• 0 Posts
  • 26 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle








  • Giooschi@lemmy.worldtoLinux@lemmy.ml$HOME, Not So Sweet $HOME
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    I hate all the cruft in my home directory, but I also hate when stuff suddently stop working after an update, or when all the documentation online talks about something that doesn’t work on my system or is not there anymore. Developers are the ones that will have to deal with people with these issues, so I can see why they are reluctant to implement the naive solutions that some ask for.




  • The only options you have are:

    • Dazn Standard (45€/month, 35€/month if you pay for 12 months) to get access to all the SerieA matches (and a whole bunch of other sports nobody cares about)

    • Dazn Goal Pass (20€/month, 14€/month if you pay for 12 months) to get access to 3 SerieA matches per week which you don’t get to choose (and a bunch of other sports nobody cares about)

    • Sky (16€/month for the first 18 months, then whatever Sky wants after that) to get access to 3 SerieA matches per week which you don’t get to choose (and a bunch of other stuff nobody cares about)

    Most people care only about some specific matches, so your only option is Dazn.

    Dazn is also a very crappy service, it often has connectivity problems and also has ads. Fun fact, if you get a connection issue while watching a Dazn ad, it will restart.

    So, as usual, monopoly, high costs and crappy services drive piracy.


  • If you distribute your app via Flatpak, what benefit is there over “disk space” (irrelevant for all but embedded devices)

    Everyone always focuses on disk space, but IMO the real issue is download size, especially when you update a bunch of flatpaks together.

    I still prefer the upstream flatpaks over Fedora’s though.


  • Well, but then you’re basically just pushing the mutability onto the container

    That’s the point, when programming with immutable structures you always pass the mutability onto the enclosing structure.

    It’s a good strategy at times though. Like say you’re working in a language where strings are immutable and you want a string you can change. You can wrap it in a list along the lines s=['foo'] and pass references to the list around instead. Then if you go s[0]='bar' at some point, all the references will now see ['bar'] instead.

    A list is an antipattern here IMO. Just wrap it in some dedicated object (see e.g. Java’s StringBuilder).




  • You keep the recovery codes unexposed to the internet or obfuscated in some way, unlike your usual password.

    How is a strong password I used exclusively for Bitwarden “exposed to the internet”? I do see the value of this for people that don’t care about security and reuse the same password everywhere. In that case you would need something like phishing to expose the 2FA code or the recovery code, just a leak of the email-password combination from another website would not be enough. But what’s the point if I’m already using a unique strong password specifically for Bitwarden?