I've had the same idea, but with no property tax on ownership of a single dwelling place.
If the burden is lessened to have your own place, hopefully we could see less homeless on the street or living in cars when times are tough.
However if you have more than one, then you pay significant property tax on all of them. I would hope that could free up more places for more people getting a home.
But of course if you earn more than $180k a year, I guess you could afford some property tax.
I am also thinking foreign ownership of property should be taxed heavily. I know that is not popular, but honestly if you not living full time in the country then you are effectively taking up a spot for someone who needs a place to live.
That sounds like it would penalize renting in favor of homeownership. I'm not in support of that, renting offers people flexibility and is not inherently worse than owning.
Cherry are more expensive than the rest but honestly I didn’t love the feeling of their keys. To be fair I was after a particular feel of very clicky keys.
For longevity I don’t feel the need to really differentiate between 100,000 actuations and like 500,000. Both are long enough and I don’t mind replacing the switches in a few years because let’s face it, it can be fun to try some of the new stuff and switching things up.
Your comment is the first one after many to talk any sense.
I recently had an encounter with a sight impaired person that had less than 10% left of his eyesight, and his exact words were "dark mode makes my experience easier".
Since meeting him, everything I do when it comes to UI, I try to be more mindful.
They'll change their tune soon enough when the coin slows down.
Myself and many I know go to pubs/bars alone, have a drink and talk with a complete stranger or just sit people watching while decompressing after a long week.
ITT people saying you don't need strong headlights on the country side, you just need to drive slower..
One thing doesn't need to exclude the other, especially as you begin to go above 50 and your eye sight isn't as good as it was when you were twenty-five.
Strong headlight that makes night go day saves lives, just remember to shut when meeting another vehicle or pedestrian.
The comments from the public.. Just wow we are doomed..
To explain, Googles vulnerability scanner found a problem in an obscure decoder for a 1990s game files (Lucasfilm Smush). Devs are not happy they get timewasting reports on stuff that rarely anyone ever uses except an exceptionally tiny group.
Then people start berating them without even knowing the full story...
Google operates a transcoder API which I suspect is just ffmpeg under the hood, and if you assume that they accept any input file, they really can't afford for decoders to have security vulnerabilities. Of course, then Google should be coming with more resources and not just filing bugs because it's Google that has the unusual use case.
If that is true then Google should be strictly sandboxing ffmpeg and filtering the input before it even gets there. A solid defense-in-depth approach would make sure it's highly unlikely this vulnerable code would be reached, and if it was, there would be effectively no impact.
They should be building ffmpeg with a minimal feature set anyway, so none of these obscure codecs end up included in the final binary.
If you're using ffmpeg it's recommended to just enable the things you need, or only accept some container formats. But yes, in a generic package everything is enabled.
To my understanding this bug would affect anyone using ffmpeg on untrusted input. Google may already be limiting to certain codecs in their own use, but should still report the issue (as they have here).
Right, they probably already mitigated this bug in their own usage. Which is exactly why reporting the bug is a FAVOR to ffmpeg. Would you rather they just quietly fix it on their own and not report it to the maintainers?
There's this weird "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation on social media where people try to help and get reamed for not doing enough. Taylor Swift donated $500k to charity and people complaining she didn't round up to a million. After all, she can afford it.
But she ends up getting more criticism than the billionaire who donates nothing. Seems unfair but I guess it's human nature.
I could see a compromise where if there are obscure codecs that may not be as secure, FFmpeg would present a warning before loading the file. This way, the user would have the option to decide whether to load the file or not. By default, potentially malicious files would not be loaded, which could prevent them from being used as part of an exploit. This seems like a reasonable compromise.
