Not a hardware recommendation, but if you use the open-source Calibre ebook management software, it can convert between formats so you don’t need to worry about which file formats different readers support.

How about if each voter has a fixed number of votes that could be either up or down? And they could be distributed to different candidates, or multiple votes could be given to one candidate if there was one you felt strongly about.

Weakness and risk are distinct things, though—and while security-through-obscurity is dubious, “strength-through-obscurity” is outright false.

Conflating the two implies that software weaknesses are caused by attackers instead of just exploited by them, and suggests they can be addressed by restricting the external environment rather than by better software audits.

Interpreting “a previously-unrecognized weakness in X was just found” as “X just got weaker” is dangerously bad tech writing.

“I don’t have time for alcoholism—I’m too busy shooting heroin.”

So a screen shot linking to the original tweet, then?

As a casual self-hoster for twenty years, I ran into a consistent pattern: I would install things to try them out and they’d work great at first; but after installing/uninstalling other services, updating libraries, etc, the conflicts would accumulate until I’d eventually give up and re-install the whole system from scratch. And by then I’d have lost track of how I installed things the first time, and have to reconfigure everything by trial and error.

Docker has eliminated that cycle—and once you learn the basics of Docker, most software is easier to install as a container than it is on a bare system. And Docker makes it more consistent to keep track of which ports, local directories, and other local resources each service is using, and of what steps are needed to install or reinstall.

For software that’s currently available on both Windows and MacOS, how does the performance of the Windows version under Wine compare to the MacOS version under Darling?

Clarification: data can be sent at c, but electronic data can’t. Electrons have mass and can’t move at the speed of light; the electromagnetic waves they carry can move at the speed of light in the medium through which the electrons are conducted, which is still slower than c. Photons, on the other hand, can transmit optical data at c (which still doesn’t do anything unexpected with respect to time).

I’d imagine that effectively means agencies would stop using Firefox, if they can’t use it on their own sites.

The U.S. Web Design System (USWDS) provides a comprehensive set of standards which guide those who build the U.S. government’s many websites. Its documentation for developers borrows a “2% rule” from its British counterpart:
. . . we officially support any browser above 2% usage as observed by analytics.usa.gov.

Reminder to self to always use FF when visiting .gov sites.

“RF wireless charging is a type of uncoupled wireless charging in which an antenna embedded in an electronic device can pick up low level radio frequency waves from external sources and convert the waves’ energy to direct current (DC) voltage.”

I can’t find that quote in the article—or anything that definitively indicates they’re talking about RF power rather than RFID signals (other than saying the transmitters “power up” all the switches, which could just be sloppy terminology.)

No explanation of how it works, but I’m guessing it slides an RFID chip in or out of a Faraday cage.

That raises an important point: the Chinese language(s) are actually completely unrelated to Japanese, but the writing systems are related—and their partly-semantic nature lets readers recognize some isolated written words (with no indication of pronunciation or syntax).

Does that meet OP’s criteria, since they said they were mostly interested in reading?

If you learned Mandarin, but learned to read Pinyin instead of kanji, the mutual intelligibility of other languages would be totally different.

More likely that AI will be answering questions drawing on training sets containing forum posts that are over 100 years old.

Apple would no doubt prefer to have its cake and eat it too—keep the show and its revenue without facing retaliation from the CCP. If Congress gives them a plausible excuse to do that, why wouldn’t they?

If Apple could make up the cost by raising the price, why aren’t they raising the price right now? Are shareholders saying “please stop at the current profit margin”?

Or is it more likely that Apple is already charging the highest price they can without losing sales and revenue?

You think Apple’s prices are primarily determined by cost, or demand?

They could have just asked them to say the word “Shibboleth”.

Skimming through the cited paper, it looks like their conclusion is based less on a detailed model of the climate as much as a general property of dynamical systems and how plausible it is that current climate processes could result in a chaotic state.

What I’d like to see is if the more detailed models used in most climate forecasts are able to capture the sort of dynamics they describe. (Not predicting the outcome, obviously, but maybe predicting the circumstances in which a transition to a chaotic regime could occur.)