TP-Link hardware is generally quite decent, and a lot of their gear can be flashed with OpenWRT if you don't like their firmware.
Their firmware isn't bad though. They update it when needed, and they don't disable features just to upsell you the next model, generally if the hardware can do it they will have that feature enabled.
"lock-in" is the word you're looking for.
People can't switch without considerable cost in money and/or convenience. That could be as simple as using two different systems at home and at work, which adds to the mental load.
Windows has been winning for 30+ years because it's familiar shit. Everyone knows it's shit, but at least you already know the taste. Consumers know that if they use Windos their skills trained at work transfer. Businesses know that if they use Windos then new hires don't need basic computer training. Software developers know that if they support Windos, there's a huge market that runs it.
Everyone is locking everyone else into the shit, and Microsofts sits in the middle and laughs.
I would bet that there's an internal competition among the various teams how much utter crap they can put into their respective parts of the OS before the public rebels against it.
Been a non-windows user for two decades now, and don't miss it one bit. Sometimes sad if a cool game is out only on Windos, but I anyway don't have as much time anymore as I used to.
It's not just Windos, though. DOS was equally horrible. I replaced MS-DOS with Novell DOS on one of my PCs for utterly different reasons (better to run a small BBS system on) and that was miles ahead of the Microsoft shit.
It keeps getting worse because we are not the customers anymore, we are the product. Your data is sold, your user habits are monitizied, and the main reason Windows still rules the games market is so kids grow up on Windows PCs and will demand them in their jobs (businesses are the main buyers of the OS).
And probably because Bill Gates is sad if market share falls. And who can stand old men crying?
Unfortunately it usually takes Google a few years minimum to deprecate any feature, and they are more likely than not to abandon the attempt before reaching the deadline. See 3rd party cookies.
I can see them adding further warnings, or disabling HTTP for non-local addresses, but if they announced it today it wouldn't happen for at least 3 years.
Chrome based browsers already made it a lot harder to use sites with self signed certs as well - I had a VSphere server on my local network that had a self provided self signed cert, and actualy accessing the server got progressively more and more difficult (and there was no way to change the cert). At one point I had to type in "this is dangerous" to get the browser to actually give me an option to proceed.
Facebook cookies being stolen via shared Wifi hotspots was also a big motivator for Facebook to move to HTTPS by default as well.
I would call bullshit on "something that ~100% of the American public agree with (ending time changes)". The closer to Mexico they are the more likely people will agree with you, but those closer to Canada are ones that actually benefit from daylights saving and would disagree with you. Basically I call bullshit because you are effectively claim "~100% of the American public" live in the southern states.
Close to 100% want it to stop changing. Different states have different opinions about which way.
Just in case you don't understand the core issue, if you are close to the equator daylights saving is pointless and a hassle, but the closer to the poles you are the more extreme the number of daylight hours changes from summer to winter, 6 hours where I live. For people like me daylight savings makes the most of those hours by bringing the light hours closer in sync with when I need them.
Does it really, though? Where I am, it gets dark before I get home from work. Permanent DST seems like a big benefit from my POV, because those early morning hours are wasted indoors getting ready for work anyway, but evening hours can be used outdoors.
The right law to pass is one that gives the states the right to choose permanent DST, and then phases out the changes at the next time change.
Nope. We don't have POSIX timezones defined per-state at this time.
Pacific time will go away entirely in the U.S. All three states in that time zone adopted laws enacting permanent daylight saving time if Congress authorizes it.
And in general, if the time doesn't change, people can just choose the next zone to the right. No big deal.
Wesley: I see you have six fingers on your left hand. Someone was looking for you.
Count: It's an upscaler hallucination! I swear!
The point of daylight savings is that everybody's clock changes at once, so we can all follow the sun during business hours without changing the "hours" sign in the shop window. If we stop switching the clock, it doesn't matter for your sleep schedule WHAT hour of the day we (accurately or not) claim it is. You could adjust your schedule so that the sun rises, on average, at 00:00, if you wanted.
I mean ostensibly, yes, but the reality is that folks have expectations that businesses be open similar hours, and there's a decent amount of momentum involved that you'd have to fight if you changed it. Way easier for regions to pick the time that fits best with those expectations.
So if you're not changing, there's no advantage of daylight saving time over standard time, or frickin' Tulsa time or Hammer Time for that matter. However, standard time has the advantage that it's not wronger than it has to be on purpose.
Except in the large parts of the country where it at least arguably is, like the bottom half of California, all of middle and western Tennessee and Kentucky, everything to the right of Pennsylvania, etc.
Really? This fool picked THAT hill to die on? Really, there's nothing else the YOB has done bothers that supreme moron of the Senate.
Year of birth?
I find it hilarious that the one time a Republican stands up to the president, it is over something that ~100% of the American public agree with (ending time changes).
The right law to pass is one that gives the states the right to choose permanent DST, and then phases out the changes at the next time change. So at the next time change, if your area chooses permanent DST, you either stay on DST or switch to DST (depending on which time change), and if your area chooses permanent standard time, it either stays on standard time or switches to it, and then you never change again.
And if you pass that right after a time change, it gives the states a narrow window to make the decision, and then you're done with the time change forever.
This is common sense.
Yeah, that's fair. Passing it now would be s**t-for-brains stupid, because a bunch of states have passed laws that say that this will kick in as soon as Congress authorizes it, and if Congress authorizes it a week before the time change, it's going to be pandemonium for the tech industry.
The right time to vote on this is one week AFTER the time change that you're trying to avoid repeating a year from now.
Going to permanent daylight saving time because you hate changing the clocks is like being sick of all the picture frames in your house being askew and solving the problem by gluing them to the wall--at a fifteen-degree angle.
Not really, no. Part of the year, DST feels better, and part of the year, standard time feels better. You have to choose one, but there's no need for it to be standard time.
DST is currently active for roughly eight months out of the year. Standard time is active for roughly four. All things being equal, DST is better for your sleep schedule twice as often as standard time is. So I would argue that permanent standard time is like gluing them at 10 degrees because your house keeps tipping, and you get tired of shifting them to negative five degrees twice a year. It's downright backwards.
DST may not be ideal, but I'd argue standard time sure has h*** isn't.
LOL per capita Americans emit more CO2 from burning gas than Chines do from burning coal Also per capita Americans emit more CO2 from burning oil than Chines do from burning coal
And again, per capita numbers are uninteresting, because most people in China produce relatively little economic output, and the usage of people producing minimal economic output is uninteresting precisely because that is an indication of an underutilized resource, rather than an indication that this is as much energy as those people will need going forwards.
The eventual expected state of an industrial economy is one in which almost everyone produces significant economic output, because that's just how economies almost invariably develop over time. So in a couple of generations, assuming stable population, their energy usage will absolutely explode as their economy becomes more efficient and larger percentages of people end up doing jobs that produce higher levels of economic output.
That's why the only important metric when it comes to how a country is doing environmentally, IMO, other than perhaps the rate of population growth or decline, is emissions per unit of economic output. Because once you have that, you can compare how much countries produce with how much they pollute. You can also divide it by the percentage of people in that country who are actually producing meaningful economic output and get a good approximation of what that country's emissions will eventually be when everyone starts producing high economic output in a few decades. When you do this, you conclude that China will be a disaster environmentally if they don't stop ramping up coal production.
It really is that simple.
from your own words Rich Americans are entitled to pollute twice as much as Chinese, because they do it with oil & gas.
I literally did not say those words or anything like them.
A bug in the code is worth two in the documentation.
