kubik369

> i read third party epubs on kindle all the time.

No, you do not. Kindle has never and, as far as I am aware, to this day, does not support epubs. The only way to read epubs on your Kindle is to convert them either by Amazon's Send to Kindle service or through software like Calibre.

I might be able to help you with that. Whilst holding Meta (Windows key), try left and right-click-dragging on a window. Left-click-drag moves the window, right-click-drag resizes it. Great feature imo, for me, this flow solves any resizing issues.

There is more nuance to this. Let me give you a better example that actually happens — SSDs. Manufacturer will tell you some miniscule amount of specifications, such as that the drive reads and writes some amount of MB/s. That's basically the only spec you get. Reviewers review this drive. It is a really good drive, dedicated controller, MLC/TLC flash, all the good stuff. It gets raving reviews. Some months after this, during which the drives have been selling like hot-cakes and have been recommended everywhere, the manufacturer swaps parts, without creating a new SKU/model. Some examples are swapping TLC flash for QLC flash, making the SSD DRAMless when it had a dedicated RAM before and such, all negatively affecting the performance in some way. After the changes, you can still read/write with the advertised speeds, but only for 10GB instead of indefinitely or the drive has much worse latency or what have you, you basically got bait-and-switched and bought an inferior product to what was expected. The question is, is this ok? I think it is not ok, even though the manufacturer technically did not promise all the seemingly undocumented stuff (although one could argue that it has been documented by the reviewers).

Uuh, I am not sure. I believe that he was talking about having full disk encryption which means that he needs to input the password to unlock the boot partition.

That's a valid point. I feel for you. Similar thing has happened to a friend because of his dorm roommate torrenting some ... not linux isos illegal stuff.

With that said, I still find this risk quite unlikely to happen (at least in my country) with data loss due to being unable to decrypt the drive being more likely due to me changing computers often. If I were in a country such as the current U.S. for instance, I would most probably encrypt everything I could get my hands on. In addition, I think it is one more reason to have good offsite backups and to invest time into those. For me, losing the data/not having access to it for a long time while the police have it is a bigger impact than them finding out what porn I watch in my opinion. I don't mean it in a "nothing to hide" kind of way, but in a "I don't think they could do much any/damage with that information" way.

Agreed, I have personally come to the same conclusion. I do not encrypt the drives in my home desktops and servers so that the recovery/migration is easier when the time comes. The risk of someone stealing my desktops from my home is very low and the impact of someone going through my family photos or Linux ISOs is nothing. I roll my eyes at my friend when he explains the solutions for how to input the encryption password when his server restarts.

At the time of writing, there are already other replies to this comment how "it's mandatory today to encrypt drives" without any qualifiers. I am growing more and more frustrated by people who try to force security measures like this "because it is more secure that way" without first taking a look at the risks, impacts and associated costs. I think they simply force these security measures on others to feel good about their choices.

It was a breath of fresh reasonability when I found out that apt intentionally uses only HTTP instead of blanket HTTPS everywhere because the packages are signed, therefore they can be verified by the client, and using HTTP allows easier caching with cache proxies and such.

The chat interface has the disclaimer "AI responses may include mistakes." and that appears to be enough to relieve them of any responsibility for the responses. In a similar manner, wouldn't it be enough to add a disclaimer that says "AI responses may include sponsored content."?

It is not very encouraging that most of the marketing materials on the website show the Googlebook having filleted (rounded) edges similar to Macbook Neo, but the video shows the laptop having a bevelled profile similar to framework 13. Seems like a hastily put together attempt at a response to the acclaimed Macbook Neo. Literally zero information on the page apart from the "fall" release window.

Both can be right, unfortunately. People do not report stuff, but when they do, it tends to get ignored. I have personally stopped reporting feedback to Apple because my tens of bug reports with detailed reproduction steps were simply ignored. This was both on beta and stable releases. One of them was especially egregious — I had an M1 Macbook Air at work and 11.2 update made charging with any dock, USB-C or Thunderbolt, not work, i.e. everything was working, but the laptop was not charging. I had to plug in a separate charger for 3 months until they fixed it in either 11.3 or 11.4. Rolling back did not work because the update updated the controller firmware. There was no mention of this in the release notes.

Apple's "It just works." sometimes gets in the way by obscuring details. Simple example, Airdrop. You share a file, select the person, and it gets stuck displaying sending on the bubble. What is happening? No one knows, because it should "just work". But when it doesn't, you usually have literally no recourse and you are told to wipe your device and try again. From GP's example, the synchronisation. I don't know about iMessage, but synchronising Photos is a nightmare because there is no button to force a sync. You have to connect your phone to power and pray that it will sync. If it doesn't, you have no way to force it. Same thing with AirPods firmware, how do you update it? You don't, it should happen automagically. It didn't? Sucks to suck. You hopefully get the idea by this point :)

I think this practice is rather blatantly what you say. The same thing with HDMI forum folding HDMI 2.0 into HDMI 2.1. They made the new 2.1 features optional, therefore manufacturers were able to call their 2.0 devices 2.1 without actually supporting the 2.1 features. AMD has been recently doing similar things, releasing “new” generation of mobile processors where half of them are just rebrands of the older generation.

1. Yes, you hit the nail on the head. It basically requires people to be more cognisant of this. However, I think telling people to break stuff out into intermediary variables is much easier to argue for than whether the function is getting a bit too long.

2. Yes, easy filterings usually don't need to be broken down/named, but it really depends. At the very least, if the culture is to name intermediary values, you might accidentally get useful information from the variable names even if people weren't diligently writing explanatory why comments.

3. This isn't Kotlin related, it is just that if you do not have a language/codebase with branded types (or some type system property I don't know the name of), the type system might only infer the base primitives of the result, ending up with stuff like the type I mentioned.

I whole-heartedly sympathise with the problem author is trying to describe. He does not introduce it very well, but if you read through the whole thing, you should be able to get the gist of it.

For me, the problems with chaining from the point of mostly maintaining existing software are:

1. Harder to impossible to reason about.

As the author alludes to, 1-2 chains are fine, but it starts getting impossible when you get into a territory where you have a longer chain which has a deeper call tree. This happens over time where you start with a smaller chain and people start lengthening it, adding helper functions which grow into large call trees, etc. This makes it so that you have sort of a blackbox pipeline that is, at the very least, annoying and time-consuming to inspect.

2. Harder to debug

Author tries to mention this but he seems to fail/stop short of pointing out what is wrong with the example he provides. For me, I work with Kotlin. In Kotlin, you cannot put a breakpoint in the middle of the chain! As far as I know, you can only put a breakpoint inside of the chained function calls and do step-into/step-over and such, but you cannot put a breakpoint in-between chain function calls. This means that debugger is basically useless if your codebase looks as described in my previous point. The solution is to write a bit more code at the start, naming each variable. This makes it much easier to debug the code/logic (because you can put a breakpoint on the specific variable/step you are interested in) and, more importantly, to understand, because you explain the steps with the variable names and optionally also with comments.

3. Related problem - return chaining

Another issue I have in codebases I inherited is what I would describe as return chaining. It is what happens when you have code which returns a function call and the called function does the same thing and so on and so on. Minimalistic example:

  foo() {
     return x
        .map()
  }


  baz() {
     return foo()
        .map()
  }

  fbaz() {
      return baz()
        .map()
  }

This way, there is usually no good place to inspect the values and it is hard to reason about what even is the return type/value. Yes, the type system can take it, but good luck figuring out what is Map<Map<String,String>,List<String>>. Do this instead even though it looks "less clean"/uses a supposedly useless variable:

  foo() {
     const helpfulName = x.map()
     
     return helpfulName
  }


  baz() {
     const anotherHelpfulName = foo.map()
     
     return anotherHelpfulName
  }

  fbaz() {
      const superHelpfulName = baz.map()
      
      return superHelpfulName
  }

In summary: please, for the love of all that is holy, resist the urge to write function chains, always store meaningful intermediary values in named variables with "why" comments in relevant places and do so especially with return values.