My logitech G900 is plug n play on all my linux installations.
The same is true for the inexpensive logitech mouse that I have as backup (although it’s a piece of shit of a mouse and what made me decide to avoid logitech like the plague going forward).
Contact lenses in a nutshell
What is this mysterious device that requires specific libraries and kernel modules? So I can state the fuck away from the device and the brand
Use uBlock Origin. Not AdBlock, not AdBlock Plus, not any other crapware. Looking at AdBlock website they have a blurb about only keeping anonymised data and never selling it and yada yada yada, because it goes against their company ethics.
Company ethics. AdBlock is owned by a company. A for-profit entity. How do you think they make their money? Either they sell the data they have gathered (why does an ad blocking extension need to gather user data?) or they have agreements with ad companies.
Compare the websites of AdBlock and uBlock Origin. The first thing on uBlock Origin website is a link to the publicly available source code. That’s trustworthy. AdBlock’s website has a handpicked list of 5 star reviews.
TL; DR: please switch to uBlock Origin and ditch AdBlock, they (the company behind AdBlock) likely have agreements with advertisers (including Google and YouTube) to make money. Your data is being harvested by using AdBlock. You cannot look at the code for AdBlock. AdBlock is not trustworthy.
If by vim you mean neovim
vim.api.nvim_create_autocmd(“fileType”, {
group = file_type_group,
pattern = “make”,
command = “setlocal ts=4 sts=4 sw=4 noexpandtab”,
})
Slap this in your config, done
if you’re using windows and expect any privacy at all […] throw that notion out the window
Correct. And the same is true even if you are using linux, macOS, android, or a butterfly to manipulate bits to send a message through the internet.
Because if your message ends up on the screen of a windows user, it’s also going to be eaten by AI.
And forget the notion of “anything you post on the internet is forever”, this is also true for private and encrypted comms now. At least as long as they can be decrypted by your recipient, if they use windows.
You want privacy and use linux? Well, that’s no longer enough. You now also need to make sure that none of your communications include a (current or future) windows user as they get spyware by default in their system.
Well maybe not quite by default, yet
They are yeah, but in that scenario you would also not have a window decoration with a close button, so I assumed the OP meant maximized :P
Reread the OP. They say:
not on GNOME, because you have a panel at the top
And
when usign GTK apps on those [non-GNOME] desktops
So you would not “access the controls above the app”, because having controls above the app is not covered by this scenario.
The scenario is:
Which makes the close button be in the corner of the screen, but without actually extending to it.
On topic: never knew this was a problem, guess I got spoiled by the Qt environment
I thought mint was switching to a debian base but it looks like I am mistaken. While LMDE exists, it’s still not the default.
Got the feeling that’s probably gonna change soonish, we’ll see.
I remember playing lots of sims 2 as a kid. Could not play sims 3 due to not having a pc that could run it, and I found sims 4 extremely disappointing.
Been keeping an eye on Life by You and Paralives for modern takes at the genre.
I wonder if EA will try to innovate with sims 5 and if they’ll try to optimize the unbelievable loading times (talking about sims 4 here) due to the competition or if they hope to coast on reputation alone.
I thought Life by You was trying to fill that gap.
With both that and Sims 5 (edit: oh an Paralives of course, was forgetting about that) on the horizon will this new studio be able to find its space in the market?
Guess more competition is always good, hopefully it doesn’t flop immediately.
I don’t know about color profile data, but I can vouch for the EDID potentially being totally wrong sometimes on even basic data like physical size or even logical size (number of pixels).
As for the why, I don’t know, but following Occam’s razor I would guess that it’s cheaper when you just don’t care and leave it as somebody else’s problem.
Since my previous example didn’t really have return value, I am changing it slightly. So if I’m reading your suggestion of “rewriting that in 3 lines and a single nested scope followed by a single return”, I think you mean it like this?
int retval = 0;
// precondition checks:
if (!p1) retval = -ERROR1;
if (p2) retval = -ERROR2;
if (!p3 && p4) retval = -ERROR3;
// business logic:
if (p1 && !p2 && (p3 || !p4))
{
retval = 42;
}
// or perhaps would you prefer the business logic check be like this?
if (retval != -ERROR1 && retval != -ERROR2 && retval != -ERROR3)
{
retval = 42;
}
// or perhaps you'd split the business logic predicate like this? (Assuming the predicates only have a value of 0 or 1)
int ok = p1;
ok &= !p2;
ok &= p3 || !p4;
if (ok)
{
retval = 42;
}
return retval;
as opposed to this?
// precondition checks:
if(!p1) return -ERROR1;
if(p2) return -ERROR2;
if(!p3 && p4) return -ERROR3;
// business logic:
return 42;
Using a retval has the exact problem that you want to avoid: at the point where we do return retval, we have no idea how retval was manipulated, or if it was set multiple times by different branches.
It’s mutable state inside the function, so any line from when the variable is defined to when return retval is hit must now be examined to know why retval has the value that it has.
Not to mention that the business logic then needs to be guarded with some predicate, because we can’t early return. And if you need to add another precondition check, you need to add another (but inverted) predicate to the business logic check.
You also mentioned resource leaks, and I find that a more compelling argument for having only a single return. Readability and understandability (both of which directly correlate to maintainability) are undeniably better with early returns. But if you hit an early return after you have allocated resources, you have a resource leak.
Still, there are better solutions to the resource leak problem than to clobber your functions into an unreadable mess. Here’s a couple options I can think of.
deferExample of option 1
// precondition checks
if(!p1) return -ERROR1;
if(p2) return -ERROR2;
if(!p3 && p4) return -ERROR3;
void* pResource = allocResource();
int retval = 0;
// ...
// some business logic, no return allowed
// ...
freeResource(pResource);
return retval; // no leaks
Example of option 2
// same precondition checks with early returns, won't repeat them for brevity
auto Resource = allocResource();
// ...
// some business logic, return allowed, the destructor of Resource will be called when it goes out of scope, freeing the resources. No leaks
// ...
return 42;
Example of option 3
// precondition checks
void* pResource = allocResource();
defer freeResource(pResource);
// ...
// some business logic, return allowed, deferred statements will be executed before return. No leaks
// ...
return 42;
Example of option 4
int freeAndReturn(void* pResource, const int retval)
{
freeResource(pResource);
return retval;
}
int doWork()
{
// precondition checks
void* pResource = allocResource();
// ...
// some business logic, return allowed only in the same form as the following line
// ...
return freeAndReturn(pResource, 42);
}
Bad advice. Early return is way easier to parse and comprehend.
if (p1)
{
if(!p2)
{
if(p3 || !p4)
{
*pOut = 10;
}
}
}
vs
if(!p1) return;
if(p2) return;
if(!p3 && p4) return;
*pOut = 10;
Early out makes the error conditions explicit, which is what one is interested in 90% of the time. After the last if you know that all of the above conditions are false, so you don’t need to keep them in your head.
And this is just a silly example with 3 predicates, imagine how a full function with lots of state looks. You would need to keep the entire decision tree in your head at all times. That’s the opposite of maintainable.
Does Israel have a free press?
The “or later” is optional, the FSF specifically doesn’t have the power to update the terms of every GPL-licensed software because the wrote the clause in such a way that they don’t.
If I give you software licensed under the GPL3, and a GPL3.1 comes out, it doesn’t apply to your copy of the software. Likewise the copyright holder of the work is also not forced to relicense their software under the GPL3.1. And even if they did, copies of the software distributed under the GPL3 would still be licensed under the GPL3.
The “or later” clause simply means that if I received a copy of a GPL3 software, I can redistribute it under the GPL3.1 if I so wish (where “I” in the previous sentence is everyone with a copy of the work, as the GPL gives everyone with a copy redistribution rights)
Maybe Eidos would love to get another Deus Ex out there but there’s no publisher interest
You know, they could just… Say this, and placate everyone. I’m honestly sick and tired of companies in general, and game companies specifically, being afforded this stupid level of opaqueness.
If you were to talk to someone that would exclusively stonewall you, you’d be quick to stop talking to this person. When it’s game companies though, everyone bends over backwards to try to find justifications for their behavior on their behalf.
TAA has become so common because its’s “free”. Temporal data is required by DLSS and FSR, so if you are implementing those technologies you already have the necessary data to implement TAA, making it a no brainier to include.
Not so fast now! High resolution video only available on edge on windows
I think it’s possible that the filesystem ran out of inodes, so even though there is space on disk, there is no space in the filesystem metadata to store new files.
Now, I don’t know off the top of my head how to check this, but I assume the answer is on the internet somewhere (am on phone and can’t help much more than this, sorry)