You’re looking for a collision, any of them will do, so your computation doesn’t actually need to go through all the elements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_attack

Using karabiner-elements, https://pqrs.org/osx/karabiner/, you can map caps to behave a esc when pressed alone, and as ctrl when pressed with another key.

Gitea is a fork of Gogs.

> Are users expected to install and find out?

Some due diligence and going to the gitea website could also do the trick. https://docs.gitea.io/en-us/

Which is literally the second sentence on the page linked to in this HN post.

Which obviously was not what I was asking.

I was mostly wondering why they don't have a list of features right there in their frontpage or inside the README on GitHub.

The bindings are done on your macbook, it works seamlessly on the clients you connect too.

I know a lot of people doing that. Personally, I map caps lock to esc when pressed, and ctrl when pressed with another key. The best of both worlds.

That's almost 50% of the price of the watch with shipping, it's crazy. I'll change the shipping address to a friend in the US I guess.

Well the Pebble Time Steel is 250$, but yeah the point stands.

It's not really the same though, gj and gk move the cursor by displayed lines instead of real lines.

Op's plugin is like transposing the buffer like a matrix, and then using normal word motions on the line that was a column.

>The investigation will attempt to determine whether Google is using its position to discourage the inclusion of rival applications on Android-based phones.

Shouldn't this also apply to iOS?

I don't see any way to even ask the question sensibly about iOS.

Google supplies an OS (Android) to non-Google phone makers, and Google supplies applications to non-Google phone makers. The potential antitrust issue is if Google is using its position as an OS supplier to other companies to influence those other companies to also choose Google for applications.

Apple supplies neither an OS nor applications to non-Apple phone makers. There is no third party that Apple is using iOS to influence toward choosing Apple applications.

> Shouldn't this also apply to iOS?

Perhaps, but the set of entities behind the complaints that triggered the investigations directed at Google are specifically targeting Google.

If a similar group targets Apple, then maybe we'll see a similar investigation.

By entities, you mean the Microsoft funded astroturf organization FairSearch and the hydra connected to it.

It's not really "astroturf"ing when FairSearch prominently displays that it's an organization owned by Microsoft on their about page: http://www.fairsearch.org/about/

(Meanwhile, Google goes out of their way to hide their ownership of the Open Handset Alliance, burying the first mention of their name on like the third page of members.)

Jake, is that you? (Jake Weisz made an almost identical assertion on G+) Do you not understand the concept of alphabetic ordering?

Do you really believe Google is trying to hide their relationship to the OHA? The OHA was announced and formed on Day 1 of the Android release (http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/press_110507.html)

No one out there is under any illusion that Google didn't put together and lead this consortium. What else would they do? You make an OS, one that is free of charge and open, and you need hardware and software partners onboard, the only way to do that is to adopt some venue for collaboration.

Also, I would hardly consider the OHA's MADA a "venue for collaboration". A venue for control, sure. Collaboration, no.

Have you attended any OHA meetings? You're making quite a lot of unbacked up assertions.

Microsoft for years ran many working groups for hardware partners, for example, the Microsoft groups for DirectX which allowed NVidia, AMD, et al, to influence and collborate on common specs. Microsoft "led" the discussion, but NVidia and AMD were clearly able to influence the specs because the API had to be rationalized around real, existing, and upcoming hardware designs in the pipeline.

You have a habit to attributing negative and conspiratorial agendas to everything.

I'd love to attend an OHA meeting! I'm sure Google's going to open that up. Oh, wait, the OHA is somewhere around as secretive as the NSA. Although at least the NSA can claim it's trying to protect people. Google's just trying to cover their dirty laundry.

That's actually one of the things I'm really hoping for out of these cases. A judge that won't care about your non-disclosure crud and will post that stuff in open court.

Oh, hey. Thought I recognized the name, Ray. :)

But yes, they are. Look at the front page of the OHA site, Google is not named. Nor are they named in the OHA's Overview, like it's about page. You have to go into Members, and then Software Companies, and on that page, four pages deep, Google puts itself as the sixth name down. Bit shifty.

Furthermore, while all other Google websites link directly to Google's terms of service, the OHA site puts a stub page in between, rather than linking directly to it, as would be standard par for the course.

Google takes exceptional measures to distance themselves from control of the OHA, which they most certainly have.

In my opinion, yes, and it would be beneficial for most citizens if the EU intervened.

Yes. And that doesn't detract from the validity of the claims against Google.

Absolutely. I'm just a bit surprised that such charges have never been brought against Apple.

That's more than likely because Apple has never really held market dominance for a substantial period of time.

Thanks to Android and Google. If Google had never released Android, you might be looking at an even more locked in monopoly, one far worse than the Wintel Duopoly of the 90s.

And then Apple would be in the same boat Google is in now. Of course, had Google been willing to create an open source OS without using an illegal trust to maintain control of it... well, then everyone would be in the clear.

If my understanding is correct, it is a bit more complicated.

The magistrate with authority in a district may only issue a warrant for a remote search if:

  * The crime investigated occurred at least partially in the district.
  * The device location was hidden by any mean (vpn, tor, etc.).

This doesn't say anything about obtaining warrants automatically if someone is using VPN or Tor.

Maxmind offers free databases to do IP localization : http://dev.maxmind.com/geoip/legacy/downloadable/

It's not extremely precise, but is enough for applications like this. Notice for instance the point up north in Canada, a lot of IPs will be placed there. It's in the middle of Manitoba, and there's pretty much nothing there. I believe it's the geographical center of Canada, and the default value when no other coordinates are known.

That's pretty much exactly what's happening with some locations. We do our best to get an accurate location based on a few sources, but ultimately Maxmind is the database we fall back to for pure IP based location if that's all we have.

We have the same difficulties with our Maxmind IP database. An inordinate number of our users supposedly live in Potwin, KS, AKA the geographical center of the United States.