If I'm looking at this right it's around 413 uses in a month in this particular web page. I don't know if they somehow distinguish actual use versus "trying it out". I think it's great these things are considered but I'm a bit skeptical they actually increase physical safety of people at risk. Maybe these buttons increase perceived safety, which is a good thing?
I understand that they couldn't use the Escape key, and so having an alternative makes sense, but I'm not sure as a user how I would ever discover the behavior of pressing "shift" three times.
Escape might be more intuitive but it's not more discoverable. Shift is used often when inputting information, and the mentioned visual feedback give this behavior an opportunity to be discovered.
Having said that, regardless of the key the guidelines on using this pattern say that you should explicitly inform the user of the feature before they first encounter it.
Rules like these exist in Europe, and flying in Europe is incredibly cheap. For a random weekend in May, I can fly to 26 different countries for under $50 one way.
Airlines here are also significantly less likely to cancel your flights, and in my experience (I've taken somewhere in the region of 200 flights in the last 10 years) there is a bit of wiggle in terms of your actual arrival time, but being more than an hour out is less likely than int eh US.
Airlines don't need a pretense to raise fares. They can, and do, adjust rates all the time to charge people as much as they can get away with. Unlike regulated industries such as insurance or utilities, there's nobody they have to convince to let them raise their fares.
That's not as strong an argument as you think it is.
It is common for industries to have settle on points / equilibria based on what other players are doing, and companies typically don't unilaterally rock the boat too much.
However external factors act as forcing functions (I call them nucleation sites as a crystallization analogy) around which new equilibria can develop. Regulatory changes are one such example.
For example, during COVID many hotels shifted to not doing daily housekeeping. At that point they cited social distancing or workforce shortage reasons.
But it's been 2 years since the pandemic was completely over and many hotels now still don't do daily housekeeping. The prices of course haven't reduced.
Back in 2014 when California had a drought, my car dealership stopped offering free washes as part of the maintenance package citing bullshit "let's do our part in saving water" reasons.
The drought is long over but the free car washes have not come back.
I don't know why you are nitpicking about this while ignoring the base point I am making.
They used to do daily housekeeping automatically.
Now they don't.
We went from a default of "Opt-out" to "Opt-in"
This change happened across many hotels only during the pandemic despite the fact that, according to the parent poster, they could have done it any time, there was no regulation forcing them to do daily housekeeping.
Did you read the context of the conversation or just decide to pick on one line of my comment and make irrelevant replies?
The conversation is in the context of airlines making changes to their policies, and the parent poster made a claim that there was nothing stopping them from making those changes as there was no regulation or otherwise preventing them.
I am making the argument that wide changes in industries don't typically happen just like that even if there is no specific entity stopping them from making those changes. Industries settle on some equilibria, and trigger events like the pandemic or other major issues create the seed around which many players simultaneously implement changes.
The housekeeping change is an example of that.
It doesn't matter whether the older system is better or newer. The point is that hotels could have switched to a opt-in system any time, but most did not. The wide change happened triggered by the pandemic.
That's not necessarily true. Yes, the change to requiring refunds rather than compensation that airlines can weasel out of raises an airline's cost of cancellation, but passing that cost along to their customers makes them less competitive compared to airlines that have better on-time performance. A refund requirement means they can't have their cake (low fares) and eat it too (shitty on-time performance), and there is real financial disincentive to having terrible reliability...or financial incentive to be more reliable.
Because each airlines knows their competitors will lose margin if fares don't go up. The new rules are more expensive. So someone will raise the fares, and the competition won't significantly undercut the pricing change.
Yes it can raise fares - and that's not some unexpected downside it's just pricing being more transparent.
If airlines have a cost to being late/cancelling, then that will balance against the cost of having e.g. N% slack in staff/aircraft/schedules. It most definitely helps reduce cancellation and delays.
If you are curious whether this is bullshit, the best experiment would be to time travel back a N years, take two similarly sized continents with lots of flying, and use this type of regulation on one continent and not the other.
It's incredibly painful to do this with a large library, as they've stopped supporting the desktop uploader. It's all drag-and-drop uploads, so it's not easy to keep it in sync with a folder of music.
Also the playback experience is painful and uploaded files are poorly supported across devices like Google Home, where it constantly wants to do playlists or mix in other music. I'm not sure Google Home even supported playback of uploads, though I abandoned the service shortly after the Play apps went away.
I used to use iTunes Match. It'll change more than just metadata, I've had instances where album tracks were swapped out for their clean versions. I've dropped it in favor of a self hosted version I can ensure won't muck with my music.
Another Navidrome user here, hosted on a $5 Linode Nano. I have rclone set up to mount an S3 bucket with the music files. Scanning them is a bit slow, but otherwise I've had no issues.
I highly recommend Symphonium as an Android client. It is receiving constant updates, highly polished, has an offline mode, Android Auto support, and so much more.
How many Gb do you have on and how much do you pay for that S3 bucket? I'm thinking of doing that but I wonder what'll be the cost. I'm not sure what to put on the AWS calculator, becasue it depends on usage and whatnot!
I have a little over 250GB and I pay $5/month. This is using DO Spaces S3 compatible, not AWS S3. The droplet is $7/month so $12 total. Never even gets close to being out of resources.
The title is misleading. This article argues that you should not use a UUID for a _session cookie or access token_, which was never the intended purpose of a UUID.
I don't think intended purpose cashes out into anything here. Either UUID has enough random bits for your case as a session token or it doesn't. UUID isn't special.
I don't find any variable of TFA's hypothetical UUID-breaker scenario convincing either. Not the number of tokens issued, nor the adversary having Bitcoin network levels of compute, nor the ability to verify tokens at anything close to that speed.
yes exactly, who in their right mind would assign a UUID as a session token?!?! i mean, good point, wow, this article proves exactly why UUID shouldn't be used for such... then proceeds to show basically a method that is currently used by many... sigh
> "The Onion’s journalists have garnered a sterling reputation for accurately forecasting future events. One such coup was The Onion’s scoop revealing that a former president kept nuclear secrets strewn around his beach home’s basement three years before it even happened.[2]"
> [2] See Mar-a-Lago Assistant Manager Wondering if Anyone Coming to Collect Nuclear Briefcase from Lost and Found, The Onion, Mar. 27, 2017, https://bit.ly/3S40xiP.
> Tu stultus es. You are dumb. These three Latin words have been The Onion’s motto and guiding light since it was founded in 1988 as America’s Finest News Source, leading its writers toward the paper’s singular purpose of pointing out that its readers are deeply gullible people.
> The Onion’s motto is central to this brief for two important reasons. First, it’s Latin. And The Onion knows that the federal judiciary is staffed entirely by total Latin dorks: They quote Catullus in the original Latin in chambers.
> They sweetly whisper “stare decisis” into their spouses’ ears. They mutter “cui bono” under their breath while picking up after their neighbors’ dogs. So The Onion knew that, unless it pointed to a suitably Latin rallying cry, its brief would be operating far outside the Court’s vernacular.
I've copied a few bits from this and included some clippings as context from The Onion's first year in 1988. Surprisingly, this is (more-or-less) historically accurate.
I had a similar response when reading "React adapter allows you to access signals directly inside your components and will automatically subscribe to them."
I don't believe this is worth it. The implementation is fairly dangerous and fragile as you point out, all in order to simplify something fairly clean/reacty such as `const value = useSignalValue(signal)` into `signal.value`.
The difference (as I understand it) is that you don’t need to list your dependencies as you would with a hook, and you can call it anywhere. I find this approach conceptually simpler than hooks.
Invisible dependencies and avoid referential transparency sounds more complex to me than the opposite (upfront dependencies and referential transparency), not simpler.
On Android I've been using Symfonium which is fantastic. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.symfonik.m...