That's an angle I hadn't considered, thank you for bringing it up.
I bike around the city quite a lot, and usually I will have bike parking available, but when I don't, I find the nearest signpost or street lamp and lock it there. I try to be mindful of pedestrians by orienting the bike parallel to the walkway, but I have'nt probably given that enough thought.
Would you mind explaining the physics of how you interact with these or my misparked bicycles, and how they are causing you to hurt yourself ? Is it just that they are parked in your way, or is there something that makes bikes different from other obstacles you have to navigate ?
The biggest difference from otther obstacles is that bikes can fall over, and typically do so while landing on your foot or Achilles Tendon. It can also hurt mightily if you happen to ramm a handlebar into your stomache.
Skia started in 2004 independently of google and was then acquired by google. Calling it "Chrome's Skia graphics engine" makes it sound like it was built for chrome.
I feel you, but to me it was worth the effort and now I have a setup that works.
I run a calendar server[0] that is my main calendar repository. And I use vdirsyncer[1] to sync to my laptop to use khal[3]. On the Android side I sync with davx5[4].
This allows me to subscribe to webcal calendars, which outlook365 offers, and syncs them to my two main devices.
Not perfect because that means I can't edit my outlook calendar from within this system ( and a reminder why open standards and interoperability are important ), but it means that my private calendars and addressbooks are self hosted.
You are right though, that takes effort. And I want to snark at microsoft for not supporting caldav, but then I am waiting for gnome-calendar to support it as well. It doesn't seme to and that feels a bit strange to me.
However, according to this issue calendars work once added but the only GUI-way to add them right now still seems to be Evolution, after which they will show up in gnome-calendar as well (also some workarounds here):
This is my setup, but additiinal I use davmail to get exchange support. Only problem is that right now importing events into outlook automatically sends mails to all participants.
Had some FUBAR situations where vdirsyncer tried to fix "something" (which is necessary from time to time since davmail does only rudimentary checks of events) and got im a situation where I send confirmations for 5 year old events to a few dozend people
It's a "Trusted Platform Module". The high level summary is that it's a chip that sits inside your computer that is designed to only allow only signed code to run.
The computer's manufacturer loads it with a special certificate, so when the computer tries to boot, the bootloader has to include a signature signed with that initial certificate. This bootloader can in turn contain the next certificate to verify the operating system is signed correctly, the operating system in turn contains certificates that verify that user applications are signed correctly.
In theory this is a sound idea, in practice things and implementations are a lot more messy.
I’m no expert, but to me it sounds like you are describing UEFI Secure Boot, not TPM.
Case in point: TPM is not required to implement UEFI Secure Boot. You can test yourself in a QEMU VM, if you don’t believe me.
From my understanding, TPM is just a separate crypto-module meant to keep the keys secret even from the CPU and OS itself, allowing you to do various crypto and security related things with higher confidence of the keys not getting leaked.
Applications includes passwordless disk-encryption (MS BitLocker) but also hard-to-crack DRM, making the TPM a somewhat controversial piece if hardware.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong or my answer is inaccurate in any way ;)
As someone who's spent too much time with this stuff, you're correct. The TPM (either 1.2 or 2.0) is an entirely _passive_ chip. It only creates keys or measures data if the OS or UEFI asks it to. This means that it can't block or modify programs on your CPU.
Secure Boot is implemented by UEFI, so it can block the loading of a particular bootloader. You can have Secure Boot without a TPM or have a TPM without Secure Boot. They can be useful together though as you can have a disk-encryption key with a policy saying "I can only decrypt stuff if you've booted using Secure Boot in a particular configuration".
As for DRM, the TPM doesn't work very well as part of a DRM solution (as it's entirely passive). This is probably why very few (if any) DRM products use TPM. Most PC DRM that I've heard of either uses Windows Kernel modules or Intel SGX.
If you connect to a ssh-server for the first time, ssh will give you a warning and let you know that you have to verify the fingerprint of the host key.
This becomes annoying when you connect to many different servers and I would not trust everyone (including me) to do this check correctly every single time.
SSH certificates solve this by having the ssh-host-key be signed in a way that your ssh-client can verify and you only have to add a key-signing-key to you known_hosts once.
Now you have to sign the ssh-host-key but you only have to do it once per server as opposed to having each user having to do it locally on every first connect.
> they will dramatically increase the starting price if you're a Westerner.
The point is that due to the large different in wealth, the increase is "dramatic" for them, but probably neglible for you.
Why not make someone's life a tiny bit better by not pressuring some some small time vendor in a country with less than a third of the GDP per capita than yours into giving up their share of the wealth that tourism is supposed to bring. Otherwise: what is the point of tourism for a host country?
Imagine making 80k/year, paying $100/night for the hotel you are now stepping out of and then haggling with someone who maybe makes 10k/year over the price of a $30 hat that you would pay $59.99 for if you were to buy it in the US and that takes $5 to produce.
I personally don't just find it rude, I find it entitled.
Negotiating prices within "those cultures" make sense when the playing field is somewhat level. Don't exoticize and take advantage of it.
> You absolutely should haggle if for no other reason than to experience their culture a bit deeper.
That is just offensive. Go to a nice restaurant, enjoy their food, see a museum, enjoy the sights. Haggling is not at the core of anyone's culture.
Imagine a Thai person going to Olive Garden for the immersively american experience of tipping their waiters - and even that makes the tinies bit of sense, because at least in that transaction money flows in the right direction.
Right, so paying 15$ for a coconut at the beach of some tropical country, while you're literally surrounded by them, because that's what you're used to pay in Manhattan. I don't know if you realize how patronizing you come off as. Why buy the thing at all? Why not just give them your money? I'm serious. It's equally offensive to locals to see foreigners inflating prices for no other reasons than they can. Paying as close to the local price you can manage is part of the experience of respectfully visiting another culture. Try not to export your pricing habits and consumerism. Entire neighborhoods have become unaffordable to locals due to this mentality. If you want to help, find creative ways to spend the money. Plenty of local communities and villages would welcome your gifts. No need to disguise them behind a transaction.
Your last line betrays your entire point, that for some reason money flowing one direction is "right" and it flowing less (but still flowing) is wrong.
Perhaps just worry about how you spend your money and stop projecting morality onto other people whose circumstances and needs you know nothing about.
> whose circumstances and needs you know nothing about.
I think the circumstances "tourist haggling with vendor" and needs "tourist wants to experice other culture" where very well established. Whether or not I know anything about this, is an assumption that you are making without knowing anything about me.
Of course how and why and where money is spent is stock-full of morality and ethics. That's not an idea that I privately came up with myself.
I always make a large donation to a credible non-profit or two after visiting a third-world country that pales in comparison to the amount I would've paid to street vendors ripping me off.
That puts my money to far better use.
BTW my wife is from a very poor country and she would laugh at anyones face for paying full price to a vendor. It doesn't make you "ethical" it makes you stupid in her mind.
> BTW my wife is from a very poor country and she would laugh at anyones face for paying full price to a vendor. It doesn't make you "ethical" it makes you stupid in her mind.
I was thinking along the same lines a while ago. Then I realized something, please pass this along if you want:
No, they're not stupid. They just have money and they don't care that much. You're poor (or were and that memory lingers) and stressed out and they just want to relax.
By and large rich people are as smart as poor people and are on average better educated. If they're doing something "dumb" constantly, you don't understand their world, especially this Iron Triangle of Activities:
Time - Stress - Money
any activity is somehow paid. With either your time or your stress or your money.
Poor people pay with time or stress, smart rich people convert those frequently into money.
If they now make a decent developed country salary, haggling in a poor country over 0.0001% of your monthly salary is probably not an efficient use of their time, but old (irrational now) habits die hard.
Have you considered, though, that we (as in you and I) might be some of these bullies in the world and that these rough men aren't just standing by, but are actively doing violence on our behalf ? One needn't look much further past recent events to find examples aplenty.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but it's not as easy as pretending that the weapons "we" develop are purely for morally and ethically righteous purpose.
I bike around the city quite a lot, and usually I will have bike parking available, but when I don't, I find the nearest signpost or street lamp and lock it there. I try to be mindful of pedestrians by orienting the bike parallel to the walkway, but I have'nt probably given that enough thought.
Would you mind explaining the physics of how you interact with these or my misparked bicycles, and how they are causing you to hurt yourself ? Is it just that they are parked in your way, or is there something that makes bikes different from other obstacles you have to navigate ?