Luccus

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

Only data that is not stored cannot fall victim to attackers. It does not matter whether it is a 'nigerian prince', Microsoft or some agency. Even if you completly trust whatever entity with your data right now, they may become problematic in the future.

This is why a low profile is a crucial component of OPsec.

Recall is objectively stupid, even if Microsoft only had their users best interest in mind. And they don't.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Who's "they"?

If it's Urologists, like, those are the experts. If it's someone on Twitter, they don't matter. If it's women as a whole… oh, boy. Dude. If it's "the jews", OH. BOY. DUDE. HOW EVEN?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Me: Can I have (small template parser)?

Stackoverflow: No, we have (small template parser) at home.

Small template parser at home: Full-stack web framework

[–] [email protected] 30 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The innovation of DRM and Intels SGX extention is the reason no current-gen PC can play 4K Blurays in 4K.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

I don't get why you get so much downvotes, because it's not as obvious as people make it out to be and there are plenty of adapters. So it's a good question.

But yes. The 3.5mm jack had the thing companies say they are striving for: simplicity.

DACs are nice and everything but the phone can just decide to not connect properly. The DAC can decide it had enough of your phone. In either case you'd need to reconnect them. And that means unlocking your phone, because a secure phone will block streaming to 'unknown' USB-C devices, unless it's unlocked during the negotiation phase. And if your connectors have become wonky for whatever reason: Well, no music for you.

And then there's the issue where you have to have them at hand when you need them. In your car, on your person, while at work.

3.5mm is great because it actually "just works". One of the few things that can claim such thing.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Edit #2: ICE is a type of train in germany. I mistook "ICE cars" as meaning trains and was wondering how flying is supposed to be more efficient than trains. Hence my confusion.

OG comment (invalid, see Edit #2): Where are these numbers coming from?

I cannot find any source for the 3-4l/passenger/km claim. I cannot find any source for the claim that planes are more efficient. Nothing comes even near this claim.

https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/rail-and-waterborne-transport

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

Can you please provide a source?

Edit #1: I just want to add that my old combustion car (VW Up! / Seat Mii / Skoda Citigo) burned around 4.2l/100km. So I according to you, if I had another person with me, I'd beat both planes and trains with what stands uncontested as the most inefficient form of transport?