kevincox

I mean it is always better to have more open source. But the point of the multi-hop system is that you don't need to trust the server. Even if the server was open source:

1. You wouldn't know that we are running an unmodified version.
2. If you need to trust the server then someone could compel us to tap it or monitor it.

The open source client is enough to verify this and the security of the whole scheme.

I use NixOS.

Here is the problem with crop quality:

1. Most of the purchase decision is what is observable at the store.
   • Does it look good.
   • What is the price.
   • How is the smell, texture, weight...
2. Some happens at home, and you might remember for next time.
   • How does it taste.
   • How long does it last.
   • Does it make you feel satisfied.
3. It is basically impossible to know how good food was for you.
   • You eat a lot of food and the response is delayed.
   • Even if you have a response you probably don't properly understand your body.
   • In the end most of the "health" of food is just your believes and marketing.

So there is basically no business pressure to have crops be nutritious.

Yeah, I can't believe how hard targeting other consoles is for basically no reason. I love this Godot page that accurately showcases the difference:

https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/platform/consoles.html

Currently, the only console Godot officially supports is Steam Deck (through the official Linux export templates).

The reason other consoles are not officially supported are:

• To develop for consoles, one must be licensed as a company. As an open source project, Godot has no legal structure to provide console ports.
• Console SDKs are secret and covered by non-disclosure agreements. Even if we could get access to them, we could not publish the platform-specific code under an open source license.

Who at these console companies think that making it hard to develop software for them is beneficial? It's not like the SDK APIs are actually technologically interesting in any way (maybe some early consoles were, the last "interesting" hardware is probably the PS2). Even if the APIs were open source (the signatures, not the implementation) every console has DRM to prevent running unsigned games, so it wouldn't allow people to distribute games outside of the console marker's control (other than modded systems).

So to develop for the Steam Deck:

1. Click export.
2. Test a bit.

To develop for Switch (or any other locked-down console):

1. Select a third-party who maintains a Godot port.
2. Negotiate a contract.
   • If this falls through go back to step 1.
3. Integrate your code to their port.
4. Click export.
5. Test a bit.

What it could be (after you register with Nintendo to get access to the SDK download):

1. Download the SDK to whatever location Godot expects it.
2. Click export.
3. Test a bit.

All they need to do is grant an open source license on the API headers. All the rest is done for them and magically they have more games on their platform.

Mullvad is one of the best options if you care about privacy. They take privacy seriously, both on their side and pushing users towards private options. They also support fully anonymous payments. Their price is also incredibly reasonable.

I'm actually working on a VPN product as well. It is a multi-hop system so that we can't track you. But it isn't publicly available yet, so in the meantime I happily recommend Mullvad.

HTTP/1.1 403 UNAUTHORIZED
{
  "error": {
    "status": "UNAUTHORIZED",
    "message": "Unauthorized access",
  },
}

I would separate the status from the HTTP status.

1. The HTTP status is great for reasonable default behaviours from clients.
2. The application status can be used for adding more specific errors. (Is the access token expired, is your account blocked, is your organization blocked)

Even if you don't need the status now, it is nice to have it if you want to add it in the future.

You can use a string or an integer as the status code, string is probably a bit more convenient for easy readability.

The message should be something that could be sent directly to the user, but mostly helpful to developers.

Yeah. I like old school tabs that were clearly attached to the thing that they switched. I definitely prefer the KDE UX here.

I don't think it is that simple. I think that outline is about the "focus". So if I press enter it will activate that tab, if I press tab it will move the focus to the "Entire Screen" tab.

The UX issue is that there are two concepts of focus in this UI. There is "which tab is active" and "what UI element will pressing enter activate". These two are not sufficiently differentiated which leads to a confusing experience.

Or maybe there can just be no keyboard focus indicator by default, but that may be annoying for keyboard power users. But this is generally how it works on the web, you have to press tab once to move keyboard focus to the first interactive element.

The one that always gets me is GNOME's screen sharing portal.

There is this outline around the "Application Window" tab which makes it seem selected. I use this UI multiple times a week and I need to pause for a sec every single time. I always think "I want to share a window", "oh it is already selected" then stare at the monitors for a while before I realize why I can't understand what I am looking at.

This is basically admitting that consumers don't actually value their subscription service for the cost. If users were buying used bikes and signing up for subscriptions Peloton would be thrilled, they would do everything that they could to encourage that like free trials. But it must be that most people who buy used bikes don't find the subscription worth it and cancel within a few months. Adding this fee both extracts more money and creates a sunk cost fallacy that will cause them to go longer before cancelling.

If the product sold itself they would just let people pay them subscriptions, its basically free money.

Vista sucked so bad. I got a nice new laptop and it was constant pain. One of the real breaking points was that it would refuse to let me modify or delete some files even as superuser. If I recall correctly they weren't even system files, maybe a separate partition or something.

I tried installing XP but there was some sort of driver issue with my CD drive. It would start installing fine, but then once it tried to reboot off of the HDD to finish the installation it couldn't find the installation CD to finish copying things, so the install just crashed half-way done.

I installed Ubuntu on a partition, dual booted for a while. After a few months I realized that I never even used the Windows partition anymore so I wiped it.