Perhaps it originated from there. But EU Chat Control is brought up again and again and again for a vote. They'll continue until some version of it is passed. And then they'll go further with the next privacy infringing regulation to be building on top of it. It is really disheartening for privacy activists, but that is probably the strategy. Wear people out, and push the regulation through when resistance wanes. Note that the Netherlands is on the side of protecting privacy at this point in time. I think it does a great deal to erode trust of EU citizens in the European Union, in a time when that trust is perhaps more important than ever before. For information see: https://fightchatcontrol.eu
I'll mirror some other anecdata here: Not finding Fable to be amazingly godlike at actual coding, but it does seem better at planning, architectural thinking, and reviewing code. Used it to think through some longer form refactors that involve some product decisions and changes, and found it to provide more thoughtful feedback. However that's just my subjective experience, and I don't think it's provably that much better to make me want to go pay for API pricing when the free trial is over.
My plan is to make hay while the sun shines: get some planning in over the next week or so, and just let Opus take care of it when I get to actual implementation.
My experience as well. I quickly stopped trusting Opus to build foundational abstractions because it would almost never to them well and instead would end up chasing into rabbit holes and building overly complex and ugly solutions.
I think Fable is an entirely different experience. It has much better taste, and is better at balancing features versus complexity to a point where I currently trust it to make novel design changes. I still verify it of course, but with Opus I would throw away the solution most of the time while Fable mostly gets it right.
There is one underrated feature that I switched to Bitwarden for, away from KeePass: the emergency contact access. You can designate contacts that can request access to your account. If you don't deny the request within a time frame, they are granted access.
So much of our lives is now digital. Important accounts of all kinds, banking, etc.
Waiting on several giant corps to grant your loved ones access after they go through the bureaucratic hole of documentation is... rough.
Putting my master password in my will feels the same as just writing it on a note on my desk. Putting it in a note in a safety deposit box is high effort and cost.
Anyone got a better alternative way to set this up if self-hosting and not going with Vaultwarden?
Responding here to short-circuit all the replies to this:
You shouldn't be looking at just various kinds of earplugs as options for this. You can get custom made earplugs for your ears for differing use cases (sleep, concerts) at an ENT.
Somewhat adjacent in how I look at using Docker at all in prod, here's what I always wonder:
Is using Docker/Compose "just" as the layer for installing & managing runtime environment and services correct? Especially for languages like PHP?
I.e. am I holding it wrong if I run my "build" processes (npm, composer, etc) on the server at deploy time same as I would without containers? In that sense Docker Composer becomes more like Ansible for me - the tool I use to build the environment, not the entire app.
For the purpose of my question, let's assume I'm building normal CRUD services that can go a little tall or a little wide on servers without caring about hyper scale.
> if I run my "build" processes (npm, composer, etc) on the server at deploy time
It's perfectly fine, as long as you accept the risks and downsides. Your IP can get ratelimited for Docker Hub. The build process can exhaust resources on the host. Your server probably needs access to internal dev dependencies repository, thus, needs credentials it would not need otherwise. Many small things like that. The advantage is simplicity, and it's often worth the risk.
> The build process can exhaust resources on the host
Maybe, but I've yet to have a host where that's the case for usual CRUD fare.
> The advantage is simplicity, and it's often worth the risk.
That's basically what I'm evaluating for here.
For bog standard LAMP or similar stack applications, I've not understood the advantage of going through the build-image-then-pull-on-host rigmarole. There's more layers involved there than something like provisioning with Ansible and just having a deploy script to run the usual suspects.
But I have seen that done fairly often, hence was wondering what the point was.
I would say it's bad practice because you end up having to copy all the build dependencies (source code) to the host and you're potentially putting a bunch of extra load on the host during the build process.
Also adds moving parts to your deploy which increases risk/introduces more failure modes.
Couple things that come to mind
- disk space exhaustion during build
- I/o exhaustion esp with package managers that have lots of small files (npm)
However, on the small/hobby end I don't think it's a huge concern.
> you end up having to copy all the build dependencies (source code) to the host
> disk, i/o exhaustion
This is why I mentioned specifically for ecosystems like PHP, which are interpreted. I'm specifically asking for that use case.
I'm not building binaries, my "build" steps are actually deployment steps (npm build, composer install, etc) that I'd be running in exactly the same way on the host. The image I'm deploying by definition also contains my source code because I'm not deploying anything compiled.
No, those are build steps. If you weren't using Docker, you would either run all those and shove in a zip/tarball or package into a deb/rpm, etc
>The image I'm deploying by definition also contains my source code
It doesn't contain .git or need credentials to your git/SCM
>I'm not seeing the benefit of the whole "build image, pull on server" pipeline when I can just ditch the registry and added layers by doing those steps on the server as I would normally in other kinds of scenarios
You don't need a registry--you can Docker save/load to push images directly to the server. Images buy you a versioned artifact with all the code-level dependencies baked in. Some maintainer yanks their package from npm? Who cares--you have a copy in your Docker image. Your new app version doesn't work? Edit 1 line to point back to the old image tag and rollback.
>> The build process can exhaust resources on the host
>Maybe, but I've yet to have a host where that's the case for usual CRUD fare.
When the build process completes, it tears down the overlayfs which causes everything to sync which leads to a big I/O spike. Depending on the server and amount of files, it might have no impact. However, I've seen build servers become completely unresponsive for 5+ minutes due to the I/O load when this happens. One place I worked, we had to switch our build servers to NVMe--the Docker container teardown caused spikes over 100k IOPs. Can't remember the exact details--it was React either React web front end or React Native mobile app.
>There's more layers involved there than something like provisioning with Ansible and just having a deploy script to run the usual suspects.
Have a look at multi stage container builds. Your images should not need a build step at start, the result should be in the baked image. Else you become reliant on fetching packages during build etc.
I guess what I'm asking for is what the point is of a "baked" image for interpreted language ecosystems. Already using multi stage builds.
"Builds" are the same as deploys, so when working with server(s) instead of larger scale deployments, I'm not seeing the benefit of the whole "build image, pull on server" pipeline when I can just ditch the registry and added layers by doing those steps on the server as I would normally in other kinds of scenarios.
But I have seen this in action, which is why I'm wondering if I'm missing something.
The clearer benefit to me seems to be in this scenario to use it as a fast environment provisioning tool.
To be fair, ever since the advent of high power USB-C PD that really, really is not needed any more, way too many power bricks are effectively e-waste.
People already have USB-C power bricks and docks everywhere and unlike pre-USB-C generations, you can use them not just across different generations of hardware, but across vendors as well.
> unless they are upgrading from another USB-C laptop.
Which MacBooks have been for almost a decade - the 2016 MBP with Touch Bar was the first that went fully USB-C PD. Anyone who has had a MacBook in that time frame will have had at least one high power USB-C PD wall wart.
The Windows world, as usual, has been different, but even there, I'm not aware of any mainstream model being sold in the last two years without even a single PD capable port.
You mean bumped $100. M4 MacBook Pro and M5 MacBook Pro started at $1599 with 512GB SSD.
Now it starts at $1699, a $100 bump but comes with a 1TB SSD. Previously it would have cost $1799 for the 1T SSD, so it's a $100 bump on base price but you are also getting 1TB SSD for $100 less than before.
To me, this is kind of like Telecom providers giving you bandwidth headroom that realistically should have been there for a long time, but removing the option to get a cheaper plan whether you'd otherwise pay for the upgrade or not.
Like for my last upgrade, I bit the bullet and upgraded to 1TB for the first time ever instead of base storage at Apple's absurd prices, so it's good, but if I'd not have been willing to spend money on that at all, they lifted the floor.
My cell phone plan has been increasing every year by small amounts, but my usage pattern hasn't changed, and meanwhile they've restricted HD streaming using Deep Packet Inspection or whatever, so I theoretically have a 100GB full speed cap but can't practically use more than 20gb anyway, so they're pricing the bandwidth into the contract but I can't save money by getting a lower ceiling
EU doesn't forbid including. The new law requires there to be an option without the adapter. If the manufacturer chooses so they can have an option with and without the adapter.
Except that it's literally not true and people are repeating it for some stupid reason, I assume you just never actually looked it up - laptops are specifically excluded from that regulation, and in fact Apple does bundle a power adapter with their laptops, just not on the cheapest models.
> in fact Apple does bundle a power adapter with their laptops, just not on the cheapest models.
Here in the UK, they no longer include the power adapter even with the top models. I just specced out a fully-loaded M5 Max Macbook Pro, 128GB RAM, 8TB storage on the Apple Store, and it doesn't include a power adapter by default.
The 140W power adapter can be added as an option to the MacBook Pro for an additional £99 + VAT, or purchased separately. If you purchase separately you can of course choose a lower-power adapter for a lower price.
Now that a power adapter isn't included and you have to pay for it separately, it might make more sense to get one of the good brands of GaN power adapters instead, because they are smaller than the Apple ones for the same power, and have more ports.
No, it's provided by my employer so I don't really have that choice. And it's a the 16 core M4 Max, 64GB ram and 4TB storage, it's not really lacking in any way, it's a beast of a machine.
(But yes if I bought this with my own money I would have swapped lol)
Firefox has lost the plot, Orion is close but still has the odd UI bug that makes it tough to recommend, Safari is just Safari.
There is no truly good, independent, feature complete browser out there right now if you want to avoid Chrome and have something that a) works and b) isn't hostile to the userbase.
Brave at the very least said they'd keep supporting Manifest v2 extensions, though not sure how you'd acquire them anymore unless Chrome web store has kept the listings up.
Haven't checked on it since about mid last year but Facebook settings didn't work with it for me.
LinkedIn has also been especially hard to find a good blocker for to remove the sponsored/suggested posts from the timeline (it's just full of garbage engagement bait hot takes).
I just vibecoded a tampermonkey script to block scrolling on Instagram and also block reels. I also had it redirect from the `/reels/` URL to `/reel` which is just the single video view (for when friends link me memes), but it seems they removed that.
Edit, some things I've been able to us ublock origin for. Like facebook reels. Not 100% clean but enough to stop them from working (no video, just still thumbnail when you open them). In some ways that provides some reinforcement learning to the brain.
reply