Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)A
帖子
1
评论
537
加入于
3 yr. ago

  • 已删除

    Permanently Deleted

    跳过
  • This is separate from A-GPS. Google seems to be using WiFi rather than Bluetooth, but the broader point remains the same. No one is stopping any vendor from crowdsourcing the location of every BT device... which is what Apple has done, for Airtags which don't have the battery capacity to run a GPS chip.

    Sure without GPS it wouldn't be very effective to rely on only nearby devices to guess the current location. But an attacker only has to get lucky once to get your home address. So the only safe approach is to hide nearby devices/networks from unauthorized apps.

  • 已删除

    Permanently Deleted

    跳过
  • Every Bluetooth device has a unique identifier. Any phone that has seen that Bluetooth device in the past could have told google/apple/whoever "hey BTW this device is at those coordinates".

    Google already uses this with WiFi to help "bootstrap" GPS localization. It is much faster to get a GPS fix if you already know roughly where you are (a few seconds vs a couple minutes), so they use nearby WiFi/Bluetooth devices to determine that. Remember 10-15 years ago when getting a GPS fix took forever? GPS didn't change, this did.Apple went further and does this with Airtags now. Every Bluetooth device that ever went near an iPhone is in Apple's database with GPS coordinates.

    So unless you live alone in a mountain cabin that has never been visited by someone with a smartphone before and you didn't disable the "enhanced localization" feature on your phone, yes your Bluetooth is at risk of giving up your location.

  • Plenty of cars flash their brake lights when ABS(/ESP?) engages, which is reasonable and should be a legal requirement IMO.

    There's lots of room to give additional info in between that and "brake light is on because the driver doesn't understand that they can do mild adjustments by letting off the gas / stupid bitch-ass VW PHEV computer thinks using cruise control downhill with electric regen requires the motherfucking brake lights". It's like no-one realizes or cares that brake lights lose all purpose if they're on when the car isn't meaningfully decelerating. ARGH.

  • There are ways to own very high quality movies. Those ways just happen to not be legal. Still less of a hassle than maintaining a physical media collection.

    I do own a record player so I see the point of added physicality though.

  • Sure, but I don't think Waterfall is going to save you from the soul-crushingness in such an environment.

  • Or way worse, what you said but senior techs.

    Microsoft has been at this long enough that there is an army of old guys whose only - but extremely specialized - skillset is navigating arcane GUIs for group policies and AD administration. But drop them in a bash terminal and they're like a fish dropped on a tennis court.

  • How much of it is due to Agile (which is a very broad concept even though some people mistakenly equate it with scrum), and how much is it due to corporate pressures and inadequate processes though?

    I find Agile conceptually meshes a lot better with "standard" product and solutions development thanks to the tighter feedback loops and increased reliance on local expertise over centralized planning. This only gets truer as project complexity grows.

    However some companies try to make Agile work with top-down decision making and/or hard deadlines, which are deadly antipatterns. As for lack of time/resources and/or timesheet micro-management, this isn't a problem unique to Agile nor something that waterfall is exempt from.

    Good agile teams are mostly independent and can define their own testing/release cycle as required for a given project; though of course when that happens there are at least a couple layers of management who feel a burning itch to stuff their dirty nosed where they don't belong because if the team succeeds despite their lack of direct involvement then everyone might realize the emperor has no pants.

  • That may be true in some truly well organized (usually "legacy big corpo" companies).

    Where I've worked it's more like:

    • Requirements only cover user-facing features, if that. (Not so) senior engineers are left to bridge the gap between UI mockups and literally everything else.
    • Implementation issue is accidentally introduced
    • Priority on the bug is lower than new features so no-one has any way to justify working on it
    • One day a dev might be personally annoyed enough by the issue that they fix the part as part of some tangentially related work. Else it stays like that forever.

    That is a basic side-effect of Agile development. If you have implementation details figured out to such an extent before writing the code, you are not doing agile, you are doing waterfall. Which has a time and a place, but that time and place is typically banking or medical or wherever you're okay with spending several times the time and money to get maximum reliability (which is a different metric than quality!).

    I bet NVIDIA has driver crashes to figure out, and I know which of those issues I'd want them to focus on first if I used their windows driver.

  • If god didn't want my buttcheeks poopy, then why did he make them hairy?

  • Ironic, IKEA is married to PZ2. Which to be fair is a fine standard (aside from the fact that unaware people tend to confuse it with PH2 then wonder why their screws are stripped), it's just annoying that I have to switch my drill from T20 to PZ2 to build IKEA furniture.

  • Downmixing is a pretty straightforward affair. You have 6 channels, you need to go to 2, so you just average 4 signals per channel using some weights.

    Good media players (Kodi) allow you to change those weights, especially for the center channel, and to reduce dynamic range (with a compressor). Problem solved, the movie will be understandable even on shitty built-in TV speakers if you want to do that for some insane reason.

    The problem is that there are "default" weights for 2.0 downmixing that were made in the 90s for professional audio monitoring headphones, and these are the weights used by shitty software from shitty movie distributors or TV sets that don't care to find out why default downmixing is done the way it is. Netflix could detect that you're using shitty speakers and automatically reduce dynamic range and boost dialogue for you, they just DGAF. But none of that is the movie's problem.

  • Right?! A track like Spanish Sahara by Foals that uses the full dynamic range is such a pleasure to listen to. Then there's In the Air Tonight which IIRC has a digital release with super compressed dynamic range. The whole point of that song is that it slowly builds up to a genre-defining drop, so it had better stand out!

    But people want to listen to movies on their built-in TV speakers with children crying in the background, and they don't want to understand how or why things are the way they are, they just want to complain that the world doesn't revolve around them.

  • I had a 5.0 setup before I even bought my first TV. I was just using my PC monitor until then.

    It's counter-intuitive but decent sound comes first. I'd much rather watch Interstellar in 360p with 5.1 audio than in 4K OLED HDR with built-in speakers.

    But when you say that people get mad because they spent a grand on a TV that sounds like shit and they feel they have to defend their choices.

  • I see that, but that is not what I am saying.

    This is just not how things work on a technical level. The default is how cinemas work because that's the experience movies are made for; literally every other way to consume movie audio is "general usage audio programs fine tuning" and that's what needs fixing. That's my entire thesis. By calling me elitist you're just inventing things I'm not saying to get mad over.

    Yes 500 € is a lot of money. But I will say I bought a good audio setup years before I even had a TV (some parts second hand so it did not actually cost me that much, and a 3.0 setup gets you 80 % of the way there). It's a markedly better experience to watch a movie on a shitty PC monitor with good audio than on a 55" OLED with built-in speakers, and I will die on that hill. And anecdotally I've heard actual filmmakers say as much.

  • people watch stuff on TV and cannot hear any dialogue

    did you read anything I said or do you just want to complain?

    have a doctorate on audio / put in thousands of dollars into a hobby

    Good news then, a more-than-decent 5.1 setup can be had for ~500 €. A decent soundbar for a few hundred.

    and let people like you mess around with the settings for your home cinema

    I can't if the audio source is fucked up because directors have been forced by studios to release with low dynamic range.

    My whole point is that your audio goes Master -> 5.1 channels -> downmixer -> your shitty 2.0 channels speakers and my audio goes Master -> 5.1 channels -> receiver -> my 5.1 setup.

    You're asking the master to change to fit your needs. I'm asking the media players to fix their fucking downmixers because that's where the problem lies. Leave the studio mastering alone god damn it.

  • Where do you draw the line? If you use a soundbar, someone else is complaining because they use their built-in speakers. But if you optimize for that, someone else is using their laptop speaker on the train.

    What really pisses me off with this "argument" is that the audio information is all right there, which you would know if you bothered to read the second half of my comment before getting all pissy.

    5.1 audio (and the standards that superseded it in cinemas) all have multiple audio channels with one dedicated to voice. If you have a shit sound system, the sound system should be downmixing in a way that preserves dialogue better. Again, the information is all right there as there is no stereo track in most movies, your player is building it on-the-fly based on the 5.1 track. It's not the director's fault that Netflix or Hulu is doing an awful job at accounting for the fact that most of their users are listening on a sound setup that can barely reproduce intelligible speech.

  • Nah, I have a good sound setup and I don't want to be watching movies with less dynamic range because some people are using their shrilly built-in TV speakers with their children screaming in the background or $5 earbuds.

    If you don't want to have a proper 5.1 audio setup, it's not the director's problem, it's the media player. Audio compression, center channel boosting, and subtitling are things that media centers have been able to do for decades (e.g. Kodi), it's just that streaming platforms and TVs don't always support it because they DGAF. Do look for a "night mode" in your TV settings though, that's an audio compressor and I have one on my receiver. If you are using headphones, use a media player like Kodi that allows you to boost the center channel (which is dedicated to dialogue).

  • OpenID-Connect, the standardized form of oAuth for the sole purpose of authenticating users to third-party services (i.e. google says "yes I certify it is john.smith@gmail.com logging in to your service").

  • 99 % of websites even with "2FA" enabled allow to reset all login credentials with an email reset. Or worse, an SMS reset.

    aka it's all just 1FA with the password+TOTP just being there for "convenience", and they trust gmail's actual 2FA not to get breached because if it does then the account is donzo.

    Not that emailing passwords is good, because users won't change them and are likely to leak them. However login systems that are just an email with temporary credentials are superior to the standard system with the possibility to reset password by email, since they're basically that with less attack surface. The service provider never even has to process the user's password. Literally the only downside is usability, which can be a worthwhile tradeoff.

    Alternatively one could do OIDC, but the downside is it only works with whichever authentication providers are setup whereas email registrations work without an intermediary such as google or Microsoft which is a big plus in my book, and might even be a hard requirement in B2B scenarios.