Firefox has an extension called Youtube Custom Speed. You can set arbitrary speeds from .05 to 16x in whatever increments you feel like adding. Not that it helps for the dipshits explaining how to type something in a terminal prompt, but it's definitely handy for speeding through laptop disassemblies and the like.

Chrome does appear to have the same thing so it probably works on whatever browser you like.

In Pocket Casts, the app I use, there's a playback speed control that can go up to 5x. I usually listen to podcasts at about 3x speed, which feels right to me. I lose a little nuance for audio fiction, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

16x audio playback speeds are typical for screen readers for visually impaired users. Maybe your wife configured something like that, but they take practice to get used to. I only have some familiarity with those because I used to have a blind co-worker and had to support his setup.

Actually I was talking about CVE and enrich. There are people on this site that, believe it or not, are nerds but not in IT. I'm a physical chemist. I follow many science and tech stories that pop up on /. I don't typically pay much attention to the IT stories, but this one caught my eye because of the near comical number of times it was used in the summary. I checked the comments section to see if I was the only one, and apparently I wasn't. Maybe I'm in the minority [shrug].

That cost is so extreme I feel like I'm missing something, or there's more to the cost. The entire annual budget of California is $350 billion, so even if this is spread out over the next 10 years we're talking about ~7% of the annual budget going to a single transportation project.

This will run LA to SF. If you take the populations of both of those cities (who will benefit most from it) it's 18 million people. So we're talking about costing 231 billion / 18 million = $13,000 per person to build the thing. How is that worth it?

I just looked up and I can get a flight from LAX to SFO for $70. For $13k I could fly back and forth between them almost 100 times.

If that's a real number, as a CA taxpayer (which I'm not) I would be asking where else that money could go. Like increasing the state's education budget by 20% for the next 10 years. Or helping both cities handle their homeless problem.

see subject.

There are a lot of technical topics on /. I don't understand, but the point here is that they use an abbreviation like 20 times in a summary without ever defining it. If you use an abbreviation in technical writing (including a summary), you should define it the first time you use it. There may be some very common abbreviations that don't require defining, but this is not one of them.

I use side tabs because I'm trying to maximize horizontal space on a wide laptop screen. The widescreen standard leaves a lot of unused space on the edges. I could zoom browser text to go edge-to-edge, but then it's unnaturally large font and I get only a few lines of reading before I have to scroll. Making text/docs/webpages fill the center 2/3 of the screen is comfortable for me, leaving the outer 1/6th on each edge perfect spots for tabs.

I don't know why I should care about limited compatibility for a subset of devices with another subset of devices. There's some of everything in my home. I found a tool called LocalSend years ago that allows me to do mildly obnoxious data transfers between arbitrary devices regardless of platform.

... and Figure 3

If you start messing with the accessibility options for text size on MacOS, you quickly wind up with a blurry mess. This is particularly obnoxious if you're looking at a very high resolution display and very noticeable on the menu bar. It's a wonderful example of Apple's one size fits some design priorities.

MacOS is a third-rate *nix that can run MS Office, but so is ChromeOS. Should I be excited that I suddenly have the option to run Photoshop on a $600 device with as much RAM as the phone I had in 2018, but still can't control the size of system fonts on the desktop? Or is it just a more expensive way to run a browser and an SSH to something I'd rather be using?

I'll give you a hint: It's the second one.

If they're being thorough, Snapdragon, Mediatek and Ampere (server) SoCs are also being sold in traditional PC forms.

I might be interested if this thing could run Linux and had Thinkpad-grade input devices, but as it is, it's just a web terminal that's locked to Apple's ecosystem instead of Google's. That's just not very compelling.

What big European player wants to put $6B on the table though? SAP is the biggest European software company I can name and that doesn't seem like a strategic fit to me.

Western governments have always downplayed these kind of incidents.

It's about time we face reality.

https://www.redlabel.ltd/intel...

Agreed, especially with the fact that titles will randomly disappear based upon what the service feels like paying a license for. This results in seemingly popular movies just not being available, which keeps surprising us. Case in point, we wanted to watch the DiCaprio/Danes Romeo and Juliet, and it wasn't available on any streaming service except to "rent" for $4.99. We found the dvd in the basement and watched it instead.

I miss going to blockbuster with my girlfriend and wandering around, looking at what's newly released, debating what we wanted to watch, and getting that tub-o-microwave popcorn. It's somehow easier and more fun than scrolling through menus in an app.