arbus5672

I started on a RM2 and upgraded to a Pro when it came out.

I knew going in that it was not going to live up to the hype of the marketing around changing your life. But it has proven to be a very useful addition to work where the screen sharing enables me to have a shared whiteboard remotely that I can actually scribble on. The reading experience is also good with a decent sized screen. Being able to annotate books without feeling like you are desecrating a real book is a game changer.

To anyone from the Remarkable team is reading this: for a device priced at a premium, there sure are lots of corners that feel like they were cut.

1. Would it really have killed you to put a faster SoC on the device? Pressing the wake button to the screen responding can sometimes be 5 seconds. Opening a large PDF can take upwards of 30 seconds.

2. The backlight controls seem to be detached from real life use. The maximum setting produces enough light to be readable in a semi-low light environment(think dusk), but even one notch lower than that is useless. What is the point of having 5 levels of brightness if I only ever get to use 5 or 0

3. I would love to have palette controls. The display supports lots of color but all my writing tools only support 6 preset colors. There is a nice use case of them around paper games like variant Sudoku that require using color to keep track of the solve and having only a small preset color range is very limiting.

This laundry list only exists because the potential of this device is high. If none of these issues are fixed but they release a RMPro 2 with better battery like, I’d still buy it.

The specification of Elicitations begins with

> Servers MUST NOT use elicitation to request sensitive information

For any LLM based flows to gain enough trust by the general public to handle flows that involve money, esp large sums of money, we need the equivalent of “pad lock on my browser means I’m secure” level of something easy to understand and teach everyone to see.

A point to add here on the scoping. This makes sense in a B2C world but for the B2B contracts, our customers specifically check that our scope clause includes all software systems that they are contracting for plus all the support systems that help make it, including your security program etc.

Sure, happy to reach out if you add your email address here or on your profile

Maybe run this through one of the open university lectures available on YouTube and show what the results it produces look like?

This should give a clear idea of the quality of the output and an easy way to see before buying.

We have internal technical presentations at my company and this could be useful for those as well, not just for university students

Thanks for elaborating! This is definitely not ok, and the response beyond unacceptable.

I've been an active user for a couple of years now and have substantial amount of information stored in Roam. I guess I should have known better than to have sensitive data stored in someone else's servers without encryption.

Time to explore Obsidian and see what the migration path looks like.

Would you be open to providing some more details on this? Was this a private graph or a public graph?

Nitpick, the article claims that .com is the TLD of the US. The actual ccTLD of the US is .us. All ccTLDs are 2 characters in length.

It’s a torrent aggregator/search engine

I’m sure the airline can get a much sweeter deal if they show a high volume of rooms booked. Although the costs of an entire days worth of flights being cancelled because of a errant fire alarm seems like a high cost to pay, I’m sure they gamed the numbers out and it makes financial sense for them in the long run

This seems like a largely lost cause.

I appreciate that Apple has their privacy practices highlighted in a easy to read card so that developers don’t get to hide it in legalease and a click away in a privacy policy.

The next step would be to actually prompt users about this, in the same way that you would get a prompt confirming that if you would like to download a large app when on mobile data. “It looks like you are trying to install the app Threads which reads the following information about you. Are you sure you would like to proceed?”

This would be a natural progressing of the “Ask not to track” dialog that they implemented awhile ago

I’d like to thank Reddit for finally giving my back the time I needed in my day to get back to reading books…

What Reddit makes and what Reddit sells are both made by unpaid users of the platform. If a company that is this beholden to the goodwill of its users can manage to piss off such a significant chunk of its users and still survive, then I worry about the how much we can influence larger companies through protest. Y’know, these companies that are taking over an increasing proportion of our lives

There may be a bias of opinions here of people who otherwise are totally qualified for the job that they are applying for bemoaning all the hoops that they have to jump through to show that they are qualified.

I’d say about a good one in eight people who have passed the phone screen end up with shockingly dismal results in the technical screen. There really is a bimodal distribution of skill in the industry. The goal of these assessments isn’t to see how good folks are but to weed out those who are absolutely terrible.

I run the recruitment process for our small firm. Here is our process that has minimized frustrations like the link OP describes:

Every candidate that we are interested in from the resume pool gets a screening call from an engineer. If they pass it, they get the option of their technical test being take home or over interview.

If they do the take home version, we have a marking rubric for the features that we are looking for in a solution along with sample solutions at the different levels. Anyone who does the take home assessment gets feedback about their submission based on that rubric so that the feedback is consistent across the multiple interviewers.

In some cases, we also share our solution if the candidate had follow up questions on the feedback that was provided.