One time I was in a class where we had this beginner level web dev assignment, and we were writing HTML and CSS. We had to submit the assignment as a zip file.
When you open the HTML from the zip file in Windows without unzipping it, it can’t access other files in the zip file, namely the CSS.
The entire class failed the assignment because the teacher didn’t unzip the files first, and refused to entertain the idea they might have screwed up.
IMO the header should stay at the top as part of the page. I know where it is, I’ll scroll up to it if I need to.
Like you, I find a header appearing and hiding quite difficult in specific circumstances.
Honestly? It’s mostly fun stuff (for people that like data).
But it’s also mostly links. A link to the shopping list (a to do list in HA). I link to the climate control dashboard. A link to the solar info, a link to the security camera dashboard.
The key actions I have on the dashboard are to lock/unlock the door, and to mute/unmute the HA Voice Preview (when the kids are messing around but they are supposed to be doing something).
I also have a bunch that are hidden by default but have visibility conditions. When the garage door is open, it shows on the dashboard, but if it’s shut it doesn’t show at all. For devices that provide their own battery level, I have them show when they are nearly flat but otherwise they don’t show at all.
Otherwise it’s just info, the current and daily total solar generation, the temperature and humidity outside, the temp of the hot water heater. Buttons to dashboards that show other things.
They only credit for months you do no searches at all, if you do one you pay for the full month, but it’s a nice touch. Personally I can’t think of a situation where I’d do no searches in a month!
For something as important as search, paying $5 or $10 a month seems entirely reasonable to me. I’ve been a Kagi user ever since their unlimited plan dropped to $10 a month when they reached enough users that they could do that.
You are paying for these services one way or another. But no one says you have to pay $10 for each service.
Yes, it shouldn’t be needed
My view is that is should be needed. Advertising is a bad business model, I’d much prefer paying for a service I used. I think we should all get more comfortable paying for the sites we use.
So this morning I had to go to my mother’s house for IT support as one of her monitors wasn’t working. I plugged the power cable back in to the back of the monitor and the problem was solved.
I’m not sure the level of IT support I provide is high enough to get blamed for anything 😆
I just generally try to avoid letting people know how technically savvy I am. I’d rather not do basic tech support for everyone I know.
Surely all or most of those linux PC users also have phones, and people already using linux should be easier to convert?
The thing that trips me up is that Android forks support most Android phones out of the box (with the obvious exception of GrapheneOS which is a deliberate choice), while Linux Phone OSs each have very short lists of supported models.
I have four different phone models available to me, from Pixel to Samsung to OnePlus. None are supported by any Linux Phone OS I’ve seen.
Nano say so at bottom but so does vim if it thinks you’re trying to exit.
Just one team working on Teams, and they are doing their best to make it worse.
I for one encourage them, it apparently needs to be even worse before my work will consider changing
TBH this sounds to me like something specifically intended to not be an Australian-like solution, which they could have copied.
I am not sure what’s required of a bare bones Linux install (general computing device) that has access to a package manager (application store)!
Yeah perhaps. Or that “account” doesn’t really need to bw what we think of as an account.
Could it be covered, but they would still have to ask? It says if it wasn’t done at setup it has to ask, so perhaps an account-less OS would still be expected to ask for an age and provide it when asked?
Nah I don’t think it does. You don’t really get that because the intent of a law is important in court cases.
Mobile phones are specifically covered:
(g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.
Windows doesn’t ask at install, and also this law requires them to ask for already set up accounts too.
This will make it a lot more visible.
Nah it seems it doesn’t apply to physical devices (except general computing devices as mentioned elsewhere)
(f) This title does not apply to any of the following:
(1) A broadband internet access service, as defined in Section 3100.
(2) A telecommunications service, as defined in Section 153 of Title 47 of the United States Code.
(3) The delivery or use of a physical product.
(3) seems to imply the OS that runs your switch or gas pump isn’t included. But I see nothing in the law that clarifies servers or any CLI only interface, or even any OS that doesn’t have accounts.
Where do you quote “reasonable” from? The only part of the law with that word is referring to a different, already existing law (or the bit about reasonable technical limitations causing the wrong signals sent in the API).
Ok I did it, I read the full text of the law, and you’re right.
The existence of Linux or anything not big tech and the broad range of options within seems to be ignored. Does a CLI only OS need to provide a GUI for its “accessible interface”?
On a different note, I did see the last point here:
(f) This title does not apply to any of the following:
(1) A broadband internet access service, as defined in Section 3100.
(2) A telecommunications service, as defined in Section 153 of Title 47 of the United States Code.
(3) The delivery or use of a physical product.
(3) seems to imply the OS that runs your microwave isn’t included.
I think the next bit from the article I didn’t quote explains that:
“(2) Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, which of the following categories pertains to the user.” The categories are broken into four sections: users under 13 years of age, over 13 years of age under 16, at least 16 years of age and under 18, and “at least 18 years of age.”
I think the idea is that you would say that under 16s can’t use social media. Then you’d enforce this not with the horrendous Australian strategy of having everyone IDed, but instead you would enforce it by having an API that websites and apps could use that would tell them the age of the user.
So basically:
Windows might already have parental controls within Windows, but it’s the ability for apps and websites to know the age (or in this case age range) that is the important part.
I much prefer this than handing over ID.
It does, yeah. If you aren’t averse to cloudflare then it’s a great option.
From memory I think it’s limited to http/https traffic, but that’s normally not an issue, just have all your services behind a reverse proxy.