The problem is that only your heaviest users are going to pay to remove the ads, so it doesn't make sense to price the subscription at any sort of average user. You need to slide the price point way up the distribution just to break even.
Oof, that is really not a good look. This should have been clearly disclosed and probably with a per-notification for the patch release.
I doubt Gaussian blur is an accurate model of real-world situations.
At the end of the day if you are worried about the codes being painted over print a few out and paint over them. Then scan with a variety of scanners.
If I had to come up with some more digital tests I would guess that a few of these are more representative of real-world situations:
- Lower contrast. For example lighten or darken the whole code. This would simulate things like scanning in low light or with glare.
- Block out sections of the code. This will test error correction levels and simulate partial damage or pockets of extreme glare.
- Skew the code in various ways. This simulates the perspective shift of people scanning the code from an angle.
Ideally combine them in a bunch of scenarios then try to scan with a variety of scanner implementations.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
It also supports iOS.
You seem to be making this very complex. But it really isn't. Yes, git doesn't track renames. So you are working around it by splitting your operation into 2 commits.
- A pure rename.
- A file change.
This way 1 is always considered a rename and 2 is just a regular file change with the same path. You may also consider tweaking the default rename detection threshold with flags like
--find-renamesor options likediff.renameLimit.Would it be nice if Git tracked renames? Probably. But that isn't how the data model works so it is unlikely to happen soon. But maybe they could add some metadata.
I think it doesn't really make sense. Because you can't "squash" one commit. squash is taking multiple commits and making them one.
When you do a "squash merge" you are really saying "squash all the commits that are on this branch and not the target" then merge.
So you can't "squash a merge commit" you need at least one additional commit to squash in.
I feel like this is getting at something interesting and revealing but I am not convinced by what it says.
"There is no limit to the type of WhatsApp message that can be viewed by Meta," the agent wrote in the email. He added that "Meta can and does view and store all the text messages, photographs, audio and video recordings" in an unencrypted format.
I highly doubt this is true. This is because there are third party clients such as https://github.com/mautrix/whatsapp that send E2EE encrypted messages on WhatsApp. If literally all messages where available in an unencrypted format it would mean one of the following things.
- The E2EE protocol is broken and Meta knows the "crack".
- That official client does a completely different protocol which uploads all messages in addition to doing the E2EE protocol.
Security are also reverse-engineering the official client. So if it was regularly doing this I would assume someone has noticed.
What I suspect is happening is that some features in the client (like Meta AI) are very easy to frequently activate and upload a large amount of messages when Facebook then archives. It would be quite likely that the average user is using these frequently. This could reasonably result in the vast majority of messages being available to Facebook.
But I think if the reports are exaggerated it doesn't help sell the case.
Of course, but because the law is so protective you won't need to 99.9% of the time. Canada also isn't a very litigious place and even if it does get raised it will probably get thrown out quickly. To most doctors it is also a huge stressors to watch someone that they can help die. So overall the balance is well worth trying to help out.
Of course it can only surely be decided in a court. But in this case it would be something like was not actively trying to cause harm.
In Canada all provinces have some form of Good Samaritan law which means that you aren't responsible other than gross negligence. So any off-duty doctor would be very safe to help out unless they were doing something very stupid.
They are legal if you follow the regulations. The problem with the "rideshare" companies is that they don't. We should just call them "unregulated taxis" rather than pretending that they are a different service. I think just about every taxi company these days is on some app or another (often the same that call unregulated cabs in countries that actually got their shit together and banned the unregulated ones).
Nah it's worse. Bitcoin actually has legitimate uses. (Yes, they are a minority of actual usage, but they exist.) NFTs are only useful for speculation, gambling and money laundering.
"Rideshare" is also the least accurate term used to dodge regulations. It is just a taxi/cab. You are paying someone to get you from one place to another. They aren't sharing their ride, they were never going where you are going before you told them to.
- JumpRemoved
Make Amazon Pay
While Amazon is awful it isn't just them. It is a systematic issue with our economic system. Our society constantly makes efforts to keep the poor poor so that they are forced to work for low pay resulting in a cycle of abuse. Basically every public company will end up in the same situation and we see that with every large company. If a large public company isn't shit the CEO will be fired by the shareholders and replaced with one who makes the company shit.
So yes, avoid Amazon, but also talk to your government representatives. The cycle will always continue until the incentives are changed. To properly exit this shit system we need to change our society and government.
I guess it depends how you look at it. From my point of view the speaker isn't actually talking about themselves. That is the "royal" part. And I mean she does say "as if" to back up that yes, she is not actually including herself.
I use https://difftastic.wilfred.me.uk/ which is well, fantastic. I have it set up as the default diff for Git and it is really nice.
No, this is the right meaning royal we. If you say "we are going into battle" it is talking about the person being talked to not the person talking. So in this case "We don't eat that" would be implying that the cat doesn't eat that, not actually saying anything about the speaker even though "we" would imply they are included.
I hear what you are saying. But our society is pretty fucked up if you "deserve" something bad because you bought a product without imaging how the manufacturer can make it worse in the future.
The owners should be able to return the product if something like this happens, no matter how long ago they bought it.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
- JumpRemoved
Make Amazon Pay
It's not really though. They just used the screen from the pregnancy test and replaced all of the other hardware.