So is it really okay if Google screws over other web browsers with Chrome-specific hacks
If by "chrome specific hacks" as used in this case, which actually means "valid html in an html page rendered perfectly fine by all browsers except edge" then yes, yes it is really ok.
You see, using HTML in a valid way, which all web browsers render fine, is called "doing the right thing"
Firefox can display youtube pages and accelerate them. WebKit in Safari can display youtube pages and accelerate them on OS X. I suspect WebKit on iOS can too else we would be hearing about it by now.
If using valid html breaks nothing except Edge, then I say Google did not break Edge, Microsoft broke Edge from the start by not making a web browser that understands HTML, yet continuing to mislabel that program as if it was a web browser.
Microsoft is just going to need to get used to the fact they will need to render HTML properly like everyone else does, and we will not be throwing in some ActiveX bullshit for them. Nor will we tolerate them blaming anyone but themselves that their "web browser" is uniquely incapable of rendering HTML or accelerating standards compliant video streams.
Agreed. I understand there's a Public Relations consideration in these announcements, but the real, final, inarguable milestone would be connected to the gravitational influence. It will have escaped the solar system when it's at a place where an object couldn't be held in orbit around the Sun. (How far away is that anyway?)
The suns gravitational influence ends at the outside edge of the heliosphere, which is about 100 AU from the sun. This is what most everyone labels as "the edge of the solar system"
The oort cloud starts about 10000 AU from the sun and is not under the suns influence in any way. It also kind of makes the anon parent post a bit silly. Any small or large value for 'solar system' will still be FAR closer to the sun than the oort cloud is.
Also keep in mind the oort cloud is insanely thick, starting just under 10000 AU and ending about 100000 AU away.
Alpha Centauri is two orders of magnitude closer to the outer most boundary of the oort cloud than our sun is. Any definition of our solar system that includes the oort cloud would also be including numerous other solar systems and stars, completely nullifying any reason for having such a definition in the first place.
One day such hack will redirect archive.ubuntu.org (or other) to a repository of hacked updates and millions of linux users will get massively hacked with no hope of cleaning up. As a linux user and admin I hope it won't happen, but I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.
This is why the software packages are digitally signed by a key pair that the OS verifies against its keystore.
Even if archive.ubuntu.org was hijacked and pointed to a web server setup to serve the same package files, the signature wouldn't match if so much as a single bit was changed in the package, and your OS wouldn't install it.
Hijacking DNS would give the attacker no access what so ever to the real archive.ubuntu.org or whatever machine has their HSM hardware plugged into it, and so no ability to sign packages.
It is entirely possible to encrypt content for both the public key of the receiver and the government, without introducing any flaw into the encryption itself.
Except the government isn't a single person, it is many people, many minds, many motivations. There is no way physically possible that every last single person that the government consist of will properly secure their key and not want to see it public. It's also so unlikely that you may as well say it's impossible for each and every last person in the government to protect that key with the level of protection needed, and also to never make any mistakes at all with that.
So rendering your claim through the reality parser, you have just said: It is entirely possible to encrypt content for both the public key of the receiver and for every human being in the world, without introducing any flaw into the encryption itself.
If every person in the world can decrypt it, under what basis exactly does that message deserve the label of "encrypted" in the first place?
A message that isn't encrypted, which is what you described, sounds like a pretty massive flaw in the method of encryption that failed its one task in life.
Us old timer geeks got sick and tired of pronouncing symbols by their proper names containing far too many syllables. So we made one-syllable and on occasion two-syllable nicknames for nearly all of them.
It prevents much stabbing and bloodshed on the rare occasions we had to speak with each other.
You can buy an atomic clock on a chip, such as the SA.45S from microsemi. A dev kit version with serial output runs just under a thousand bucks for quantities of one, and would give you a legit strata-0 time source.
It's not as accurate as this new atomic clock NIST has, this one will drift by 10^-11 seconds per day, but it's far far cheaper.
the app stores had the auto buy with card on file (needed even for free apps)
Wait what? When did they start requiring a CC for free apps? That's pretty bullshit, is it some new "age verification" thing?
I have three apple IDs setup within the first year or two when the app store first launched, and never linked a payment method to them. They were purely for free apps and to sync separate iTunes data to each device. I just checked my 3gs and can still sign in to the app store, but due to its 32-bit-ness I can't test getting a free app to see if it would force me to enter a card or not.
First: I run a site that provides 100% publicly available information in a totally read-only / user agnostic manner. There are no accounts, no sessions, etc.
Then you contradict that: I had to switch to HTTPS because of uninformed users thinking something was wrong with my site because of browser warnings.
Browsers only warn on non-ssl sites if you are submitting data back to them. Not a single one warns if you don't do that.
The terrifying part is you honestly believe your site actually doesn't require data being submitted back, when clearly it does.
You really *really* need to look your website over page by page and through the html files. They no longer contain what you think they do, they have been changed, and changed to require your visitors to submit form field data back to your server.
If you didn't set that up, your site has been hacked.
They are also sent via electronic data, but a shocking number of medical facilities still do everything by fax, and not because of anything having to do with the government.
Do you happen to know if that has changed? and if so, what the current reasoning is?
The reason the fax continued existence is blamed/credited to government is because signatures sent over fax are legally recognized as signatures by every government agency in the US. Similarly with actual paper signatures.
For some silly reason, a signature replicated and sent by any other means isn't always considered legally binding.
While most hospitals and doctors do now use electronic data for many things because.. well because it's better in almost every way. But when a signature is needed, they still send a fax or mail a paper, just to cover their ass legally in case the electronic version is ever questioned in court.
I'd imagine that it is simpler and easier on the back end systems to just always send a fax/mail copy than to bother keeping an up to date list of the few rare edge cases where all parties involved accept an electronic signature.
Is your work web-centric, or is it just that all of your reference materials are web-centric? (FWIW I work with actual desktop programs with very little web related work flows - only when I need to look up a specific vendors product from time to time etc)
I'm not the same person you replied to, but I follow a very close usage that just works best for me. Especially when researching something new, I both want to learn all of my options as well as be able to follow the breadcrumb trail back to a point if some options turn out dead ends.
Hundreds of tabs is not, to me, ever a persistent state of things, but a given project or idea may both be fairly long running (weeks to months) and I do tend to have more than one in progress at a time (for example, days to weeks for something for work, and perhaps months for something personal as time and interest allows)
Also worth noting on your original question, you may find plenty of other peoples use cases here, but that does not mean even a single one necessarily map to a use case for you. If you are looking possible improvements for yourself, well right on I hope for the best. But for anyone that's been around the block, you have very likely found the best flow for yourself already.
Different people just work different ways. There may be an idea here or there you can sprinkle into your way of doing it, but I doubt you'll find some amazingly different usage that will completely change how you go about things.
And what happens when your computer/browser/whatever crashes and burns? How do you easily recover if you don't have the bookmarks to the tabs all neatly stored away? Manually opening 100's of tabs would suck big time.
Most browsers recover tabs, including Chrome. This is not often a problem anymore. But similarly, most browsers only store the "last visited" date of a bookmark. If you are trying to find your way back to a point in time and there is more than one option, I've found opening even just 4-5 bookmarks to see if they were it, updates that timestamp and now I've totally lost my timeline of events for the next search!
Suddenly those 5 bookmarks jump forward to the date I check them with no record of them being in the middle of the others made. To me it seems like opening many hundreds of bookmarks, in the exact proper order, to update them to be again in chronological order, is far more useless work. I just conclude bookmarks don't work for me if I don't sort and categorize them, and I only feel that worthwhile to archive and keep the ones I intended to revisit. Tabs work better for me to keep things in order for a more immediate grouping of time - typically the very process that results in what pages and info I want to bookmark as archived results.
Searching through hundreds of tabs or just typing your search into a new one? I have a better idea. Why not reserve one tab (maybe the leftmost one) for searching open tabs?
The addon "List Opened Tabs" lets you do both. You can put its icon anywhere (mines on the right, but left works too), and lists out tab titles in full, and has a search box. I don't think it has a hotkey built in though.
Or better yet, don't keep dozens or hundreds of tabs open at once.
Soooo with the hardware going away... How will we connect usb controllers to a mobile app?
I haven't used the steam link mobile app replacement, however I have used moonlight which works with the NVidia streaming protocol for the same purpose.
Being at the video card level instead of the steam client level, you can stream anything on your pc to it. It's open source and cross platform as well.
The linux and windows versions of the client can stream back any input devices you plug into them. The Android/iOS clients use a crappy on-screen game pad, but you can turn that off and just pair a game pad directly to the computer you're streaming from, at least in the same home. I never tried using it over the Internet.
The last time I used it was to play fallout 4 on an ipad with a bluetooth controller from the living room, with my pc in the room almost directly above. ymmv
And the ability to make use of the console at all in areas where the best available Internet connection is slow and/or harshly capped
Pretty much. And to keep everything in context, that has been Microsoft's plan for the Xbox One since before its launch.
Many have forgotten, but the E3 prior to the consoles release, it was going to require "always on" internet connectivity to even launch a single player game, let alone actually need the network for anything. They were also going to put unique keys in with discs for use in locking a game to your hardware and prevent reselling. A used game without an unused key would be useless, and require the purchase of a new key at full retail price (on top of whatever you paid for that used plastic disc)
Xbox chief Don Mattrick offered up his own thoughts on the Xbox One online requirement ahead of Microsoft's E3 keynote,
"Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity, it's called Xbox 360," says Mattrick. "If you have zero access to the internet, that is an offline device." Mattrick's comments appear to ignore scenarios where internet connectivity can be unstable or unreliable.
They only back peddled quite some time after massive backlash from pretty much everyone.
Xbox One will also no longer restrict used games, and will instead allow discs to be exchanged in the same way they are on Xbox 360. There will be no additional restrictions for trade-ins or lending games to friends. and "Since unveiling our plans for Xbox One, my team and I have heard directly from many of you, read your comments and listened to your feedback," Microsoft's Don Mattrick wrote. "I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your assistance in helping us to reshape the future of Xbox One. You told us how much you loved the flexibility you have today with games delivered on disc. The ability to lend, share, and resell these games at your discretion is of incredible importance to you. Also important to you is the freedom to play offline, for any length of time, anywhere in the world."
Those facts are not important to Microsoft, and they don't even claim so. They just want peoples money, and this back peddle was the best way to get more of that.
5 years ago for many people this day and age might as well have been over a lifetime ago. Microsoft will continue to keep trying until raping their customers makes more money than giving them what they want.
The ability to buy and sell second hand games on the used market.
They also don't provide refunds on digital purchases except where the law forces them to, aka not most of the USA. Physical goods are required to allow this, and most large retailers will do so for longer than required.
Well, after Microsoft had spent $2.5 billion on purchasing Minecraft, they would have had to use it for something.
Yea my mind went down a bizarre line of reasoning the moment I saw this one.
My initial thought was that Minecraft + Hololens demo back from the 2015 E3 would be an interesting use for this setup. Then right after thought at that point you might as well go with the original 3d CAD model in Hololens instead.
Then trying to think of any reason for a brief moment to involve Minecraft here, despite having done equally and likely more silly things myself in the game, the only conclusion was being jealous that someone at MS actually convinced their boss to pay them to make this.
Long story short, in EU you can choose to pay income tax either in your country of residence or registration country of your company. Social security tax is the one which must be paid in country of residence.
Interesting, thank you for that explanation.
Put that way it doesn't sound all too different from here then, other than the usual location type swaps (fed to eu, state to country)
I got the impression it was always income tax paid to the country the company is in. But of course no government could stand to have taxes be so simple!
If there are tech giant employees in your country, then you likely tax their income.
Nope that is exactly the problem this suggestion tries to solve*. The company only pay income tax in the country of origin. So even if a company from Ireland(Google for example) sell stuff in other eu countries, all their income tax is paid in Ireland.
So if I moved to Germany and worked for Google, I wouldn't have to pay any income tax at all to Germany? It's all paid to Ireland even though I don't live or work there?
That just sounds *very* different to me.
Here in the US we have to pay tax to the federal government and to both states, the one you reside in and the one you work in.
Some states have agreements with others, usually near by intended for people that are close to the borders. In those cases you just pay the state you live in the full amount, and the two states figure out their shares between them. Otherwise we need to do two state tax returns as well as federal (and sometimes city, but that's residential based)
I'm not certain how useful a solar sail would be on a device that came from another solar system.
To be a solar system implies having a star. A solar sail in another solar system with a star would be just as useful as a solar sail within our own solar system.
The fact such a thing would eventually end up leaving the solar system it was originally in shouldn't be assumed to be intentional so much as a fact of nature. All of the probes we have ever sent out so far will have that same fate, and the voyagers may have already done so depending where you put the edge of the solar system to be. In a few million years however they will most certainly have left our solar system no matter your definition.
I'm sure the voyagers will get beaten to hell over such a trip no matter if they enter another solar system in that time or not, similar to how this object has been beaten to hell prior to entering ours.
I wouldn't call the voyagers useless despite this being a fact of their fate, they were quite useful in data collection long ago prior to heading out of the solar system against some peoples desires.
If one was to presume this object was actually created intentionally by something, it could very well have been just as useful, or at least I don't see any reason why not.
The only real difference is most of us are going to assume it was created naturally by forces of nature, and not intentionally by an intelligence. There's no evidence of either, it's just that the former we know can and does happen, while the latter we do not.
A good reason to assume certainly, but one still shouldn't call an assumption evidence.
Wow, that's completely wrong. I have a Pixel 2 XL, my wife and daughter both have a Pixel 2 (non XL version). All are on Google Fi which uses T-Mobile primarily in my area
So google-fi service can use esims on t-mobile towers. But t-mobile service can NOT use esims on their own towers, which isn't completely wrong, or wrong at all, and t-mobile representatives will out right tell you this if you try to get esim on your t-mobile account to work.
My t-mobile service can also use at&t towers without having an at&t account, so that's hardly the surprising part. The surprising part is that t-mobiles own carrier service can't use esims on their own towers, when their own towers support it. The problem must be further back on their network.
Go ahead and try to sign up for t-mobile esim service on any of your pixel 2's, you'll find they will not sell that to you and claim they don't support it on their end, which not at all clearly means their service/carrier end, not their towers.
I can't say where the disconnect is, but Google Fi *is* T-Mobile (and Sprint). How can Fi use T-Mobile towers with eSim, but T-Mobile can't use T-Mobile towers with eSim. Maybe I'm no expert here, but that doesn't sound like a strictly technical problem.
I'm entering this post on a Pixel 2 with no sim card, connected to a T-Mobile tower (LTE), so pretty sure it works.
That's the thing, I don't know where the disconnect is either, but I have a pixel 2 and do NOT have google-fi. Three t-mobile reps have all stated I can not use eSIM with them, they do not sell eSIM access, and the only way to use the phone with their service/accounts directly is to get a physical SIM (Which to their benefit was offered to me for free)
When searching around to figure out WTF, every forum post I came across was people saying the same thing.
When it comes to esim I'm no expert either, but all I gather is that it isn't a problem at the tower end, but is within t-mobiles network.
A sim identifies both you as a subscriber as well as to what carrier. The towers must be allowing both t-mobile and google-fi identifications to authenticate and route to the right place properly, but yea it kinda does sound like t-mobile not able to route t-mobile tower traffic to them with eSIM like they do with normal SIMs.
If you launch your eSIM Manager, you should see clearly that it can support switching carriers separately from what towers/radios it uses to get there.
So where ever the problem is, it is within t-mobile not allowing it, with the claims they are still setting up esim tech on their network.
Many security experts say the weakest link is the employee who does stupid things. But let's also consider the amount of wasted time as well. If its not porn, its shopping, social sites, or other non job web use
Two points to that.
One, shopping sites (at least such as Amazon and the like) in my experience actually have far more benefits than not to allow.
I commonly see and hear of people doing their grocery shopping on their 3pm break to line up with 2 hour prime delivery for when they get home. Those who have managers that disallow it have a *far* higher rate of requests to leave a full hour early to do the same shopping physically.
That's the difference between a quarter sized chunk of time the employee is legally entitled to not working during, vs a full hour of pay adjustment with lack of that hours productivity.
Other than that one item on your list however I do agree the rest are at best huge time wasters and at worse an infection method and workplace disruption.
The second point however is a bit more general. While there are certainly technical steps one can take to at least protect from malware and known bad websites, for the most part such time wasters (think social media) are by far more of a people problem than a technical one, and need to be solved accordingly.
Locking things down does have an effect on morale to people who can act like adults and behave themselves. This is harder to measure but does exist, and at the end of the day it comes at the cost of attempting and ultimately failing to punish the time waster with ineffective technical means.
Ever hear the old "standing around the water cooler telling hour long stories" meme? That's the thing, time wasters will always find a way to waste time, and it doesn't need to be by technical means. This is a problem with the person that needs addressed, not with the technology we run. If a person is not putting in the hours they are being paid for, that is the problem, no matter the reason for it. If a person is paid for an end result and not delivering, that is the problem, no matter the reason for it. This is true no matter if it's wasting time on facebook or wasting time hovering around the break room water cooler, and that fact alone shows this isn't an IT/technical problem to fix.
Spending IT time and resources fixing one tiny avenue of wasting time will not fix all the other ways to do it, and will not fix the problem which is the person wasting time. It simply costs more for nearly zero benefit.
However, the three major U.S. carriers which have stated they will support eSIM tech - Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile- do not currently have systems in place to support eSIM, at least not yet.
For the time being then, the Pixel 3 eSIM will only work with Project Fi and other select global carriers which support the tech. But at least you can rest assured that at some point in the future it will work here at home on at least three of the Big Four carriers.
That's the strangest part of this, QKE's main outstanding feature is that if the photons have their entanglement collapsed prior to reaching the other end, you A) lose the data being transmitted, and B) know for certain that this has happened.
The only way it makes things "more secure" is that when the first photon is intercepted, the transmitter knows about that fact and then can refuse to send any further data. Unsent data can't be intercepted after all.
At one point banks were thinking to use such links in place of their current private leased classical ones. That at least makes some sense.
But the Internet?! We don't need QKE to know with 100% certainty that Internet traffic is intercepted. Nearly every major government has either been caught doing it or has outright admitted to doing it. There is literally no question, the answer is simply always a yes.
Worse, QKE's response to when interception happens, aka always any anywhere outside of a lab, it's response is to shutdown and stop transmitting!
If that really is the desired end effect, I can save you a bit of money - say "yes" outloud and go unplug the routers. Done and done.
Slashdot Mirror
So is it really okay if Google screws over other web browsers with Chrome-specific hacks
If by "chrome specific hacks" as used in this case, which actually means "valid html in an html page rendered perfectly fine by all browsers except edge" then yes, yes it is really ok.
You see, using HTML in a valid way, which all web browsers render fine, is called "doing the right thing"
Firefox can display youtube pages and accelerate them.
WebKit in Safari can display youtube pages and accelerate them on OS X. I suspect WebKit on iOS can too else we would be hearing about it by now.
If using valid html breaks nothing except Edge, then I say Google did not break Edge, Microsoft broke Edge from the start by not making a web browser that understands HTML, yet continuing to mislabel that program as if it was a web browser.
Microsoft is just going to need to get used to the fact they will need to render HTML properly like everyone else does, and we will not be throwing in some ActiveX bullshit for them.
Nor will we tolerate them blaming anyone but themselves that their "web browser" is uniquely incapable of rendering HTML or accelerating standards compliant video streams.
Perhaps this would be helpful regarding the scale and perspective
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia17046.html
Agreed. I understand there's a Public Relations consideration in these announcements, but the real, final, inarguable milestone would be connected to the gravitational influence. It will have escaped the solar system when it's at a place where an object couldn't be held in orbit around the Sun. (How far away is that anyway?)
The suns gravitational influence ends at the outside edge of the heliosphere, which is about 100 AU from the sun. This is what most everyone labels as "the edge of the solar system"
The oort cloud starts about 10000 AU from the sun and is not under the suns influence in any way.
It also kind of makes the anon parent post a bit silly.
Any small or large value for 'solar system' will still be FAR closer to the sun than the oort cloud is.
Also keep in mind the oort cloud is insanely thick, starting just under 10000 AU and ending about 100000 AU away.
Alpha Centauri is two orders of magnitude closer to the outer most boundary of the oort cloud than our sun is.
Any definition of our solar system that includes the oort cloud would also be including numerous other solar systems and stars, completely nullifying any reason for having such a definition in the first place.
One day such hack will redirect archive.ubuntu.org (or other) to a repository of hacked updates and millions of linux users will get massively hacked with no hope of cleaning up.
As a linux user and admin I hope it won't happen, but I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.
This is why the software packages are digitally signed by a key pair that the OS verifies against its keystore.
Even if archive.ubuntu.org was hijacked and pointed to a web server setup to serve the same package files, the signature wouldn't match if so much as a single bit was changed in the package, and your OS wouldn't install it.
Hijacking DNS would give the attacker no access what so ever to the real archive.ubuntu.org or whatever machine has their HSM hardware plugged into it, and so no ability to sign packages.
It is entirely possible to encrypt content for both the public key of the receiver and the government, without introducing any flaw into the encryption itself.
Except the government isn't a single person, it is many people, many minds, many motivations.
There is no way physically possible that every last single person that the government consist of will properly secure their key and not want to see it public.
It's also so unlikely that you may as well say it's impossible for each and every last person in the government to protect that key with the level of protection needed, and also to never make any mistakes at all with that.
So rendering your claim through the reality parser, you have just said:
It is entirely possible to encrypt content for both the public key of the receiver and for every human being in the world, without introducing any flaw into the encryption itself.
If every person in the world can decrypt it, under what basis exactly does that message deserve the label of "encrypted" in the first place?
A message that isn't encrypted, which is what you described, sounds like a pretty massive flaw in the method of encryption that failed its one task in life.
https://blog.codinghorror.com/ascii-pronunciation-rules-for-programmers/
There you go.
Us old timer geeks got sick and tired of pronouncing symbols by their proper names containing far too many syllables. So we made one-syllable and on occasion two-syllable nicknames for nearly all of them.
It prevents much stabbing and bloodshed on the rare occasions we had to speak with each other.
But darn it, I want my PC to have accurate time.
You can buy an atomic clock on a chip, such as the SA.45S from microsemi.
A dev kit version with serial output runs just under a thousand bucks for quantities of one, and would give you a legit strata-0 time source.
It's not as accurate as this new atomic clock NIST has, this one will drift by 10^-11 seconds per day, but it's far far cheaper.
the app stores had the auto buy with card on file (needed even for free apps)
Wait what? When did they start requiring a CC for free apps? That's pretty bullshit, is it some new "age verification" thing?
I have three apple IDs setup within the first year or two when the app store first launched, and never linked a payment method to them. They were purely for free apps and to sync separate iTunes data to each device.
I just checked my 3gs and can still sign in to the app store, but due to its 32-bit-ness I can't test getting a free app to see if it would force me to enter a card or not.
All I can find is https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204034
That implies no credit card was required for free apps between when the store launched and a month ago. Are you sure about this?
That is exceptionally worrying...
First:
I run a site that provides 100% publicly available information in a totally read-only / user agnostic manner. There are no accounts, no sessions, etc.
Then you contradict that:
I had to switch to HTTPS because of uninformed users thinking something was wrong with my site because of browser warnings.
Browsers only warn on non-ssl sites if you are submitting data back to them. Not a single one warns if you don't do that.
The terrifying part is you honestly believe your site actually doesn't require data being submitted back, when clearly it does.
You really *really* need to look your website over page by page and through the html files.
They no longer contain what you think they do, they have been changed, and changed to require your visitors to submit form field data back to your server.
If you didn't set that up, your site has been hacked.
They are also sent via electronic data, but a shocking number of medical facilities still do everything by fax, and not because of anything having to do with the government.
Do you happen to know if that has changed? and if so, what the current reasoning is?
The reason the fax continued existence is blamed/credited to government is because signatures sent over fax are legally recognized as signatures by every government agency in the US.
Similarly with actual paper signatures.
For some silly reason, a signature replicated and sent by any other means isn't always considered legally binding.
While most hospitals and doctors do now use electronic data for many things because.. well because it's better in almost every way. But when a signature is needed, they still send a fax or mail a paper, just to cover their ass legally in case the electronic version is ever questioned in court.
I'd imagine that it is simpler and easier on the back end systems to just always send a fax/mail copy than to bother keeping an up to date list of the few rare edge cases where all parties involved accept an electronic signature.
Is your work web-centric, or is it just that all of your reference materials are web-centric? (FWIW I work with actual desktop programs with very little web related work flows - only when I need to look up a specific vendors product from time to time etc)
I'm not the same person you replied to, but I follow a very close usage that just works best for me.
Especially when researching something new, I both want to learn all of my options as well as be able to follow the breadcrumb trail back to a point if some options turn out dead ends.
Hundreds of tabs is not, to me, ever a persistent state of things, but a given project or idea may both be fairly long running (weeks to months) and I do tend to have more than one in progress at a time (for example, days to weeks for something for work, and perhaps months for something personal as time and interest allows)
Also worth noting on your original question, you may find plenty of other peoples use cases here, but that does not mean even a single one necessarily map to a use case for you.
If you are looking possible improvements for yourself, well right on I hope for the best.
But for anyone that's been around the block, you have very likely found the best flow for yourself already.
Different people just work different ways. There may be an idea here or there you can sprinkle into your way of doing it, but I doubt you'll find some amazingly different usage that will completely change how you go about things.
And what happens when your computer/browser/whatever crashes and burns? How do you easily recover if you don't have the bookmarks to the tabs all neatly stored away? Manually opening 100's of tabs would suck big time.
Most browsers recover tabs, including Chrome. This is not often a problem anymore.
But similarly, most browsers only store the "last visited" date of a bookmark.
If you are trying to find your way back to a point in time and there is more than one option, I've found opening even just 4-5 bookmarks to see if they were it, updates that timestamp and now I've totally lost my timeline of events for the next search!
Suddenly those 5 bookmarks jump forward to the date I check them with no record of them being in the middle of the others made. To me it seems like opening many hundreds of bookmarks, in the exact proper order, to update them to be again in chronological order, is far more useless work.
I just conclude bookmarks don't work for me if I don't sort and categorize them, and I only feel that worthwhile to archive and keep the ones I intended to revisit.
Tabs work better for me to keep things in order for a more immediate grouping of time - typically the very process that results in what pages and info I want to bookmark as archived results.
Searching through hundreds of tabs or just typing your search into a new one?
I have a better idea. Why not reserve one tab (maybe the leftmost one) for searching open tabs?
The addon "List Opened Tabs" lets you do both. You can put its icon anywhere (mines on the right, but left works too), and lists out tab titles in full, and has a search box.
I don't think it has a hotkey built in though.
Or better yet, don't keep dozens or hundreds of tabs open at once.
You can't tell me what to do!
Soooo with the hardware going away... How will we connect usb controllers to a mobile app?
I haven't used the steam link mobile app replacement, however I have used moonlight which works with the NVidia streaming protocol for the same purpose.
Being at the video card level instead of the steam client level, you can stream anything on your pc to it. It's open source and cross platform as well.
The linux and windows versions of the client can stream back any input devices you plug into them.
The Android/iOS clients use a crappy on-screen game pad, but you can turn that off and just pair a game pad directly to the computer you're streaming from, at least in the same home. I never tried using it over the Internet.
The last time I used it was to play fallout 4 on an ipad with a bluetooth controller from the living room, with my pc in the room almost directly above. ymmv
And the ability to make use of the console at all in areas where the best available Internet connection is slow and/or harshly capped
Pretty much. And to keep everything in context, that has been Microsoft's plan for the Xbox One since before its launch.
Many have forgotten, but the E3 prior to the consoles release, it was going to require "always on" internet connectivity to even launch a single player game, let alone actually need the network for anything.
They were also going to put unique keys in with discs for use in locking a game to your hardware and prevent reselling. A used game without an unused key would be useless, and require the purchase of a new key at full retail price (on top of whatever you paid for that used plastic disc)
https://www.theverge.com/2013/6/12/4422014/xbox-360-is-offline-alternative-to-xbox-one
Xbox chief Don Mattrick offered up his own thoughts on the Xbox One online requirement ahead of Microsoft's E3 keynote,
"Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity, it's called Xbox 360," says Mattrick. "If you have zero access to the internet, that is an offline device." Mattrick's comments appear to ignore scenarios where internet connectivity can be unstable or unreliable.
They only back peddled quite some time after massive backlash from pretty much everyone.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/19/microsoft-reversing-xbox-one-internet-used-game-policies
Xbox One will also no longer restrict used games, and will instead allow discs to be exchanged in the same way they are on Xbox 360. There will be no additional restrictions for trade-ins or lending games to friends.
and
"Since unveiling our plans for Xbox One, my team and I have heard directly from many of you, read your comments and listened to your feedback," Microsoft's Don Mattrick wrote. "I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your assistance in helping us to reshape the future of Xbox One. You told us how much you loved the flexibility you have today with games delivered on disc. The ability to lend, share, and resell these games at your discretion is of incredible importance to you. Also important to you is the freedom to play offline, for any length of time, anywhere in the world."
Those facts are not important to Microsoft, and they don't even claim so. They just want peoples money, and this back peddle was the best way to get more of that.
5 years ago for many people this day and age might as well have been over a lifetime ago.
Microsoft will continue to keep trying until raping their customers makes more money than giving them what they want.
What else are they removing?
The ability to buy and sell second hand games on the used market.
They also don't provide refunds on digital purchases except where the law forces them to, aka not most of the USA.
Physical goods are required to allow this, and most large retailers will do so for longer than required.
Well, after Microsoft had spent $2.5 billion on purchasing Minecraft, they would have had to use it for something.
Yea my mind went down a bizarre line of reasoning the moment I saw this one.
My initial thought was that Minecraft + Hololens demo back from the 2015 E3 would be an interesting use for this setup.
Then right after thought at that point you might as well go with the original 3d CAD model in Hololens instead.
Then trying to think of any reason for a brief moment to involve Minecraft here, despite having done equally and likely more silly things myself in the game, the only conclusion was being jealous that someone at MS actually convinced their boss to pay them to make this.
Well played sir or madam, well played.
Long story short, in EU you can choose to pay income tax either in your country of residence or registration country of your company. Social security tax is the one which must be paid in country of residence.
Interesting, thank you for that explanation.
Put that way it doesn't sound all too different from here then, other than the usual location type swaps (fed to eu, state to country)
I got the impression it was always income tax paid to the country the company is in.
But of course no government could stand to have taxes be so simple!
That's tax on your income, not Google's.
Of course, that was the question asked and being answered.
If there are tech giant employees in your country, then you likely tax their income.
That's why I questioned the answer given, as it didn't make sense.
If there are tech giant employees in your country, then you likely tax their income.
Nope that is exactly the problem this suggestion tries to solve*. The company only pay income tax in the country of origin. So even if a company from Ireland(Google for example) sell stuff in other eu countries, all their income tax is paid in Ireland.
So if I moved to Germany and worked for Google, I wouldn't have to pay any income tax at all to Germany? It's all paid to Ireland even though I don't live or work there?
That just sounds *very* different to me.
Here in the US we have to pay tax to the federal government and to both states, the one you reside in and the one you work in.
Some states have agreements with others, usually near by intended for people that are close to the borders.
In those cases you just pay the state you live in the full amount, and the two states figure out their shares between them.
Otherwise we need to do two state tax returns as well as federal (and sometimes city, but that's residential based)
I'm not certain how useful a solar sail would be on a device that came from another solar system.
To be a solar system implies having a star. A solar sail in another solar system with a star would be just as useful as a solar sail within our own solar system.
The fact such a thing would eventually end up leaving the solar system it was originally in shouldn't be assumed to be intentional so much as a fact of nature.
All of the probes we have ever sent out so far will have that same fate, and the voyagers may have already done so depending where you put the edge of the solar system to be. In a few million years however they will most certainly have left our solar system no matter your definition.
I'm sure the voyagers will get beaten to hell over such a trip no matter if they enter another solar system in that time or not, similar to how this object has been beaten to hell prior to entering ours.
I wouldn't call the voyagers useless despite this being a fact of their fate, they were quite useful in data collection long ago prior to heading out of the solar system against some peoples desires.
If one was to presume this object was actually created intentionally by something, it could very well have been just as useful, or at least I don't see any reason why not.
The only real difference is most of us are going to assume it was created naturally by forces of nature, and not intentionally by an intelligence.
There's no evidence of either, it's just that the former we know can and does happen, while the latter we do not.
A good reason to assume certainly, but one still shouldn't call an assumption evidence.
Wow, that's completely wrong. I have a Pixel 2 XL, my wife and daughter both have a Pixel 2 (non XL version). All are on Google Fi which uses T-Mobile primarily in my area
So google-fi service can use esims on t-mobile towers.
But t-mobile service can NOT use esims on their own towers, which isn't completely wrong, or wrong at all, and t-mobile representatives will out right tell you this if you try to get esim on your t-mobile account to work.
My t-mobile service can also use at&t towers without having an at&t account, so that's hardly the surprising part.
The surprising part is that t-mobiles own carrier service can't use esims on their own towers, when their own towers support it. The problem must be further back on their network.
Go ahead and try to sign up for t-mobile esim service on any of your pixel 2's, you'll find they will not sell that to you and claim they don't support it on their end, which not at all clearly means their service/carrier end, not their towers.
I can't say where the disconnect is, but Google Fi *is* T-Mobile (and Sprint). How can Fi use T-Mobile towers with eSim, but T-Mobile can't use T-Mobile towers with eSim. Maybe I'm no expert here, but that doesn't sound like a strictly technical problem.
I'm entering this post on a Pixel 2 with no sim card, connected to a T-Mobile tower (LTE), so pretty sure it works.
That's the thing, I don't know where the disconnect is either, but I have a pixel 2 and do NOT have google-fi.
Three t-mobile reps have all stated I can not use eSIM with them, they do not sell eSIM access, and the only way to use the phone with their service/accounts directly is to get a physical SIM (Which to their benefit was offered to me for free)
When searching around to figure out WTF, every forum post I came across was people saying the same thing.
When it comes to esim I'm no expert either, but all I gather is that it isn't a problem at the tower end, but is within t-mobiles network.
A sim identifies both you as a subscriber as well as to what carrier.
The towers must be allowing both t-mobile and google-fi identifications to authenticate and route to the right place properly, but yea it kinda does sound like t-mobile not able to route t-mobile tower traffic to them with eSIM like they do with normal SIMs.
If you launch your eSIM Manager, you should see clearly that it can support switching carriers separately from what towers/radios it uses to get there.
So where ever the problem is, it is within t-mobile not allowing it, with the claims they are still setting up esim tech on their network.
Many security experts say the weakest link is the employee who does stupid things. But let's also consider the amount of wasted time as well. If its not porn, its shopping, social sites, or other non job web use
Two points to that.
One, shopping sites (at least such as Amazon and the like) in my experience actually have far more benefits than not to allow.
I commonly see and hear of people doing their grocery shopping on their 3pm break to line up with 2 hour prime delivery for when they get home.
Those who have managers that disallow it have a *far* higher rate of requests to leave a full hour early to do the same shopping physically.
That's the difference between a quarter sized chunk of time the employee is legally entitled to not working during, vs a full hour of pay adjustment with lack of that hours productivity.
Other than that one item on your list however I do agree the rest are at best huge time wasters and at worse an infection method and workplace disruption.
The second point however is a bit more general. While there are certainly technical steps one can take to at least protect from malware and known bad websites, for the most part such time wasters (think social media) are by far more of a people problem than a technical one, and need to be solved accordingly.
Locking things down does have an effect on morale to people who can act like adults and behave themselves. This is harder to measure but does exist, and at the end of the day it comes at the cost of attempting and ultimately failing to punish the time waster with ineffective technical means.
Ever hear the old "standing around the water cooler telling hour long stories" meme?
That's the thing, time wasters will always find a way to waste time, and it doesn't need to be by technical means.
This is a problem with the person that needs addressed, not with the technology we run.
If a person is not putting in the hours they are being paid for, that is the problem, no matter the reason for it.
If a person is paid for an end result and not delivering, that is the problem, no matter the reason for it.
This is true no matter if it's wasting time on facebook or wasting time hovering around the break room water cooler, and that fact alone shows this isn't an IT/technical problem to fix.
Spending IT time and resources fixing one tiny avenue of wasting time will not fix all the other ways to do it, and will not fix the problem which is the person wasting time. It simply costs more for nearly zero benefit.
Food for thought.
Google Fi uses eSim to access T-Mobile and Sprint, starting with the ancient Nexus and xconttinuing through the Pixel.
The pixel 2 eSIM will not work *at all* on t-mobile, let alone at slow speeds. I've heard the same complaint regarding verizon as well.
So yes, this is totally a t-mobile/verizon problem.
If as you say the pixel 3 fixed this, then that's great - but I do have my doubts.
This article from 5 days ago says pretty much the same thing:
https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-3-esim-918312/
However, the three major U.S. carriers which have stated they will support eSIM tech - Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile- do not currently have systems in place to support eSIM, at least not yet.
For the time being then, the Pixel 3 eSIM will only work with Project Fi and other select global carriers which support the tech. But at least you can rest assured that at some point in the future it will work here at home on at least three of the Big Four carriers.
What is the use case for QKE?
That's the strangest part of this, QKE's main outstanding feature is that if the photons have their entanglement collapsed prior to reaching the other end, you A) lose the data being transmitted, and B) know for certain that this has happened.
The only way it makes things "more secure" is that when the first photon is intercepted, the transmitter knows about that fact and then can refuse to send any further data.
Unsent data can't be intercepted after all.
At one point banks were thinking to use such links in place of their current private leased classical ones. That at least makes some sense.
But the Internet?! We don't need QKE to know with 100% certainty that Internet traffic is intercepted. Nearly every major government has either been caught doing it or has outright admitted to doing it.
There is literally no question, the answer is simply always a yes.
Worse, QKE's response to when interception happens, aka always any anywhere outside of a lab, it's response is to shutdown and stop transmitting!
If that really is the desired end effect, I can save you a bit of money - say "yes" outloud and go unplug the routers. Done and done.