I disagree with your disagreement, for example HN is readable but the linked site feels too small for my eyes on a 21.5" 1080p monitor. It also doesn't respect browser preferences, unless you enforce a minimum font size (which can break display elements on other sites):
There's no reason why you couldn't have smaller font while still respecting browser scaling. However, they might also want to just leave it at 1 rem and let the folks that prefer higher information density to customize their own browser settings, since those are what most well developed sites should respect and it might be more accessible by default on most devices (for my eyes, at the very least).
As for targeting specific screen sizes for non-standard font scaling, media queries also would help!
In regards to missing information dense pages, try changing your browser font settings, it might actually be quite pleasant for you to see many sites respecting that preference!
I agree that too many sites now will narrow the text area and pad too much. The issue here is a fixed pixel size that will look quite different depending on the specific monitor setup you have.
And honestly if this type of thing bothers you as much as it does me, unfortunately it means adding a bunch of stylus sheets everywhere...
That's also not a perfect recollection, but is what my recollection was until I was looking up this history in the past week and found this nugget and posted it elsewhere. Quoting myself:
>So we know these were originally called PCMCIA cards, then later PC Cards, right? Well, I think I might have found the first mention of PCMCIA in PC Magazine. It is in a Dec 1991 column by Dvorak where he "introduces" the "PCMCIA PC-Card". Here's a quote, "In fact, the card should be referred to as the PCMCIA PC-Card, or the PC-Card for short. PCMCIA is the Personal Computer Computer Memory Card International Association (Sunnyvale, Calif., 408-720-0107), and it's the governing body that has standardized the specifications for this card worldwide. JEIDA works with the PCMCIA; it's specifications are identical."
>So at least according this Dvorak column, these were ALWAYS properly called "PC-Cards" (he used a hyphen), but early on people definitely were calling them PCMCIA cards and I remember the shift to everyone later (much later than this 1991 column) calling them PC Cards.
Neat, definitely a part of history that I'm not familiar enough with myself since I was only ~6 or so around then when the article was published.
It definitely seems to reinforce the joke backronym of "People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms" for the whole thing given how badly it was all refered to. It's a lot like the whole Clippit/Clippy situation with the Microsoft Office assistants. Originally it was only named Clippit but Clippy got coined by everyone else and even Microsoft ended up giving in and using it in marketing materials not too long after the fact.
Does anyone remember the 1980s PBS show Newtons Apple? A segment on that show was called "Newtons Lemons" and would show an old newsreel from I'm guessing from the 1940s or 1950s. Each one would feature some sort of "futuristic" gadget, and invariably it would be something that never panned out and I had never heard of as a kid. I distinctly remember one of these featuring basically a scooter with a small gas motor and the narrator talking about great it would be for commuting to work when we can all own these. By my recollection, it looked very much like escooters of today, just gas.
When escooters became a thing, I looked for this newsreel for a while and never found it. Anyone else remember this?
I thing I learned only recently is that the write protect switch on the SD card is not an electrical switch connected to anything in the SD card itself: it just hits a lever in the SD socket that opens a contact closure and it's up to the system (hardware and software both) to bother to look at it. So on many systems the write protect switch doesn't even work.
>But it leads to ridiculous whoppers like this, and ends up in practice excusing what amounts to the most corrupt regime in this country in over a century, if not ever.
Amen. Preach it, brother!
>No, this is just bad, on its own, absent any discussion about what someone else did. There was no equivalent pardon of a perpetrator of an impactful crime in a previous administration I can think of. I'm genuinely curious what you think you're citing?
I don't know what the poster was referring to, but I AM mad at Biden for pardoning his family. It's a molehill of an issue compared to the current administration though.
I would be very mad at Biden pardoning his family if the next president was going to be Bush. With all of Trump's calls for retribution, and actions in that direction since the election, it is hard to blame Biden for trying to shield his son from unjust exercises of the law, while Trump was publicly touting him as one of his biggest enemies.
You called an "interrupt," which was basically a system call. That changed a bunch of timing registers within the video hardware. For a long time you basically could only do 40, 80 columns of text and 25, 43, or 50 lines. With some trickery you could get the video hardware to output 90 columns and with even more trickery you could get 60 rows.
If you made a custom font you could also have more diversity in the number of rows too but this was rarely done.
Eventually different text modes became available with higher resolution video cards and monitors. 132 columns of text were common but there were others.
For panels in northern climates, if the tilt is fixed or just seasonally adjusted (i.e., not tracking the sun), we often will bias towards a bit more vertical tilt than mathematically optimal to encourage snow shedding.
>The point is that they are prioritizing this over new features.
Good! Shoring up infrastructure vs. delivering the latest hotness is something that is rarely prioritized. I'll take boring and reliable every day of the week.
> There doesn't really seem to be anything interesting about this.
Agreed. Seriously, am I missing something or are the compact chargers from various other companies at least as compelling as this? I've got a nice one from Lenovo with high output and a smaller form factor than this. (Several other manufacturers have a similar size and output so nothing special about Lenovo here). The Apple one, while maybe smaller then their usual, is still bigger and appears to be short and "fat" which can limit where you can plug it sometimes.
Or is just another "but this time it is from Apple" kind of thing. (All the vapor chamber talk from a few days ago had me scratching my head too.)
I'm the one who submitted this link. (I have zero affiliation with the authors). What you say is fair enough, but I thought the article an interesting data point nonetheless. In particular, I found it interesting how a vulnerability:
1) with a tiny window during which it was published,
2) of very high potential severity, and
3) with SO MUCH publicity surrounding it
could still be lingering where you might accidentally grab it. The threat isn't giant here, but I saw it as just today's reminder to keep shields up.
It'd be some fluke of an accident. You'd need to be targeting not only debian:testing/unstable, but specifically debian:testing-20240311. And then - making sure not to apt upgrade at any point so you don't accidentally get any updates from the last 18 months - you'd need to also install openssh-server to avail of the backdoor, plus a service manager because running sshd in the foreground killswitches said backdoor. And then don't forget to expose the ssh port otherwise our effort is wasted.
The most realistic way to hit this would be to have built an image 18 months ago, on top of :testing or :unstable, and then not update or rebuild it at any time in those 18 months - in which case removing anything from the repo wouldn't help you. Or be purposely trying to recreate an affected environment for testing/research, in which case it's on you.
You're not wrong that we should keep our shields up - but "update sometime in the last 18 months" perhaps isn't such a revelation.
One thing does come to mind though - I do wonder if there's a way to strongarm apt's dependencies mechanism into having openssh-server conflict with affected libxz versions, so that if you did apt update && apt install openssh-server in an affected image, it'd bring a fixed libxz along for the ride. (and the images don't carry apt manifests, so apt update is required and you would have today's package list.) You could still pin an affected version, so there'd still be enough rope to allow you to recreate a research environment.
reply