bscphil

157 ms·

901.
by bscphil 5y ago
If that's the goal, why not publish full schematics under a non-commercial license? No, it wouldn't be "open source" according to OSI / FSF, but most people would be happier about it than the status quo.
902.
by bscphil 5y ago
> ST's "Ultimate Liberty License" Wow. That's a shocking level of assholery. It's effectively a BSD license with an added restriction which says it can't be licensed (e.g. as part of a combined work) under a
903.
by bscphil 5y ago
> Take for example this project here. Is there any feedreader out there who has this built-in to make it comfortable for the user to use this? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question. This project is easy to use in all feed reader
904.
by bscphil 5y ago
Well said. I would add that I think the devDependencies solution is underrated. Not using it is a bad practice. npm has a nice feature, `npm prune --production` which will remove all the dev dependencies for you resulting in a clean build o
905.
by bscphil 5y ago
> Rust This has not been my experience at all. Most Rust developers unfortunately seem quite happy to adopt modern programming bad practices. (There are many exceptions, of course.) Example: I went with the first Rust program I could fin
906.
by bscphil 5y ago
> A metaphor might be: "The passenger door is broken on my car, but I'm the only one to use it". Seriously, who, in their right mind, is going to argue that the door isn't broken? I think a better metaphor might be, t
907.
by bscphil 5y ago
Many of them, thanks in part to dynamic linking. (I don't think excluding DLLs is too unfair, after all the browser constitutes an enormous Javascript runtime environment.) VLC is one of the more complex programs out there, and yet t
908.
by bscphil 5y ago
I think bloat really means two different things. One is the obvious "file size" issue, and as you are mentioning it's quite possible to write small sites even using heavy-weight frameworks. But a lot of the complaints in this
909.
by bscphil 5y ago
I don't think I've ever been asked to accept a cookie policy on Reddit. I normally only browse Reddit while logged in, so that could be part of it. Is this a new thing?
910.
by bscphil 5y ago
I could not disagree more with the author. I think their argument should be debated on the merits, but it bears mentioning that the author is still in their twenties, and has only seen ~74 movies a year since 2010. That's ... not a lot
911.
by bscphil 5y ago
> preferring the term "immoral" over "illegal" inherently lends itself to allowing people to rationalise illegal activities Why do you need to rationalize illegal activities if they aren't immoral?
912.
by bscphil 5y ago
> I say just advertise it as “feeds”, not “RSS feeds”. I think that's even worse. For most ordinary people that has a bunch of unintended meanings. "My Facebook has a feed, do you mean subscribing to your site on Facebook? Why
913.
by bscphil 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand the criticism. What exactly is supposed to be the alternative? It's not like this is supposed to be used for high-availability purposes or stock trading or something. It scratches a particular itch for a
914.
by bscphil 5y ago
> I think you might be interested in TCEC which has fair fights between Stockfish and LeelaChessZero This is pretty questionable in my judgment, actually. TCEC's GPU hardware is 4x Nvidia V100 data center class GPUs, with a pretty p
915.
by bscphil 5y ago
Do you have color management fully enabled in Firefox? If you don't have a color profile assigned then Firefox will probably just treat your screen as sRGB, meaning that both images will be compressed into the tiny sRGB gamut and look
916.
by bscphil 5y ago
> YouTube has surprisingly great support for HDR and Wide Color Gamut. That's good to hear. Does it work on PC? I assume it's browser / OS limited if so. > but many of these colors are physically dim and much harder to
917.
by bscphil 5y ago
> And who likes oversaturated colors? What user rage? I regret to inform you... https://techdows.com/2020/07/chrome-84-force-color-profile-s... https://old.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments
918.
by bscphil 5y ago
This isn't quite right. You can have colors that are significantly out of gamut without being over-bright. Moreover, they might be using a traditional SDR screen which doesn't have any management of brightness at all. I can easil
919.
by bscphil 5y ago
> While Firefox only finally brought proper color management last month. This was just a flag they turned on (on macOS?) to treat untagged images and CSS colors as sRGB. It's been available for everyone on all platforms since Firefo
920.
by bscphil 5y ago
Great question. You're 100% correct, the whole test depends on the specifics of renderer behavior. The author of the article is assuming that any screen with less than sRGB coverage will tonemap the DCI-P3 image to look exactly the sam
921.
by bscphil 5y ago
> doesn't work on many Chrominum derived browsers because they can't consistently handle rich colour spaces. Do you have any references documenting the problems with Chrome's handling of wide color gamuts? I can't see
922.
by bscphil 5y ago
That's good. I assume you mean the webkit logo test. I wonder what's different about color management on macOS such that this was hard for the other browsers to support. Correctly decoding images tagged in any color space has wo
923.
by bscphil 5y ago
> I mean, sRGB #FF0000 is a pretty bright red. When do you really need more than that? I mean, sometimes you do. Especially when you're working with canvases. But I fear this will just be abused: what advertiser isn't going t
924.
by bscphil 5y ago
> The image on the left below is a uniform red square in the sRGB gamut. The image on the right is slightly different, as it actually uses two different shades of red: one that is within the sRGB gamut and another that is outside of it.
925.
by bscphil 5y ago
Split the difference. Automatically update devices until they are end-of-lifed, then send a last update that blows a fuse allowing automatic updates. Anything after that point requires a write switch to be flipped. Actually, preferentially
926.
by bscphil 5y ago
I do my upgrades every few weeks, for what it's worth, and I've had the same Arch install since 2013. The size of the upgrade should very rarely have any effect on whether it succeeds; you're just more likely to have missed s
927.
by bscphil 5y ago
This is literally intended. Arch is a rolling release distribution, and more than that, it's a distribution which sticks very closely to upstream and tries to have a single correct way to do things. To have all those things at once,
928.
by bscphil 5y ago
> I would not recommend anyone to use Arch unless they are willing to spend a lot of time fiddling with their machine and I wouldn't install it on anything that I might have to use at a moments notice since as I've been told pa
929.
by bscphil 5y ago
> A glance at the online Arch package listing and some example .PKGINFO files indicates that Pacman also doesn't support metadata like 'provides' and 'replaces' in DEB and RPM, which means the developers have few
930.
by bscphil 5y ago
> I have no complaints about distros that are either 100% systemd or 100% init scripts. The problem with Debian (and its derivatives) is that they're trying to maintain both at the same time. Well said. I'd add that "servi

More ›