was (and probably remains) a champion of elegant and consistent UI design. Today, it's almost as if the iOS and Android ecosystems are competing for who has the most unintuitive and confusing UI.
On the second part of your comment: I suspect some tech companies were given a while lot of leeway in many aspects by society at large, because it was generally believed that they would act in a more responsible way. Now, we come to the realization that maybe some of that leeway was misplaced.
There's another HN article in the frontpage today that basically floats the idea that Big Tech is a menace to Democracy itself. I think that's partly the explanation why people (and nations in general) are so suspicious of Libra.
But in that light, what France and Germany are doing makes sense too. At the end of the day, they too have the right to protect their collective interests, correct?
Or would you have them do something that goes against their interests so you would be able to protect your assets?
Surely propaganda existed long before Social Media.
Copying: When the last lead vehicle changed lanes—3 to 4 seconds before the crash—revealing the fire truck on the path of the Tesla, the system was unable to immediately detect the hazard and accelerated the Tesla toward the stationary truck. By the time the system detected the stationary vehicle and gave the driver a collision warning—0.49 second before impact —the collision was imminent and the warning was too late, particularly for an inattentive driver. The AEB system did not activate. Had the driver been attending to the driving task, he could have taken evasive action to avoid or mitigate the collision.
So there you have it: "particularly for an inattentive driver".
Not really an expert in the field, but I think a major problem with self-driving in general is handing over from an autopilot to a human. This is something that cannot be easily solved just by throwing smarter technology at the problem. Even if autopilot technology manages to be reliable 99.9% of the time, this won't be good enough, because people will invariably think they can rely on it 100% of the time and fall asleep or get distracted. So this 0.1% can be potentially catastrophic, because you cannot go from being asleep to full alertness in 0.5 seconds. Besides, even if one actually wants to maintain alertness, it may be harder to be alert and not doing anything than being alert and doing something (driving).
So, unless autopilots can really really handle anything thrown at them, this will be a real issue. Although there is much willingness for people to convince others and be convinced that this kind of autopilot is very close to being a reality, I suspect it may be not.