I thought so, but I installed Sleep Aid, and when I disable "Wake for Maintenance", Sleep Aid gives me a stern warning:
> Disabling "Wake for Maintenance" can lead to this Mac waking every few seconds. Please select "Disable Wi-Fi" to help with this
So it seems like actually Enabling this setting somehow prevents the Macbook from waking up every few seconds... presumably due to Wi-Fi? Enabling it seems like the recommendation by Sleep Aid anyway
For people who want to put something like this, here is the code snippet:
<span id='browser' class='hidden'>
This website is designed for <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://firefox.com/">Firefox</a>, a web browser that respects your privacy.
</span>
<script>
if (window.chrome) {
document.getElementById('browser').className = '';
}
</script>
Class .hidden must hide the element somehow, in this case I do:
Thanks for the code! I would slightly change the phrasing. "This website is designed for X" is traditionally, in my opinion, a user-hostile statement which indicates the user has to do something to accommodate the website. "We recommend you use Firefox, a web browser that respects your privacy" or something doesn't have this vibe IMO.
1. Instead of using CSS to hide it by default, make the script to only add it (perhaps by document.write, or alternatively by adding text to an empty <div> or <span>) if Chrome is detected. (This way it will be compatible even if CSS is disabled (or not implemented).)
2. Instead of Firefox, mention something else such as Line Mode Browser (it has some features I had not seen in other web browsers, but which I think are good and would like to have), or some other uncommon one which doesn't have Google and Mozilla etc, or more than one.
Hello! I'm a software engineer with 8 years experience, focused on backend development and infrastructure at the moment, but I have front-end and full-stack experience as well, and I'm happy to be an all-arounder for freelance projects!
I'm flexible with timezones, and I try to be a good async communicator: I do my best to reply early and keep people in the loop. I have been working remotely for the past 6 years.
We are not asking for foreign countries to "replace the Ayatollahs" for us.
What we are asking, is ending their diplomatic relations with this government, or at least severing it, instead of trying to strengthen their diplomatic relations.
A deal between this dictatorship and the west will only strengthen them, leading to more oppression. A weakened dictatorship due to foreign pressure will make it easier for the people of Iran to replace them.
And economic pressure means nothing to a theocracy that governs over a poor population. That is in fact their bread and butter.
Look no further than Afghanistan to see how resilient they can be. They even withstood decades of occupation.
Hard power alone wouldn't have worked and who knows whether soft power could have worked either since there were so many saboteurs both internal and external like Saudis/Israeli lobbies killing the project in its infancy.
The Islamic Republic is nothing like the Taliban. The Iranian population, especially around 10 years ago, was by no means “poor.” Iran has rich natural resources, very well-educated people (in STEM), and one of the oldest extant cultures of the world.
Iranians are quite ambiguous about that. When there are no riots, they generally blame the West for sanctions, cutting banks out, etc, as it ultimately impacts the normal Joe on the street.
Yet, when there are riots, they blame the West for not sanctioning enough...
One thing I do not understand - and if journalists are reading this, I hope this gets picked up, is that many of the Iranian elite's sons and daughters are actually living in the US. They try to hide that from both the American public, and the Iranian one (complete hypocrisy).
I am genuinely curious - are there any historical examples where ending diplomatic relationships and imposing sanctions on a country has improved the situation for people living there?
It's not clear how much of South Africa's Apartheid collapse was due to external pressure, and how much was from internal problems.
They had widespread and growing internal rebellion for a long time, with independent internal discussions and controversies going on about the unsustainability of Apartheid - both from a moral and economic perspective. Hell, they even tried Mandela for Treason in '56 and spent 27 years in prison after he started the revolutionary group in '61.
Apartheid didn't end until the early '90's.
Saying external sanctions caused it, is a bit like saying the USSR collapsed because of embargos.
They definitely weren't helping make it stay, but it's hard to say those where why it collapsed.
Economic sanctions mostly hurt the population and make the population less able to overthrow the government. Economic sanctions are known to strengthen the hardline elements. Its the hardline conservatives who can't deal with open economy.
Your arguments go against the research on this topic I have seen.
This hardline/moderate is a myth at least for last 15 years. However, the Iran lobbyist (e.g. NIAC) keep this narrative alive. Even in the 2000s era, the crack in the structure were minor. The so called moderator didn't had the motivation to really change anything substantial. It turns out they just wanted to use the people vote as a bargain to re-incorporate them into power (that fraction was in power in 80s but then kicked out). The regime is pure hardliner bcz this is a regime that the whole power has been consolidated under the hand of supreme leader (and this is why people in the streets called him dictator). The parliament/president and the election is just a joke! A show! They've re-define almost any word and void it from meaning.
The Supreme Ayatollah has a flexible user interface (UI) for the "West". When he wants to retreats: It wears the so called moderate president (Khatami, Rohani) and when the business is as usual he shows his teeth (Ahmadinejad, Raisi). The so called "president" is a joke. The last one (Raisi) has basically no self-agency, he is all ears for his leader and openly is proud about it! The previous ones weren't much different but at least they put up a show or a fuss when they told to do something. But this last one is perfect pawn (A soldier of leader as he puts it): "Sarbaze Velayat". The show was such a joke that in the last presidential selection: The supreme leader even eliminated his own long time friends and allies such as Larijani* and played Qalibaf to reduce the chance of any uncertainty (+). Note even with those eliminated in the run, it was still selection between potato vs potato...
+ Uncertainty because previously people have tried to select the least favorable one for the grand Ayatollah, this time he didn't want to tolerate even that level of surprise! He has no fun!
For me the reasoning is being able to distinguish between what needs to be wrapped, and what I would prefer not to be wrapped. In this case, code samples would preferrably not be wrapped. If I can wrap normal text manually, and keep code samples unwrapped, the client can disable wrapping entirely and see the code lines untouched.
This is possible with HTML and CSS, but not in plaintext. I think wasted space is something I can handle, but a badly wrapped code is something I dislike.
This is the exact reason the Linux kernel developers require plain text emails to be pre-wrapped. You cannot leave it to the reader, because readers will always/never wrap both text+code — they cannot distinguish, and text and code have very different wrapping requirements.
the code highlighting is really cool, well done!
pretty sure it's possible to do something like that with jekyll by updating the `highlight` liquid tag to be able to render ascii highlighting in case of raw pages.
ah! that one includes a JavaScript I used to draw a canvas in the post body, hence the script showing up in the curl result. Might try to think of a solution for that.
Edit: fixed it by moving the script to its own file.
> Disabling "Wake for Maintenance" can lead to this Mac waking every few seconds. Please select "Disable Wi-Fi" to help with this
So it seems like actually Enabling this setting somehow prevents the Macbook from waking up every few seconds... presumably due to Wi-Fi? Enabling it seems like the recommendation by Sleep Aid anyway