In an ideal case, no. In a not-so-ideal case, one with the push access could theoretically replace any package on your system with a malicious version that you would pick up automatically using apt upgrade.
I'd trust PPAs more if they didn't have such broad possibility of misuse. For example, if I add a PPA that only contains package A, I should at least be warned if that PPA tries to install or upgrade package B. apt will only display that package B needs to be installed/upgraded, it won't inform me that it originated from that PPA.
I applaud elementary OS for not bundling software-properties-common by default (a package that allows you to run add-apt-repository). If you decide to install it, you should at least be forced to make an effort to open such possibility of misuse.
I copy-paste some sentence from a book into my note taking app, and search for that same text on my other device. Note-taking is easier to sync than reading positions themselves.
Calibre saves the reading position inside the metadata of the book, so you'd need a way to re-download the book every time you open it.
Yup, this will mean that there's no reason for me to keep my subscription as well.
This will also make me a little more cautious as a consumer, since they're voluntarily removing the incentive for me to pay for their services upfront.
Fair point! As a creator thinking about creating a Patreon presence, I wouldn't have realized this.
How would you feel if the content is still free, but you get a sneak peek at it a bit earlier? I'm currently considering postponing all the schedules I have for seven days, and offering content a week earlier to those who pay. In my mind, that sounds good: the content I create is still free, while there's still an incentive for the consumers to support its creation.
It's not about the browser, it's about browser engines. Edge will still exist, but EdgeHTML will not. We're down from four major browser engines to three, with one clearly dominating the market.
According to the latest poll within Mozilla, over 50% of the developers use a Mac. I suppose they're experiencing the same issues first-hand, and that it's only the matter of time before they iron out the performance.
Mixcloud actually had that. Then they've switched over to only displaying the current track. Then they've made some shitty version of music recognition similar to Shazam, which simply does not work for this use case (every single time it detects something, which happens almost never, it disregards that it's an edit/bootleg/remix of a song and displays the original instead).
In fact, as an uploader, you can still see it (I don't know why), but not as a listener. As an example, here's a screenshot of me viewing my own upload: https://imgur.com/a/REpxOgx
There's also a browser extension that modifies Mixcloud pages to display the tracklists again, but they're useless since no uploader has an incentive to go through the painful process of entering timestamps, and that process is now crowdsourced anyway thanks to 1001tracklists.
You'd have to be connected to the VPN at all times to use it. The minute you're not using it, all the Red features disappear, regardless if you have an active subscription or not[0].
So your option is to have an always-on VPN. If you're doing that from your phone, you might as well install NetGuard, which is a no-root open source adblocking solution that MitMs your connections by pretending to be a VPN, and is available on Google Play. Works with YouTube, and doesn't require monthly subscription.
[0] Source: Activated the YouTube Red trial when I was on a travel to the US, and lost all the benefits the moment I landed home.
Too many links man, too many links. And a weird location of the blog link. I would usually expect it to be the third link (home -> about -> blog -> contact -> everything else), not sixth.
You could reduce that list by three by showing another list with icons instead of the name (GitHub, LinkedIn, email).
I'd trust PPAs more if they didn't have such broad possibility of misuse. For example, if I add a PPA that only contains package A, I should at least be warned if that PPA tries to install or upgrade package B. apt will only display that package B needs to be installed/upgraded, it won't inform me that it originated from that PPA.
I applaud elementary OS for not bundling software-properties-common by default (a package that allows you to run add-apt-repository). If you decide to install it, you should at least be forced to make an effort to open such possibility of misuse.