Oh, I was using Keepass2Android as a password vault, but was a little frustrated with it because occasionally it’ll forget to synchronize with the file before adding an entry and leave a “conflicted copy” I have to deal with manually. If KeepassDX will also do TOTPs that sounds perfect.

Do you have a replacement you would recommend?

I definitely considered FFmpeg (I mean, it does everything, and pretty much as fast as possible), but the sense I had was that people were mostly posting about tools that were reasonably accessible to novice users, with nice-ish interfaces. FFmpeg is pretty daunting to newcomers.

OpenSCAD (CAD, but with a programming language-style interface) is kind of in a similar category. It’s pretty powerful, and for someone who thinks like a programmer it can be relatively easy to learn, but if you don’t already understand 3d transformations on a pretty intuitive level, the program doesn’t have a lot of features to ease you into that.

Adding on:

Inkscape - vector graphics program

Meshrom - photogrammetry

Handbrake - video transcoding

MakeMKV - rips DVDs and Blu Ray into video files

7zip - file compression and decompression

Droid48 - Truly excellent HP48 emulator for android

LibreOffice - free word processor & office suite (not without some recent drama though, I guess)

I’m sure I’m forgetting plenty, but hey, more for additional commenters to name.

Edit: Removed Audacity, apparently I’d missed privatization drama around that one too

The “idiot” part comes in where I encountered this problem, and didn’t even stop to consider whether this might be specific to this model, or even try something as basic as turn the model on the print bed, which wouldn’t have fixed the slicing, but would have told me my assumption about how the “bridging angle” setting worked was wrong. Instead, I leapt straight from “huh, this model sliced in a weird way” to “this basic slicer feature is designed in a bizarrely poor way and I’m the first one to ever notice,” and posted about it on social media.

So I appreciate the sentiment, and I’ll leave the post up as it I agree it’s a mildly interesting and counterintuitive result, but I still maintain I acted kinda dumb. :)

A bit of a weird one because it never actually came out, but I was really excited about the news that Michel Gondry was set to direct a film adaptation of Rudy Rucker’s novel The Master of Space and Time. I really like both Gondry and Rucker, and their sensibilities would have worked really well together. The story is kind of a sci-fi three wishes fable. It’s not my favorite of his–that’s gotta be White Light–but it’s really light-hearted and fun. And Gondry is terrific at getting bizarre, dream-like ideas onto film. I’m still bummed out that they cancelled that.

For something that actually did come out but then got cancelled, I enjoyed Disney’s adaptation of The Mysterious Benedict Society. Then they threw that one down the memory hole for tax reasons, so there’s no way to watch it anymore short of piracy. I feel like that shouldn’t be allowed. Seems like they should add least have to provide the Library of Congress with a copy. It’s weird that our cultural history can just be yanked away like that now.

This depended on the phone. The HTC One M8, for instance, had a surprisingly good built-in DAC.

That wasn’t the issue for me–my bridging angle was set to zero (the default). The issue was that the anchors for these bridges ran into one another, which made the slicer treat them all as one single unified bridge, and choose one angle for the lines across them all, rather than treating them as separate bridges (which is how I was thinking of them, because they crossed different gaps). I put the text below the images on this link before I understood what had gone wrong, but the images are still useful for illustrating the error: https://imgur.com/a/VjUTVaq

I was being an idiot. It does bridge correctly, it just got confused because the bridges were close enough together that it thought it had to make them one single bridge. Thanks!

I was being an idiot. It does bridge correctly, it just got confused because the bridges were close enough together that it thought it had to make them one single bridge. Thanks!

Oh, you’re totally right! I knew I was a little braindead today. Thanks so much! It absolutely already does the thing I’m asking for, it just got confused because the edges of the bridges were close enough that their anchors overlapped.

Bridging working normally: https://imgur.com/a/U7yqZU3

Thanks!

I’m using PrusaSlicer, and in PrusaSlicer there is a specific setting for this, which is called “bridging angle.” But my point is that bridges are already specifically identified by the slicer as a specific category of print area needing specific settings, and in this case it should be possible for the slicer to choose an optimal bridging angle on a bridge-by-bridge basis, rather than requiring the user to choose a single global angle. You’re right that it would be less catastrophic for the bridging to be 45 degrees off than to be 90 degrees off, but it’s not obvious why this should be a global setting at all, rather than tailored to the needs of the local geometry of the bridge. It could even be something fairly simple, like just drawing lines parallel to the perimeters of the bridge, similar to what “concentric infill” does. I haven’t really looked in to what the best way to implement this feature would be, I’m still at the point of trying to work out how to even describe the issue.

Basically this: https://imgur.com/a/VjUTVaq

The blue sections have no support material below them and are printing as bridges, but in the default behavior, PrusaSlicer just uses the single, global “bridging angle” setting to decide which way to print layers on top of these sections. The perimeters on these sections are printed correctly to make the shortest path across the gap, but the rest of the lines making up those bridge layers are printed to match the “bridging angle,” which here means that two of the bridges are printed so they are supported only by those two perimeter bridges themselves.

Please ignore the details of the print itself, as I’m a little braindead today and this is a print that won’t actually fold together correctly as designed. But the issue of bridges orienting poorly is more general than this particular design.

Because they didn’t turn on federation until last year, and at that point it was still limited to fewer than ten users per alternate server, and you had to manually request federation through a Discord server from an actual human. This year they’ve automated the federation process, but you still have to start with a tiny server, and they claim they’re going to raise the user limit gradually as new servers remain federated with the main server.

But yeah, the upshot is bsky.social has 13 million users, and there are no other servers with notable numbers of users. That’s a pretty notable difference from ActivityPub.

Sure, I mean, anything you need a spacecraft to do but that you can accomplish without adding extra equipment, you should probably do it that way, because it means less mass to accelerate and less equipment to test and certify and so forth. It’s definitely not hard to imagine getting this functionality without adding equipment. The question is whether the ability to do this in the rare scenarios that call for it offset the drawbacks of having a system in which the protections against such failures can be disabled. Which means you then have to include a bunch of interlocks and crap to ensure it’s as unlikely as possible that the ship can get into that mode without someone being very sure they want that. I think OP is probably right that on, say, a cargo ship, it’s pretty unlikely that “also, the engine can explode!” would be seen as a feature rather than a wholly alarming bug.

That would make sense for a cutting edge spy plane, but it’s a little weird for something like the Nostromo, which is just a standard cargo ship. I guess if you sometimes carried secret cargo, though, you would want that equipment standard, since otherwise installing it custom for one trip would be a dead giveaway that there was something secret on board.

Yeah.

According to this site: https://usafacts.org/articles/what-percentage-of-the-us-population-is-transgender/ about 1.14% of the US is trans.

And according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces there’s about 1.328 million active duty armed forces in the US.

1.14% of 1.328 million would be 15,139, so 15,000 is pretty much exactly in line with the typical stats. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it is in fact an estimate based on such data, rather than there being a survey ready-to-go which identifies how many such service members there are.

I really don’t think it’s that stupid. Your particular machine has a lot of ports, yeah. But there are plenty of machines out there, like the 12-inch non-pro macbook, that have ONE USB-C PORT and absolutely no other ports. That’s clearly limiting. Like, you can connect it to ethernet, if you buy an additional USB-C ethernet adapter, but if you want to be able to ethernet and have it connected to power at the same time, you need to buy a special power brick that combines the two functions, because they didn’t include any other ports.

Plus, there are a bunch of things that still use USB-A. I’ve got a bunch of old thumb drives that work like that, especially for transferring video files to my TV, which only supports USB-A itself. Wireless dongles for mice and game controllers, which still offer a latency advantage over bluetooth, tend to be USB-A as well. I’ve also got a wearable pulse oximeter that requires a special cable to load data, and the other end of that cable is USB-A only. Again, you can get an adapter dongle, but that’s never as convenient as just having the right port in the first place.

I went a bit out of my way to get a laptop with a decent collection of ports (and it’s a bit of a less portable laptop as a result, maybe more like a desktop replacement), but even it has for some reason dropped the SD card reader, which I would have used a lot. I had to get a dongle for that. And I had to get one that used USB-C in particular, because my USB-A ports are usually both filled.

Basically the selection of ports used to be something that laptops used as a point of differentiation and pride in a crowded market; but Apple managed to invert this, making the prestige marker having a slimmer laptop with as few ports as possible, and that was a dumb change. I do think the pendulum is swinging back, as with your Pro macbook, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be frustrated with the way this element of the market went in such a consumer-hostile direction for a while.