dan

joined 1 year ago
[–] dan@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

Holy shit that’s too real. I come here to get away from work!

[–] dan@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My stuff has the new font already. Excel last week and today I noticed it in Outlook.

I quite like it tbh. The condensed version in Excel is pretty good. Beats calibre for sure.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fair enough. But devil's advocate: presumably they're still selling it there at a profit?

[–] dan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I mean there a number of big publishers who don’t seem to give two fucks about their image if there’s profit in it…

[–] dan@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Ok. So. That doesn’t seem so bad to me.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (13 children)

I do not understand why publishers don’t cancel the keys. Why do they allow that parasitic industry to exist? Surely they know which key corresponds to a chargeback?

[–] dan@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

40 million. The population is 70 million, so that’s most, it not all eligible voters. Wow.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Lossless compression algorithms aren’t magical, they can’t make everything smaller (otherwise it would be possible to have two different bits of input data that compress to the same output). So they all make some data bigger and some data smaller, the trick is that the stuff they make smaller happens to match common patterns. Given truly random data, basically every lossless compression algorithm will make the data larger.

A good encryption algorithm will output data that’s effectively indistinguishable from randomness. It’s not the only consideration, but often the more random the output looks, the better the algorithm.

Put those two facts together and it’s pretty easy to see why you should compress first then encrypt.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Love a quick D

[–] dan@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I strongly feel that inner city buses should be council-run and free at the point of use.

Running buses as private companies is dumb. It either means you have multiple companies competing for passengers on the same profitable routes which is inefficient, or a situation where the govt/council have to carefully divvy up routes, which takes away any incentive to do a better job, and incentivises corner-cutting as that’s the only way to increase profit.

More people using the bus is a net benefit. Improves traffic, encourages people to go to commercial areas, increases the utility of expanding routes/timetables, etc. The only possible downsides I can think of are that it may encourage bus use over cycling (though I’d argue that most people aren’t cycling because it’s cheaper, and many cyclists will use alternative transport in bad weather), and drivers will moan (but drivers moan about everything).

I don’t even particularly like taking the bus (personally I’d rather cycle or walk), but it seems like such an easy way to improve quality of life in cities.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

I use Firefox as my primary browser and run the teams app.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

Ok so it’s my fault that now someone at Intel knows how much porn I look at because I clicked “next” on a beta driver?

view more: ‹ prev next ›