My sister just ordered a battery & some hinges for her Framework and they practically overnighted it to us here in Alaska. They included a colorful sheet of stickers, too - fun!
One of the worst places are company "About pages". I've come across new products, some linked here; interested, I click through to the "about us" page, only to find meaningless marketing fluff that tells me zero about the people behind the product. That's a signal to me to close the tab and move on.
For me, Framework is super cool as a brand, both for the quality of their product and the ethos that backs it. When everyone else in the coffee shop has an apple or another brand so widespread that you don't even notice it, the gear is something different. I like that.
"Вот его, нет, не допустили (сама знаешь, почему)))"
My translation:
"But him - no, they didn't let him in (of course you know why :)"
When I went from texting friends in Russian or Ukrainian back to English, I missed right parentheses as a smiley; one or two - hi), hello)) - to me are like a smile, by ))) and )))) there's some laughing or some other joke going on. Native speakers could weigh in; my native tongue is English.
I replaced the battery in my Kindle Touch with one from Aliexpress (1 & 2). It was an easy project; finding a battery with the correct dimensions took more time than soldering. With a new battery, my Kindle Touch is still a great device to read on.
I have the same Kindle as the OP and very nearly bought the Xteink4. However, they wanted $28 to ship to Alaska, which put me off buying it; my Kindle Touch still works fine after many years and one battery replacement, though it's slow compared to newer E Ink devices.
I used to check them out from the military library to read as a teenager – the books looked cool, official in their white bindings, and I loved the facts and descriptions of countries.
How is that an unacceptable threat model for a repo of packages that are optional and user-made? One that clearly says, "DISCLAIMER: AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk." (1)
The AUR, along with Arch's minimalism, is one of my favorite things about it. Instead of cloning the source repo, reading the build instructions, building, and then installing, I download a script, read it to make sure it looks okay (e.g. the source points to what I expect), and then `makepkg -si`.
> The way I see it installing software from the AUR is about as safe as installing software from the pirate bay.
No, if I trust the source - and I often follow the source link to GitHub to check out the project - then it's like one of my distro's packages, except I'm the one saying it's safe for me to install. I'm not claiming it's risk free, but it's been a great boon to me. (2)
2: I used the AUR to compile and install Goldendict-ng, a fork of the dictionary software Goldendict that's being maintained. It accepts my Stardict converted-from-Apple dictionaries and supports Wayland!
> How is that an unacceptable threat model for a repo of packages that are optional and user-made? One that clearly says, "DISCLAIMER: AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk." (1)
The AUR is an official part of Arch Linux. It's hosted on the archlinux.org domain with a prominent link to it from the main page. You enable package installation from it either using one of the many transparent pacman wrappers recommended in arch community spaces and on the arch wiki, or by ticking a checkbox in a graphical package manager like pamac. IMO a one-line disclaimer on the aur main page doesn't fix the problem at all.
Security isn't about the trustworthiness of the code you're running, it's about the trustworthiness of the person who's giving you the code. No matter how good you are at auditing bash scripts, there's a malicious bash script that will slip by you, even if you're diligent (which most aren't, even among so-called "power users"). With official packages, I have to trust the people who distribute my OS. With vendor-distributed software (Windows software, PPA, curl | sh) I have to trust the person who wrote the software. With the AUR, I have to trust the first person to park the name of the package.
Some of the ads I was seeing on Facebook and Instagram were why I left them both for good. Losing Messenger and Marketplace hurt, but posts like these remind that I left for good reasons.
Why tolerate a network full of junk? Worse, it's junk that's calculated to draw me in whether I want it or no. Social media's biggest appeal, judging by Nathan's post, is to my lizard brain. My antidote to an internet gone mad is reading good, maybe old, books that reward the intellectual effort I put in to understand them.
Key quote from The Time's article (1) linked in the OP:
"I often think back to that conversation with my upperclassman friend. She wasn’t proud of gaming the system and she wasn’t ashamed either. She was simply rational. The university had created a set of incentives and she had simply responded to them.
That’s what strikes me most about the accommodation explosion at Stanford and similar schools. The students aren’t exactly cheating and if they are, can you blame them? Stanford has made gaming the system the logical choice. When accommodations mean the difference between a cramped triple and your own room, when extra test time can boost your grade point average, opting out feels like self-sabotage. Who would make their lives harder when the easiest option is just a 30-minute Zoom call away?"
> The students aren’t exactly cheating and if they are, can you blame them?
I don't understand this logic. Many of these students are telling lies and manipulating to get a benefit that wasn't designed for them. In many cases (such as housing priority selection) they're actively taking spots from students with genuine needs. How do you arrive at a conclusion that this isn't cheating?
And why can't we blame them for their own decisions and actions? The university isn't forcing them to do this.
> when extra test time can boost your grade point average, opting out feels like self-sabotage.
Cheating on exams can also boost your grade point average.
I find these attempts to shift blame to anyone but the people making the decisions to be illogical. Let's call it what it is: Many of these students found a way to lie and cheat for personal gain with low or zero chance of getting caught, so they're choosing to do it. It's their choice, though.
reply