Afaict, these are all recurring subscriptions. Is there any reason not to signup for a month or two and then cancel, maybe repeat every couple years? The sub is more of a continuous monitoring thing?
I assume they wouldn't just "undo" their opt-outs?
I'd prefer a one-time payment over that darn subscription-recurring-revenue-model.
The month or two thing will work for some exposures, but the bummer reality is that these sites are terrible and the worst of them take persistence and escalation to remove, which can take some time.
(I've been working for one of the aforementioned—Kanary—for about a year now on this sort of thing.)
Re: undoing opt-outs, we do not do that, but data brokers will re-surface your information again if they find it elsewhere.
Adding my own personal experience with Incogni (owned by SurfShark); I feel like I’m getting my money’s worth as far as data brokers contacted automatically on my behalf (100+).
i've been reading HN for the last 4 years or so. over that time ive slowly gotten rid of social media; first by uninstalling apps, then by deleting accounts. Lately I decided to get rid of reddit, which had had a huge impact on my media consumption. I've found myself taking the time to read articles posted on here, and as such Ive found a few sites that I favor for content.
Early on I simply read comments if a site was blocked, then went to archives, and now i'm finding myself paying for sites I appreciate. I feel like this is an eventual outcome for many, but getting users to consume "long form" media is the trick. If it weren't for these free peaks at the content, I would never have come around to paying for it.
Maybe all these paywalled sites could start a subscription service where you pay one low monthly fee and get access to X sites with it.
Then every publisher that is a member of the subscription service gets an amount of money proportionate to the number of subscribers that read their articles.
Seems so obvious to me but maybe there’s a reason why it wouldn’t (or hasn’t) worked.
I use Zen on a newer Thinkpad T14, but I feel there is a difference. Applications like Firefox and Intellij feel snappier than with the standard Kernel.
I am the author of the Mumble library[1] used in OP's project. I've also contributed directly to the Mumble project a bit in the past.
It has been several years since I shut down my personal Mumble server. One of the reasons being that lots of my friends were using Discord and found opening Mumble an annoyance (being connected to multiple Mumble servers at once is not well supported, but being in multiple Discord "servers" is very common). The Mumble client also had a poor UX.
It would be great if Mumble had a web interface, support for multiple servers, and a better text chat interface, but I think it's too little too late to convince regular users to use Mumble.
I run a mumble server and I'm a holdout. Close friends know I won't go on Discord.
I had a thought the other day that it's interesting now that Discord has a strong user-base, they've really gone backwards in terms of what made them palatable in the first place. If I recall correctly, it used to be that you could send someone a Discord URL and they would be able to instantly join a call from it, no account needed, no app needed, no need to "join a server", just straight into a call. I suspect at some point their strategy moved away from growing the number of users, to now extracting value from existing users.
Hey, techietim thanks for the library. Sorry to hear you are not using mumble any more. The bridge has worked great for myself and my group over the last year. We definitely felt the presure to move to Discord before the bridge but now we just point people at our Discord server, which we call "Not Mumble" and everything works out great. If you every want to give MDB a try shoot me a message and would be more than happy to help. Although having read through the gumble library I'm sure you could fire it all up in no time. Thanks again.
I set up a mumble server at the beginning of the pandemic to talk to my friends. It quickly fell out of use for the same reasons you gave. Shame to see such high quality audio software give way to closed source alternatives
Of course there has been no progress on reverse engineering the epaper display driver in the past three months. Furthermore it is questionable why anyone would need to RE it, considering that the driver is in-kernel. The assembly file that rockchip shipped with their sdk seems like a GPL violation to me.
Good point. That page says the BSP ships with a GCC-produced driver blob, without source. Would be good to hear from the Pine64 folks on whether they've contacted the vendor and demanded source.
As for blobs without source, the same happens with x86 all the time. If you really want a fully deblobbed computer, you can try one of the POWER boxes from Raptor.
Disagree. I didn't hear about it back in September, and am glad to know they're at least working on this. So, posted it in an attempt to spread the awareness. :)
I have been using the Wireguard support in the beta release for most of this past year. Having a persistent connection from my Android phone and my wife's iPhone was simple with the built-in Mikrotik DDNS service. It makes checking on things like security cameras nice if you do not want to use a cloud service.
I know you're getting down voted for not providing evidence / not being scientific, but I've always wondered how that number made its way into the Bible. Were people really living to 120 back when Genesis was written 3500 years ago?
There is the idea in the Bible that in the time before the flood people were somehow greater. They were bigger and lived longer. Here is a quote from Noah's genealogy for instance from the New Revised Standard Version, Genesis chapter 5.
"21 When Enoch had lived sixty-five years, he became the father of Methuselah.
22 Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methuselah three hundred years, and had other sons and daughters.
23 Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years.
24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him.
25 When Methuselah had lived one hundred eighty-seven years, he became the father of Lamech.
26 Methuselah lived after the birth of Lamech seven hundred eighty-two years, and had other sons and daughters.
27 Thus all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty-nine years; and he died."
After the flood things changed, and you don't have these incredibly long lived people anymore.
People seem to forget the story states it never rained before the flood and that a mist covered everything. Indeed, there wasn’t enough direct sunlight for a Rainbow until the flood.
Regardless of whether it’s true or not, the story is describing a different type of earth; one covered with dense clouds that all precipitated at once, flooding the world and, ever since, exposing everything to UV radiation which obviously would have an enormous deleterious impact on lifespans.
There's a bit of a rabbit hole to go down about the question of ages in Genesis, touching on some neat topics such as Base-60 counting systems used by ancient Sumerian civilizations. Here's a nice start : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoPbZnRN8xQ
It is really a Western culture thing to put great exactness on numbers. There is also the possibility that timekeeping was off compared to today, and so with those two factors in mind, it might not be unreasonable to assume that many people (at least knew someone who) lived to their 80's-90's, which in turn would make it 120 years with some great give-and-take. I think this is the argument of Dr John Oakes (disclaimer: doctor in chemistry, not theology).
A personal hypothesis is that according to the Bible, Moses lived to be 120 years, and as he was a salvific figure (not divinely) to the Jews him living to the maximum age is a pretty cool point.
Anyway, it kind of begs the question: how Jacob came to be 130 (Genesis 47:9), when max age was 120? Perhaps Genesis 6:3 was talking about something else, then? Theories include how much time was left in the life of Adam (the word used for man is in the singular number with the definite article, which could be translated as "the man Adam", instead of mankind). So it might be saying that Adam had 120 years left to live in. Another interpretation is that God gives mankind 120 years of repentance, and then the flood waters would come.
Either way, it's a good question. 120 seems to have some significance in the Bible. 2 Chronicles 5:12-13 mentions Solomon's temple, where there were 120 priests singing in unity. In Acts 1:15 there were 120 people that Peter talked to. The book of revelation mentions that 12 000 from each tribe will be saved, for a total of 144 000 people (12 x 12000).
Thanks for the prompt, even though I have no answer.
Disclaimer: I am a Christian and in pursuit of my BTh, so I am probably biased.
At best that says they could count to the rough age of their own eldest. At worst, it’s just the Texas sharpshooter fallacy — you don’t get brownie points for that when the same book also gave a size for Noah’s Ark roughly on par with Berlin Zoo’s rhino exhibit.
I don’t understand. Genesis is talking about the maximum age someone can live. And it turns put to be very close to reality. It’s not measuring two different things. You confuse me.
The Bible a as a whole is making a lot of claims, not just that one. You claim one example of being (close to) right (given a chalcolithic lifestyle and medicine) is “interesting” in isolation — but that ignores that it’s surrounded by nonsense.
It isn’t interesting or surprising that a collection of nonsense might be occasionally (and even then vaguely) correct.
Lottery players are occasionally correct about the numbers, even if they chose them by superstition. But even they don’t get to claim the jackpot when they choose and the drawn numbers are merely “close”. Yet being close is the first step in how superstitions get generated.
Likewise, the Bible: no more or less interesting than any other collection of Just So stories, fitting a narrative to an existing observation.
It gets super weird, the word we use for "really old", Methuselah, comes from a person mentioned in the bible as living to 969.
Noah was said to have reached over 900 as did Adam, etc.
But it's not like years were unknown to people in antiquity either. But maybe it's just something that we don't have a good translation for and "year" is a close enough guess.
For instance, someone who has lived to 80 has lived about 960 months, which, if you notice, is really close to 969. And people living to their 70s and 80s seems reasonable. Considering that life expectancy in the past typically jumped up once you reached adulthood.
The pronouncement related to the Flood: it occurred 120 years after the pronouncement.
There’s some confusion in the chronology, due to Noah’s genealogy, age, and the births of his sons being kinda garbled up in the same chapter. (That is, some might say the flood happened 100 years after the pronouncement instead of 120.)
But no fair reading would assume it has to do with lifespans as even in the authors time (Moses, presumably) people were living longer than 120 years. For instance, Sara lived to 127, Abraham lived to 175, and Jacob made it to 140 or so.
It says that The Bible contains at least one obvious thing that is true.
If one wrote down millennia again that men tend to die from decapitation, that would still hold to this day as well, much more than that as there are people that lived beyond the age of 120.
