I recently moved my desk between rooms. After setting everything up only one monitor seemed to work.
Tried multiple DP cables plugged things in and out with things in various state of power. Eventually gave up and chalked it up to karma and either having a dead monitor or dead dock.
Unplugged my laptop to go work in the lounge for a bit, came back later and plugged it in again amazingly both displays worked.
What changed? I plugged the dock into a different USB-C port. The one that actually supports DisplayPort Alt-mode.
Well probably not. Note that it's the same price as the USB-A port and cheaper than any of the others.
Also the base of each of those modules is USB-C
> Do I need to have a USB-C Expansion Card to charge the Framework Laptop?
> The Framework Laptop charges over USB-C from any one of the four Expansion Card bays. We suggest configuring with at least one USB-C Expansion Card, since it is difficult to directly plug into the recessed USB-C receptacle that is inside the bay.
This probably means the body of the laptop supports all those things and the USB-C module is just wires.
What's the cost of that support in the body itself? Not stated.
This whole sub-thread is just a really good hilarious demonstration of the whole problem, nobody has any idea how to figure out what a given cable or port will do anymore. We can't even talk about it without getting confused. (But can still be snarky to others who we think got it wrong, even when we're wrong ourselves. It's the internet, we'll never run out of superciliousness!)
I've dealt with it too. Some USB c extenders even won't carry some signals, such as video. It's an unbelievable frustrating mess. Just because thunderbolt uses the same USB c style connector doesn't make it usb c I wouldn't think. I figured the connector itself would have its own name, such as rj45 does. But who knows with this shit show.
USB 3.2 is not Thunderbolt. USB 3.2 achieves 20Gbit/s with signalling that is entirely incompatible with Thunderbolt signalling. It is completely possible to have a 20Gbit/s USB 3.2 port that has no Thunderbolt capabilities.
The first USB standard to incorporate Thunderbolt functionality is USB 4.
the point i made is just as true though, as the announcement that thunderbolt switched to the usb-c form-factor is 6yrs old now. (and was even linked to from someone else in this thread!)
the downvotes just show once again how hilariously dumb the average hn-reader is.
It doesn't matter whether the point you were trying to make is true or not, because Thunderbolt is irrelevant to the problem that was described. DP Alt mode is not the same thing as encapsulating a DisplayPort stream in Thunderbolt signalling, so knowing which of your laptop's Type-C ports is Thunderbolt-capable does not tell you anything about which of the ports is capable of DP Alt mode.
Stop calling people dumb until you can make a comment that is at least somewhat correct and on-topic.
I agree with this, I've been using Django for more than a couple of years. The built-in admin interface is a blessing, the ORM is good enough and unless you are handling very huge loads it doesn't matter if it doesn't always generate the most efficient queries (in more than 5 years I've never run into any issues with that). The almost but not exactly MVC pattern that also let's you mix both class and function based views coupled with a very limited template system is a curse. I would have preferred one way to do things(TM) but the Django approach let's you badly do a hundred and more different ways if you aren't very experienced with it (and even if you are you need a lot of discipline to do things properly, and even if you have discipline sometimes Django doesn't have a feature you need so you implement your own and then a major release comes and now it has its own incompatible way of doing the same thing). I still wouldn't change Django for anything else, I'm sure I wouldn't have a job anymore if it weren't for how fast and easily I can implement things with it (management is an absolute hell here and changes how everything is done every couple of months until management itself gets fired and replaced every year or two).
That's probably Firefox's own Firefox Multi-Account Containers[0]. Groups caches/cookies into designated categories for each tab (personal, work, shopping, etc.), with smart recognition for assigned sites.
Someone should do a study on the performance impacts of using something like this on all sites for various kinds of "typical" web browsing profiles. I'm honestly guessing a lot of the losses would be in the noise for me personally.
There is an additional Firefox extension that integrates with multi-account containers, Temporary Containers. This is highly configurable - I have it create a new container for every domain I visit, with a couple of exceptions that are tied to permanent containers.
I run that on my personal devices.
At work, there is so much in terms of SSO the amount of redirects that happen mean that temp-container-per-domain breaks all sorts of workflows, so I go without on the work machine.
I notice no major difference between these two configurations, although I'm sure that there would be things that are measurable, though imperceptible.
I've had first party isolation turned on for possibly a couple of years now (certainly since before the pandemic) and it does break a small number of sites but nothing I particularly care about. Except that one internal tool that I've taken to loading in Chrome :P.
I don't recall the last time I had to temporarily disable it to allow something to work.
I believe the 'First-party isolation' feature does this, but you need to enable it from about:config, and even then, I'm not sure if it is complete or bug-free.
I'd like to see something like the firefox container extension automatically open a new container for every unique domain name. It could get tricky for eg. federated logins, so I'm not 100% sure what the implementation would look like. But it'd be nice to have the option.
The Temporary Containers addon[1] does this. Combined with the usual Multi-Account Containers "always open this site in..." mechanism you can have some sites always open in a single container, but all other sites open in temporary containers that get deleted shortly after you close their tab.
For clarity - the workflow is basically that all sites would be temporary containers, except sites you explicitly set to be managed by Multi-Account Containers?
edit: I'm trying this out, seems to work nicely - but assigning all the sites that i want permanent state on to different account containers is a bit of a chore. Feel like i'm doing something wrong there.
I commented on the main post, but First Party Isolation is exactly what you want, and breaks relatively few websites (and there's an extension to turn it on/off if you do use a website it breaks).
Yeah, that's what's happening now. It's been 2 years, so if you rent/lease one of these and you have cash, you're more and more likely to pay yourself even though you're not the landlord/freeholder...
> The government have put together a fund of £1bn for non-ACM cladding remediation, expecting that to cover ~600 buildings, but already over 2,700 buildings have applied and the estimated cost UK-wide is upwards of £15bn.
Non-ACM over 18m tall. Shorter buildings (the majority) are up shits creek too.
There's also a 30M fund for waking-watch relief... Which at 150k per alarm, you can get 200 alarms.
> The House of Lords has proposed an amendment to the bill stating that leaseholders won’t be made to pay (note: not forcing the tax payer to pay, just ensuring the leaseholders don’t) and the Housing Committee (namely MP Robert Jenrick) are rejecting this on the basis that the tax payer shouldn’t foot the bill.
AFAIK It was initially rejected because it was worded in such a way that would make freeholders liable for other fire-safety things such as failsafe latches. Prioritizing freeholders paying out hundreds of pounds every decade over bankrupting thousands if not millions of people.
It's a farce. The building has industry paid millions in donations to the Conservative party since Grenfell. And at every turn despite parroting "leaseholders should not pay" it has been obvious that they really meant "should pay".
Meanwhile, in a fit of hypocrisy, Jenrick has been campaigning for a (Labuor) council to fix a bridge "because they own it".
> Shorter buildings (the majority) are up shits creek too.
Under ~18m tall building are much easier to escape from in a fire and thus have different fire safety rules. People can normally exit the building quickly. Worst case jumping from the 3-5th story is likely to result in serious injury but is often survivable. Start talking 6+ floor things get exponentially worse with every additional floor increasing the risks.
This is of course an arbitrary line, I would have a lower limit but the tradeoffs are complicated.
> Worst case jumping from the 3-5th story is likely to result in serious injury but is often survivable.
A brief web search suggests to me that about 50% of people who fall from 15 meters (approx 4th floor) will die. Those are awful odds, and most survivers of falls from that height probably aren't landing on the sort of pavement you might expect to be surrounding a high-rise building. And how many of the survivers ever walk again? How many can even feed themselves again?
Seriously, 50% is worse than even russian roulette, a 'game' generally recognized as suicidal.
Again, it’s not how I would write these regulations. That said, regulators are working with real world data.
The expectation is for people to be able to exit the building or at least get to a lower floor, because that’s the usual case. Failing that ladders can generally evacuate people from the 5th floor. Jumping is very much considered a rare last resort, but is more controlled than people simply falling that distance. Further, first responders are more likely to be onsite which again increases the odds.
So, while there are a lot of relevant regulations building height is a meaningful distinction.
PS: On an 18m tall building. The 1st floor is ~0 meters off the ground, the 2 floor is 3 meters up, 4th floor is ~12m up and 5th floor is thus 15m and the roof is at 18m. A window adds 1m but someone dangling removes ~2m based on their height. As in dangling from the 2nd story window is ~2m fall and a 15th floor balcony would be a 13m drop vs ~14m from a window. (Using G, 1, 2, 3, 4 is the same numbers just offset by 1.)
> The expectation is for people to be able to exit the building or at least get to a lower floor, because that’s the usual case.
That's the expectation in America surely, but is it in the UK? In America people are told to get the fuck out of buildings as fast as they can when the fire alarm goes off, but in the UK people are told to stay inside high rise buildings, apparently because they have fewer and narrower staircases. Highrise buildings in the UK are evidently not designed to be escapable. I think that should be the real scandal. The cladding is bad and effects hundreds of buildings, but how many UK highrise buildings have inadaquate stairways? Tens of thousands? More? The reason this isn't part of the scandal is probably because the scope of the problem is too enormous.
I encourage you to look up the timeline of events inside Grenfell; if evacuation began when the fire was called in, there would have been ample time for complete evacuation. 14 minutes elapsed between the initial call and fire spreading out the window of the origin flat. People were only reported trapped by smoke ~40 minutes after the fire was called in. These people were killed by the UK's policy of staying put inside buildings on fire.
Anyway, I've seen some videos of people falling a fraction of 15 meters onto pavement and dying. It seems depraved to expect somebody even on the third floor to jump onto pavement.
I don’t think the expectation is for this to happen frequently because it doesn’t, rather it’s part of the overall risk assessment. Total fire related deaths in the Great Britain is low and trending downward, trying to find jumping related deaths from the 3-5th floor is tough. https://www.statista.com/statistics/291135/fire-fatalities-i...
As to evacuations, that’s simply what happens in the overwhelming majority of cases. In England for the 12 months ending June 2020 there where 156,128 actual fires responded to and 231 deaths. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
That’s with current regulations and resources. So, looking at that people are trying to balance spending more on fire safety vs very other issue and this is the balance they struck. I am not saying it’s perfect, just that it’s vastly more complicated than making every building as safe as possible with money as no object being the obvious correct choice. When you give that up then it’s all coming down to various compromises with different tradeoffs.
PS: Looking at the hard numbers, pushing evacuations might actually make things worse.
You have much more trust in UK authorities than I think they warrant. It is said regulations are written in blood; that means the regulations that preceded present regulations are the result of past experts being wrong. What are the chances that we are fortunate enough to live in a time when regulations are truly optimal and won't need to be changed in the future? Pretty low, I'd think. What are the odds that present regulations have been influenced and compromised by commercial interests? 100% guarantee, just look at the clusterfuck of an inquiry. If the government can't reclad a few hundred towers, do you think they'd dare condemn thousands of towers? They're addressing the cladding because it's feasible to fix, but retrofitting buildings with more stairwells? That's way more expensive, so it's being ignored.
There will be more fires, more deaths, and more changes to regulations. What experts say should be considered, but not treated as dogma. At best they are less wrong than their predecessors but more wrong than their future successors. If the people in that tower had disregarded the advice of extant UK experts, they would have gotten out alive. If that building had been constructed with more stairwells than UK experts presently say is required, they could have gotten out alive. If there had been an operational building wide alarm, as are found in American buildings, those people would have gotten out alive. There is a whole lot wrong with extant regulations in the UK, and commercial interests have politicians and the public ignoring most of it to focus on the cladding fraud (those responsible should be in prison for life, but the cladding fraud is not the only problem this fire revealed.)
> Looking at the hard numbers, pushing evacuations might actually make things worse.
This is not a crowded nightclub we're talking about; rapid evacuation of residential highrises is a reality in America. Please go look at the hard numbers of Grenfell, particularly the timeline of conditions inside the tower. There was ample time to evacuate the tower several times over. In modern America, most of the residents would have been waiting on the sidewalk before the firemen even got there. The building wide fire alarm would have been blasting their eardrums out.
Edit: I agree with almost everything you just said. But for clarification:
Not trust, just statistics. Great Britain has ~half the fire related deaths per million people vs the US. Various differences make comparing countries difficult, but their doing reasonably well vs the US.
Anyway, I don’t think the current system is optimal. However, fixing the stairwell issue before telling people to evacuate might be better than telling people to evacuate tomorrow. Eventually, evacuation is likely the better option and should therefore be the long term goal.
And so it goes across a million possibilities which is guaranteed to be suboptimal and interact with each other.
Friend of mine was sitting on a balcony with three other people when the rotted joists gave way and they all fell 20 feet into the bushes below. The result was one lady with a skull fracture, a guy with broken ribs, and my friend with a compound fractured leg that involved his knee. He walks with a cane now.
This doesn't change the fact that regardless of height, the residents in those buildings are having hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt forced onto them because of a retroactive law change.
And While Non-ACM cladding isn't illegal, it's still being treated as a risk for 'low-rise' buildings. It's still resulting in surveyors deeming the property unsafe, and it's still resulting in the leaseholders (not owners) of those buildings having to pay millions to 'remediate' it.
This coupled with decades of deregulation, poor construction and minimal oversight has resulted in over 5% of the market suffering from the same problems, ACM, Non-ACM, 50 meters tall, or 5 meters tall.
And nearly all of it is driven by the banks. The government has only banned ACM cladding, The banks have done the rest.
The banks don't give a shit that your odds of jump out your window are 50%. The banks just want to make sure the property they've given you a loan against doesn't burn down when you die from the fall.
Shortly afterwards RICS (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors) developed the "External Wall System" or "EWS-1" form. Which is a means of assessing the risk of cladding (external wall systems) to a building. This was not a legal requirement. It is merely a tool to assess risk. It does not even specify the credentials required to issue one, just "suitably experienced".
Surveyors carrying out an EWS-1 form would effectively be on the hook for any damages if they made the wrong call, This ended up being reflected in their insurance, so most if not all would perform a full top-to-toe inside-out fire-safety survey. These full surveys have resulted in other defects in most buildings being found. Combustible material used in balconies, insufficient fire and smoke barriers between dwellings, faulty or incorrectly installed fire doors. Note These 'defects' aren't necessarily illegal or against code, they just push the perceived risk of the building past the surveyors acceptable risk.
Banks, being horribly risk-adverse made an EWS-1 a requirement for loans on buildings over 18 meters.
Somebody in Parliament said something along the lines of "All buildings should be safe". Banks then started making the EWS-1 a requirement for all loans of multi-tenant dwellings.
But someone is always responsible for ensuring a building is 'safe'. A poor EWS-1 result means someone has to make it safe. This someone is generally the buildings Management Company, or the Freeholder (who is entitled to recover those costs from the leaseholders).
If this just leads to people releasing their JS libraries on some random unidentifiable domain (e.g. dx3nxk1hjdhy3.cloudfront.com ) then I think we're going to be in a worse position.
I can presumably trust the code distributed by the 1st party, I can mostly trust code distributed by known CDNs, I cannot trust a randomized subdomain.
I honestly don't care that much about kids buying booze. The "think of the children" argument also typically leads me to be suspicious of the motives of those that make it. Kids are going to drink if they want to; I didn't because I chose to do otherwise, not because I couldn't.
I recently moved my desk between rooms. After setting everything up only one monitor seemed to work.
Tried multiple DP cables plugged things in and out with things in various state of power. Eventually gave up and chalked it up to karma and either having a dead monitor or dead dock.
Unplugged my laptop to go work in the lounge for a bit, came back later and plugged it in again amazingly both displays worked.
What changed? I plugged the dock into a different USB-C port. The one that actually supports DisplayPort Alt-mode.