It’s especially hacky since that thing looks much closer to the size of a banana than a pineapple anyways!
It’s especially hacky since that thing looks much closer to the size of a banana than a pineapple anyways!
No Internet meant 1st person in line had a real chance to get front row seats Tickets were 30.00 maybe…I paid 40 to see van Halen with Alice in Chains open
I get this probably wasn’t your main intent, but no internet also meant that if you didn’t live in a large-ish city with physical access to those tickets, you either took hours/days out of your life or were just SOL.
Internet ticket sales aren’t really the problem, it’s automated and sanctioned/coordinated scalping for resale. (To be fair, that is largely enabled by internet sales…) There’s certainly no technical reason all tickets to a popular show couldn’t be sold at the same price and/or to those who had virtually queued up. It’s just those aspects that make a better fan experience are generally directly opposed to making the most money.
I do find it interesting/funny that Google felt the need to actually provide this, as a sort of acknowledgement that their main search “results” page is so full of random info boxes and generated content that people can’t find actual links anymore.
Personally, and In principle at least, this makes sense. About half of my web searches are looking for a quick answer to a question (what’s the per pound cook time for a frozen turkey?), so having that answer highlighted and summarized alongside the source is very useful. It’s actually the minority of the time that what I really want is a link to an external resource.
The effectiveness of that implementation and the accuracy of the summarized info is a whole other topic…
It’s honestly kinda wild how many comments here are in favor of cops kicking down doors to enforce this law.
I know, I know, Lemmy isn’t a singular person. But it’s rare to see the anti-gun crowd advocating for aggressive police action–apparently it’s okay just because they are gun owners?
I absolutely believe we’d be better off with less guns floating around this country, but that necessarily is going to be a slow generational shift unless you’re advocating for violent standoffs between well-armed citizens and an even more well-armed state.
On the power disable feature topic, I’ve only bought a few used enterprise drives from Goharddrive.com and Serverpartsdeals.com, but they both included a handy little SATA power adapter with each drive for exactly that reason.
The first desktop I installed them in worked just fine with the factory PSU cables, but when I upgraded I was left scratching my head for a few minutes until I remembered those adapters!
Ha! It took me a minute too to realize that having to google WTF a skibidi toilet is was the Millennial test, not being expected to know it.
Finally, a sterotype of “millennial” that recognizes we kinda be old now!
Begrudgingly given in.
Good fully wireless ear buds are truly an amazing convenience, but I value having flexibility and redundancy in my hardware more than having a slightly sleeker form factor. Thay includes things like removable battery, SD card slot, etc. Unfortunately, the market has spoken, and keeping those features limits you to a more and more niche selection every year. By now the tradeoff just isn’t worth it to me.
As far as USB dongles, I seem to have enough problems with USB-C ports becoming loose or flaky for charging that I avoid using them except when necessary. Wireless chargers abound in my house.
The big one for me is drag/drop, copy/paste, saving of emails and attachments between Outlook and the rest of Windows/Office is completely borked.
I have to keep both versions open at work to keep from going completely insane.
I actually didn’t, which was the main reason I replied.
It’s fairly common to see people arguing as though a thing is either risky or not risky, without any sense of context.
Risks exist on a continuum, and something not literally being forcibly banned doesn’t mean there is zero risk in that thing, just that the risk is lower than those things that are forcibly banned or that the risks can be mitigated in other ways.
Same reason you go through a metal detector to check for weapons before getting within half mile of a plane, but were left pretty much on your honor to not bring a Samsung phone with a spicy battery on board.
That’s asinine. It’s like saying “If brakes really mattered, a cop would check your brakes before letting you drive to work in the morning”. Brakes are pretty damn important, but very few places (in the US at least) have any mechanism for ensuring yours are in working order even periodically.
Proper risk mitigation takes into account (at minimum) the likelihood of an event occuring, the severity of the event occurring, your willingness to tolerate a failure, and the cost associated with implementing corrections.
Airlines have an EXTREMELY low tolerance for any kind of risk that could conceivably lead to a catastrophic failure, so the fact that you’re allowed to have a device, despite potential safety concerns, comes from a combination of a few factors:
The real issue is that airplane mode should really only affect cell signals now and leave WiFi alone since planes have WiFi now and a lot of applications share between devices with WiFi, and leave Bluetooth and NFC alone since they’re short range and low power and unlikely to cause issues.
I’m not sure how common it is, but my S22+ will remember if I turn bluetooth or wifi on while in airplane mode, and leave them on in the future. That’s especially nice since I use a CGM that pairs to my phone via bluetooth, so I don’t have to worry about accidentally losing that connection.
Spot on about there not being any point in having cellular service enabled. You’re 6 miles up and traveling a mile every few seconds, so you might as well just shut that radio off and save a bit of battery power.
It is kind of strange how much more of a visceral reaction people have to the idea of poor people cheating the system, compared to rich people cheating the system. Logically, it seems like the latter should get people a lot more riled up, which I guess speaks to the power of their propaganda.
That seems more than a tad hyperbolic. My wife and I enjoy sitting in our backyard next to the fire and stargazing every now and again. We’ll catch maybe a dozen satellites on a good night, during the couple hours post-sunset when you can actually catch the sunlight glinting off them. By about 2 hours after sunset, the number of objects that are both high enough to still reflect sunlight and large enough to see is pretty tiny.
I see vastly more planes with blinking lights and bright landing lights than I do satellites, and this has been the case for decades, but somehow that’s not a threat to our enjoyment of the night sky?
I’ve never heard of this… what’s the idea behind it? That you get the RH near 100%, and any dust particles will be a nucleation point for water to condense on, causing them to literally rain out of the air?