carpenecopinum

And this is probably going to get even worse the more automatic classification is used to promote or silence content.

A pretty interesting result of this is what I'd call "TikTok speak", where words are replaced, either by similar sounding ones ("porn" => "corn", often times just the corn emoji) or by neologisms ("to kill" => "to unalive"), in the hope of getting around the filters.

This turns natural language on the internet into even more of a moving target than it already used to be.

I would love to give you a "just do X" solution for it, but when I tried it roughly 5 minutes before writing my original comment, it worked without any issues (on a somewhat up-to-date Arch Linux). Everybody in the call could hear me, see my webcam and look at my screen share.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you to get it working, though.

> Obviously it's more fun for people to assume it's been done on purpose & bash MS

I mean, it definitely is, but you also have to admit that it's very in-character for Microsoft to intentionally break stuff, just to push their own software.

MS Teams, for example, will pretend that Video calls aren't possible to do on Firefox. Until you use a tool like User-Agent-Switcher to set the user-agent to MS Edge and you find out that video calls and screen sharing work flawlessly.

Chrome works as well. With their browser essentially being a reskinned version of it, I guess even they considered it to be too unbelievable if they claimed that video calls couldn't be done in it.

I can't wrap my head around how the printer market has turned into this absolutely dispicable, foul state that it is in right now.

Decades of innovation that have been invested, not to make a better product, but mostly on how to extract more and more money from their victims, I mean "customers".

I would like to own a printer again, but for printing something like once a month, I just can't financially justify spending several hundred bucks on a device that might, at the whim of the manufacturer, decide that the way I'm using it is not okay anymore, is probably designed to break after two years, requires me to sign up for a subscription service for ink, or whatever BS else the decision makers in this space come up with.

I've been using Next.js (with typescript) a lot and API routes always felt slightly wrong to me, since matching the types involved in the requests between client and server is always mostly manual and thus error-prone.

I found myself thinking "Too bad Next.js does API handling itself, so I won't be able to use this tool easily", but then I saw that they already took care of that: https://gravity.digitak.dev/docs/frameworks/next .

So I might actually end up using this. Thanks for sharing it here!

It's cool that they managed to make the device work for them.

But on the other hand, I think it should not be the job of the consumer to "fix" shitty design choices. If we accept devices that are borderline defective by design instead of sending them back to where they came from, what we'll end up with are more devices that are similarly broken for the sake saving a few cents.

The only way we can truly fix bad design choices is by making them unprofitable for the manufacturers.

Until before the second to last paragraph, I'm fully with you on this idea. Especially when using the bike it's very frustrating that there is no (ideally low-friction) way to report people parking on bike lanes.

But I think that something like the 30% kick-back will result in a massive increase of people who will somehow construct issues artificially, just to make more money. IMHO it should be plenty to just provide a simple way to report actual annoyances.

From the perspective of user with slightly advanced knowledge of tech, I totally understand your reasoning and agree. Never knowing what devices will be able to work together in an efficient manner kinda drives me nuts thinking about USB-C.

On the other hand though, from the perspective of a person who just buys and uses tech without thinking too much about it, USB-C is actually kind of great. The device will work perfectly with the included peripherals (unless the manufacturer screwed up massively) and whenever I connect things differently, I'll at least get some use out of it. In a pinch, I can charge my phone on my laptop charger, my laptop on the charger for my wireless headphones and my wireless headphones on the charger for my phone. Neither of them charge as quickly as if they were attached to their original chargers, because they all have incompatible fast charging protocols, but it still works.

Often times, yes, but it still depends on the human.

I've been in a situation before where an outsourced human decided the right course of action was to insult me and scream at me for an open-ended question along the lines of "I need X, (how) can your company help me with that?", which they apparently perceived to be extremely stupid. Needless to say, I decided not to continue doing business with that company.

I feel like even a robot could've handled that situation better (especially from the perspective of the company, me not getting an answer at all would've probably been the more favorable outcome).

That typo/misread (Schroeder instead of Schrödinger) honestly almost causes it to make more sense to me. Because I don't really see how those tests relate to quantum mechanics. Instead comparing those tests to a chancellor of the local labor party that was expected to help the situation of workers in the country, but essentially only used the office as a stepping stone to become a russian oligarch, making situation even worse in the process, makes plenty of sense to me...

While I do have a soft spot for this kind of low-level optimizations, I wonder how relevant it will end up in the real world.

The 16% reduction in runtime only occurs because the runtime of the program is completely dominated by the call-overhead of the function (which would usually be prevented by inlining). Polymorphism, on the other hand, makes inlining harder, so it could be relevant for programs with interfaces that have one-liner implementations. Though Go could even overcome that, as all implementations of an interface are "seen" by the compiler.

In any case, this feature could be used to reduce the aggressiveness of inlining moderately small functions, giving us (marginally) smaller binary sizes and (maybe?) reduced compile times...

For that reason, the usual trick is to use asymmetric encryption to protect a symmetric key (a fresh one per payload) that is then used for the actual payload. That way you get the speed of symmetric encryption with the benefits of asymmetric ones. (Though evidently that's not what the PS5 uses here, otherwise it would be useless to read out one symmetric key).

If a language feature being weird is enough to declare that you're "done with it", you won't have too many languages to work with in the end. Maybe some LISP, I guess?

You don't become a good craftsman by rejecting every tool that isn't perfect. You become one by knowing your tools and their flaws and strengths well.

I really appreciate the detail on the "Remaining bits" part. I like the minimalism/simplicity of i3 and the philosophy of doing a few things well, rather than everything a bit, but it also makes it hard sometimes to know what pieces of the puzzle one's still missing. Especially since it's a puzzle with no unique solution, so I find it really valuable to learn of an additional perspective.