See linked article, under "Phenomenon #6: Cognitive abilities can be retained when the brain is seriously compromised", terminal lucidity, etc: "the patients demonstrated normal cognitive abilities just prior to death, contrary to what objective medical findings would have predicted (e.g., EEG, neuroimaging). These patients are operating in an anomalous manner that brings into question the idea that the body is a “puppet” controlled from the inside (the brain) and that perhaps it can function alternately in some instances."
> You'll need to share the decryption key (e.g. via 1password shared vaults).
Not really. It also supports keeping the symmetric decryption key encrypted with the GPG key of each added user (and handles this automatically). This is the default behavior.
What you're saying also works (quoting from readme, emphasis mine: "Alternatively, you can export a symmetric secret key, which you must securely convey to collaborators."), but feels worse from a security point of view.
Exactly. Case in point: Sonos not getting along with Google means the Youtube Music app doesn't allow casting to a Sonos speaker directly (like the Spotify app for example). This means I have to use the Sonos app, which "wraps" the Youtube API, but in a very shitty way (there's lots of contents that I can easily find if I search for it on Youtube directly, but the same search string gives no or bad results if searched in the Sonos app). Not sure if this is just a poor implementation of the YT API by Sonos or more bad will on Google's part (I'm inclined to think it's the first), but either way the user experience is horrible. It's so bad that the Sonos speaker basically sits there unused (even though the sound quality is very good).
I'm not taking Sonos' part here though: like other people here pointed out, I'm pretty sure they patented some very obvious things which they should imo never have gotten a patent for in the first place.
That's exactly my point. It's a website. It's meant to be consumed by browsers, so it's fine if the served resource is a SPA that renders the content lazily or whatever. The claim that SPAs somehow violate HTTP seems weird to me.
I think the most annoying part of this fad is that if you want to build a gaming PC it's very hard to find good components (especially cases and motherboards) that _don't_ have LEDs. It wouldn't bother me much if the same products were available with and without all the bling.
You mean like vectorized instructions and such? I don't know, but if I had to guess I'd say no.
Anyway, I'm sure there are some compilation phases that won't benefit from more cores, but the bulk of the compilation seems to do so. Even though Elixir has incremental compilation, due to use of metaprogramming in the Phoenix framework sometimes even changes to a single file will trigger recompilation of hundreds of others, so I was thinking these new AMD CPUs with lots of cores could be very helpful here.
I think you're missing the point. We're not comparing Safari with IE6 -- that would be absurd, we're just saying Safari compares to it's peers (Chrome, Firefox, heck, even Edge) like IE6 used to compare to the other browsers back in the day: stuff would mostly work on everything else but always needed special attention/polyfills/workarounds for IE.
On the project I currently work on the codebase is _littered_ with workarounds and hacks to get stuff to work on Safari.