bjorney

There are low powered FM transmitters you can get for your car

FM transmitter plugs into cigarette lighter for power

iPod connects to FM transmitter via AUX cord

You tune your cars radio to whatever frequency the transmitter is set to, and it plays whatever your iPod is playing

> want to compile 50kb C++ console app on windows

> 6 GB MSVC installation

It’s Google analytics, and the meta/twitter/etc tracking pixels. Almost every site uses them because they provide useful data to the site owner and they are free.

the images in OPs post appear to be designed to match their site theme, meaning umatrix wouldn’t even block them, because they are being served from the sites actual domain/CDN and not from Facebook/Google’s tracking domain.

The buttons don’t do any tracking just from existing. They only exist to encourage a miniscule number of people to repost your content on social media, and in the event a share comes from that, they may include affiliate info

All the useful information comes from the tracking scripts, which developers are also placing themselves because they are infinitely more useful. They tell you where visitors are coming from, how/if they are converting, everything they are viewing/interacting with on your site, and what the ROI of your ad spend is. In addition to telling you if someone clicked the share button.

Tracking pixels have been decoupled from the “share” buttons for at least 10-15 years

Just loading the “share” icon from the social media website allows them to see that you are reading that specific article

The buttons aren’t necessary for this though. They can do that with a <script> tag, or a hidden 1x1 pixel <img>

You seem content to entirely gloss over the issue, which isn’t the pros/cons of a particular writing style, it’s that the maintainer could have said ANY of the things you said, but he didn’t

If I was the maintainer, I too would probably reject the PR because it didn’t remove the gender entirely.

Cool, but that isn’t what happened here. The PR was closed immediately because the maintainer considered using gender neutral pronouns “personal politics” - he had ample opportunity to clarify his stance, or simply comment ‘resubmit in passive voice’, but he didn’t. Clearly the problem wasn’t the active voice, it was the summary of the change, because when that exact same PR was re-submitted much later with a commit message of ‘Fix some minor ESL grammar issues’, it was accepted with no discussion

As an aside, I absolutely disagree with the use of passive voice. It’s more verbose, and harder for the reader to comprehend. It’s why every style guide (APA, Chicago, IEEE, etc) recommends sticking to active voice, especially in the context of ‘doing things’.

If goes against established norms here

What’s the established norm here. All people compiling software by source are male?

he said politically motivated changes aren’t welcome

What’s politically motivated about changing “he” to “they”. As you said, gender doesn’t apply here, so the neutral word is literally preferable.

Yes, I’m sure that PR would have been accepted instead /s

But you’re right, it doesn’t matter at all, the reasonable thing to do would have been for the guy to spend 3 seconds clicking the accept and merge button, or 6 seconds making your change. instead he wrote a comment stating that inclusive language has no place in his project

https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814#issuecomment-830793992

Really?

This screams “women not wanted” to me

If the code doesn’t change, the resulting docker image will have the same hash, and a new image won’t be created

https://github.com/jackett/jackett/releases

Jackett is literally just releasing a new version every day

The content of the email is very laissez-faire, e.g. "we legally have to send these ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "

I collect these like pokemon 🙃

Wonder if that includes Uber eats?

This may be the Canadian in me, but my municipal dump literally has a spot for people to bring these (and other pressurized gas canisters) for safe handling and recycling

I was trying to say the cost savings of packing lunches is not absolute, and is dependent on the opportunity cost a person places on time spent at home cooking.

But I see now that you are just incapable of the critical thought necessary to deduce meaning beyond the concrete text placed in front of your eyes

you’re not going to convince me that eating out for lunch every single day is even remotely comparable in cost to half-decent meal prepping.

I’m trying to point out that the premise is flawed because you are assuming there is no opportunity cost associated with time spent meal prepping at home. If I make $50/hr at work and wish I had more free time at home, then it’s a wash, and I’m just as well off getting subway every day

You are missing the point, it’s not “4.5 hours a week of work” vs “absolutely nothing”, it’s 4.5 hours of work vs however long to have to work to pay for the ingredients, plus the time to make the food. If I spend an hour meal prepping and it takes me an hour and a half to pay for the ingredients, eating out at lunch only costs me 2 additional hours of my time, not 4.5

I also don’t know what meal you are preparing where chopping veggies, searing meat, packaging and cleaning up afterwards only takes 20 minutes. Even making chili, which is the prototypical “throw everything in a pot” recipe takes me north of an hour when all is said and done

And meal prepping is 2 hours of your week every week, plus however long you have to work to pay for the ingredients, which is probably another 2 hours

Some people like the taste and don’t mind paying for the convenience - full stop.

Also the vegetarian option at most fast food places is generally more expensive and worse tasting