> Speaking in effective time, it is obviously more than 60 minutes, I would say rather 160 minutes in the beginning and then getter lower with experience and getting used to it.
I seriously disagree with this. 60 minutes is more than sufficient if you aren't screwing around. I also think it's baffling that people are still recommending Starting Strength when there are far more efficient and productive programs to start off with.
Especially as a beginner, you can get a significant training stimulus without having to waste 2-3 hours of your day. How absurd. Think 80/20. I even think spending that much time would be more detrimental than beneficial in the beginning.
> Exercise requires persistence. You can't really have gaps in it, because you lose your progress.
Well, maintaining your current level of strength is far easier to do than maintaining continuous progress (especially at more advanced stages, which you have to do a lot of fuckery around programming/scheduling in order to realize any progress at all). You just can't do nothing, but the same goes for languages. If you don't use a language at all, your proficiency atrophies over time as well.
It's just not something people really think about. If you were to reach a level of strength you were happy with, you could just figure out a maintenance program and focus your physical energy on other pursuits, extreme sports, slacklining, bouldering, hiking, whatever.
Well, more than diet, anything that isn't technical in nature. Economics, (geo-)politics, biology (particularly humans), etc. There's a lot of that fallacy around here that being knowledgeable/smart in one area means that obviously it transfers to every other field.
There are a lot of things we can do, but that requires the EU, the US and China's neighbors to work together. It requires US to have a vision for countering China's growing sphere of influence. Unfortunately, the US is content to let China grow into the void that the US has left as it abdicates its role as superpower. The EU isn't fit to function as a counterweight to China.
I say all this as an EU citizen. For all its faults, the US is the one ally we have that could possibly coordinate an appropriate response (no, not military - financial, political and social, but also military if need be) and it's a tragedy that the US is just ... giving up.
> This is totally the right move. I am a (very happy) user of Stadia. If you haven't tried it, you really should...it's an amazing piece of tech. I can find myself with 20-30 minutes worth of downtime during the day, fire up Cyberpunk 2077 or Hitman or Assassin's Creed in moments from my browser on a macbook and play at high settings with no noticeable lag.
There's zero chance I'm ever going to give Google any support in trying to take over the gaming industry. The best thing they can do is kill Stadia, considering how anti-consumer it is.
> The company plans to begin offering its Stadia tech to publishers, opening up the possibility for Stadia to become the streaming tech for other video game companies.
Primarily tabs losing their position, not maintaining their hierarchy, weird behaviour around moving tabs around, crashing and freezing. Also all-around bad performance. Maybe it's improved since I last used it a year ago, but it was so infuriatingly buggy for such a long time that I'm just not willing to give them another chance. Especially when Sidebery just works (99% of the time) and it's more performant than TST ever was.
> Well... no warrants were issued, no search conducted, and nothing seized.
The violation is that they were able to sidestep legal processes like warrants by buying the data. If you don't see the issue with that, then I'm not sure what to tell you. It doesn't become okay just because they're purposefully avoiding legal scrutiny. It's like saying HSBC's money laundering is totally fine because they're successfully avoiding legal or law enforcement action.
Scrollbars are all about physicality. We are creatures fundamentally rooted in a physical world and we think in ways that are deeply connected to spatial properties of the things we interact with. Scrollbars reflect many of these properties in a natural way on a limited 2D plane (as demonstrated by all the other comments). Mouse wheels aren't able to replace that function in any way. It's not their purpose.
I've spent the past half hour reading up on Matrix again. What about the metadata issue? Seems like Signal goes to great lengths to ensure that the only data they have about a user is their phone number and the most recent day they connected to the network.
I haven't really seriously looked into Matrix before. I've briefly skimmed what I could find about it, but didn't see any simple way to get something running where I could easily onboard friends/family. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like the single biggest issue with Matrix.
> In case of whatsapp and keeping chat history it can mean years of chat history becoming public if for example your Apple / Google account (where whatsapp automatically stores your conversation backups) gets hacked.
This just isn't the threat model most people care about, nor do they have to. Given a choice between preserving their chat history with their loved ones and not having any of it in the off chance that it might be leaked somewhere, the vast majority of people will opt for the former. Once you value chat history and other media in this way, then the risk simply isn't relevant. Again, this is all irrelevant. You people keep thinking on this one track of "but it's not secure" when that isn't the overriding concern for these people. It needs to be secure enough while not completely disregarding one of their core needs (preserving history). It's non-negotiable and no amount of discussing of risk or privacy will change this. Again, I find it insufferable that tech people are so unwilling to take normal peoples' needs into account.
Signal has the opportunity to become the default secure messaging app while also providing "secure" backups. They don't even need to be cloud backups, though that would be preferred. Even local backups can be sufficient. But as long as they don't account for the needs of "normal" people, Signal isn't a real option.
If I go to my friend's girlfriend and say, here's this awesome secure messaging app that you need to switch to and she switches, then something happens to her phone and she loses all her precious chats, how do you think that's going to go over? I can blabber on about privacy and risks all I want, I'm still the asshole.
Does it matter? People care. People don't want to lose years worth of chat histories with friends, family and their significant other(s). That's just how it is. I'm not sure why it's so hotly debated around here. People want to preserve their chats and their media. There's sentimental/emotional value to these things and they don't want to lose these things. That's all that should matter. I feel like these discussions always get bogged down in "but why", particularly from people who have a different opinion, when it's irrelevant. People value things differently. Just because their values are different from yours doesn't make them any less justified than you. This is reality. This is people.
If Signal wants to provide a mainstream secure and private alternative to WhatsApp, then it needs to make concessions to accommodate these preferences. If they don't want to, that's fine, but it also means I can't recommend Signal to non-tech friends/family.
The backup issue makes Signal infeasible for me to suggest to family/friends as a serious alternative. It's just not up for discussion. People care about preserving their chat histories and I'm not about to put myself in a position where I'm at fault when that stuff goes lost because something or other. There's a lot of sentimental value there that is non-negotiable.
Unfortunately, that leaves me with ... nothing to recommend people switch to.
You mean Signal which was created by Moxie Marlinspike and other legit cryptogaphers and security researchers? Who rolled Telegram's crypto? No idea. Why should we trust them? No idea. I think I'll go with the people who have been contributing to the field for years and are highly respected.
I seriously disagree with this. 60 minutes is more than sufficient if you aren't screwing around. I also think it's baffling that people are still recommending Starting Strength when there are far more efficient and productive programs to start off with.
Especially as a beginner, you can get a significant training stimulus without having to waste 2-3 hours of your day. How absurd. Think 80/20. I even think spending that much time would be more detrimental than beneficial in the beginning.