Something like Github Codespaces[1] but self-hosted would be interesting. I'm sure you can cobble something together now but it would be nice not to have to deal with the infrastructure (i.e. containers, remote hosts, VPCs, whatever).
Where did you find the quick install and what OS were you using? I was trying so hard to find a Jitsi server install for Windows but the only thing I found was a jar+batch file process that I couldn't connect to once I finally got it running.
If you are logged in there is a setting to use old Reddit. When the redesign was launched it wasn't very consistent, but it has been working fine for the past couple of months.
With how popular command palettes have become (in things like text editors), I'm a little surprised this hasn't stuck for browsers. I really enjoyed the various implementations of this kind of thing for browsers but often found them lacking in ways that I think a native implementation would be more effective.
If people would focus on content in HTML and CSS for layout and newfad devs weren't shoving 50 jscripts a page down our throat this wouldn't be happening as bad. I plan to make all my future sites librejs compatible, and forgoe js altogether whenever possible.
I've been using uMatrix for over three years and very very few websites don't work with it.
By far the most annoying 'feature' (more of a consequence of the internet) is the way that you can't whitelist HTTPS sub-domains. (Makes AWS Console a pain.)
Does AWS Console have much that needs blocking? Seems a reasonable place to simply turn off uMatrix. You could also simply use a second browser with uBlock Origin for a limited number of sites - I tend to do that for a lot of checkout /payment options where the repeated reloads of whitelisting in uMatrix could be troublesome.
> I'm trying DuckDuckGo, but it's just not as good.
It took me a while of using DDG before I realized how much I had equated "good" with "looks like Google".
What finally hit me, hard, was that I switched the DDG theme to a color scheme designed to look like Google search results, and all of a sudden the results "felt better". Markedly better.
So, I started regularly comparing results, every time I found something that I felt I didn't get the results I expected for. I would search, and then search again with !g. And almost every time I ran into something that I didn't like the DDG results for, the Google results weren't actually any better. (The rare times they were, I reported that, and often it got fixed.)
I use "!s" in DDG to get to Startpage [1] search results. One letter shorter to access the same - no need to type "!sp" when one can just type "!s" instead. :)
This does not work for replacing "!spi" (image search on Startpage) though. Using "!si" does a search on a non-existent subdomain sportsillustrated.cnn.com.
My problem is not the looks, whenever I use !g I'm annoyed how bad it looks. It IS the results. Often when something doesn't have a ton of relevant results, DDG gives the wrong results while !g has what I'm looking for.
In my experience ddg is less contextual. For instance when searching for something that is trending, Google will often give the most expected results even if the search keywords are incredibly vague, while ddg will give more standard results respecting the keywords.
That’s the very reason I switched to ddg, but it bites me back everytime I try to catch up on stuff everybody already knows for days, and need to fallback to !g.
Oh, I'm pretty sure that's why. Unless encrypted.google.com doesn't use that information? Anyway, I'd love to have some way to personalize my DDG results and tell them what to boost. Alas.
How often do you end up at Google though; a few years back I tried DDG for a couple of months but ended up basically always doing !g and so went back to Google.
It depends on what I'm searching for. If its an error code or something a bit esoteric around tech then google usually has better results, but for everyday topics the results are pretty decent, and they feel like they have improved over the years.
I probably do less searching than I used to, but the bang system really helps me search other sites much more effectively. The more common bangs I use are !w for wikipedia, !so for stackoverflow, !imdb, !gh, !tpb, !bm for bing maps, !bi bing images.
!sp for startpage is really nice to use if you want to have the Google results without the tracking.
Edit: looks like this was already mentioned below. Whoops.
I don't have any figures to back this up, but I feel like I use !g about half of the time (it may be 70 or 20% as well since I have no data). I'm not free from Google then, but this reduced my dependency by about 50%, which is still good to take !
I was in the same situation. Switched over again a few months back. I almost always only need to use !g for rare results (and even there it doesn't always help). On the other hand bangs like !mdn (mozilla developer network) and !w (wikipedia) make things much easier.
I use Firefox "awesomebar" keywords so "w" for Wikipedia, etc. (I think Chrome has this too), so I don't gain anything really with DDG's keywords on most searches.
I basically only use Google for movie listings, calculations, and restaurant hours now. The rare times I switch to Google for other searches DDG fails on, Google is no better.
I follow a three step model:
1. DDG
2. If that doesn't help, then use !s to search Startpage.
3. If that doesn't help, then use !g to search Google.
Other than the relevance and quality of search results, there are differences in features across these sites, like date range search, for example. Image search also seems to have more flexibility on Google. I haven't checked recently if reverse image search even exists on DDG or Startpage.
Same for me. I fired up Firefox for the first time in years and it works great. The hardest part to get used to is their super-weird hamburger menu layout.
What Ankit The mobile menu? The mobile menu is a mess if you have extensions installed, because add-on developers don't put their stuff in the tools/page submenu, and there's no way to rearrange it.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they legally required to disclose this kind of information? Couldn't it could be considered misleading investors otherwise?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the original point here is not whether someone read the code and then contributed, but whether their contribution might (inadvertently or otherwise) contain Matlab intellectual property because they have been exposed to it. It seems a reasonable safeguard to prohibit those who have seen the source code from potentially contributing in a troublesome manner.
You're quite right about exposure to code: it's prudent to be hyper-cautious. But the original point of contention was the suggestion that it's legally required to be this cautious, that people simply don't have the right to read something and then write something similar which isn't a copy - and that is false.
Disclaimer: I agree with the intent of your comment but, as this is the second time I've seen this comment in this thread, I'll bite and play devil's advocate. Additionally, I have absolutely no knowledge of dispatch or any other law enforcement software.
Where would the knowledge of this phenomena be stored? Does the dispatch software have a notes field? If so, is it procedure to put that sort of information in place? Do cops have access to it? If so do they regularly look at it? If "no" to those points, how would a police force as large as Atlanta's maintain that knowledge? A lot of large organizations rely heavily on tribal knowledge, so that's a possibility. But only assuming officers always patrol/police the same areas and never quit or get fired, or if they do, they always pass on the entirety of their tribal knowledge to the successor.
So again, I agree with the general sentiment, but this doesn't have to be a matter of incompetent law enforcement personnel. It could easily be a problem of lacking software and a system prohibitively large to maintain that kind of granular information among all agents.
I would hope that the police do have a systematic method of correlating incidents with addresses. Such as, say, a history of reported domestic abuse. Or homes with residents that have been threatened with doxxing or swatting. And information such as whether the resident is a recorded gun-owner.
I would sincerely hope that information such as this would be available to any officer dispatched to an address.
I don't think it's too great an assumption that information on a location involved in a suspected crime is added to a database so that lookups concerning that location have a backlog of such information. That's got to be close to MVP for a police database surely.
The dispatcher who gives the officers the call to attend would then give the background information known - "Murder here 2 years ago - previous occupants; parking violations issued to this address; 53 unconfirmed reports of stolen phones, 47 of which were later found not to be stolen just giving wrong GPS info. Caller says their stolen phone is at this location according to GPS reports.".
> Where would the knowledge of this phenomena be stored?
Brian Krebs appears to have a local police force that knows how to perform this witchcraft: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/03/the-world-has-no-room-for... :) Search for the 'graph that starts: "I informed the responding officers that this was a hoax" and read through the one that starts: "One of the officers asked if it was okay to enter my house, and I said sure."
[1] https://github.com/features/codespaces