Don’t know the ultimate goal but this project makes it very easy to install and play the game on modern windows and Linux computers. Getting the original game to work right can be a pain.
There’s a fork of this by one LadyEebs that adds a whole bunch of modern touches like ragdoll physics, advanced lighting, fog, and she’s even been tastefully modding the single player maps with more detail. I don’t have the repo handy because I am on my phone, but a lot of the dev discussion takes place on the Discord of The Massassi Temple (https://www.massassi.net/). I do run that site but am not involved in openjkdf2 or Eeb’s fork. There is also another JK reimplementation project by BAH_Strike that is also impressive.
Yep, there's a thread with hundreds of people on M1,2,3 macs having issues, it bit some people at work on newer macs. If you installed it a while ago, it's fine, but if you installed recently, it's buggered. The solution was to install podman-desktop which was somehow packaged such that it's not getting the bug (podman machine start hangs forever).
Yeah, super slow startup of apps, themes not applying correctly with snap versions when they do fine with non-snap versions, inability to control when updates happen (this has been fixed since 20.04 but it was a huge PITA), a zillion weird entries in fstab, and multiple ways to manage packages on the same system. It is all a mess. I just recently moved off of 20.04 and after trying a few distros ended up on Linux Mint because not only are snaps completely disabled, they have a system in place for basing off vanilla debian instead of ubuntu if ubuntu ever makes it impossible to skip the snaps.
Don’t want to dismiss your complaint, but I find mine generally is not even that noticeable considering the main function of the Apple TV is playing media on my tv that lights up the whole room. What annoys you about it?
It's a white light sitting below my tv constantly shining a light at my face. What is the point of it? I already know the thing is powered on because I powered it on and it's playing a movie or whatever. Facing it backwards helps but then all the wires are exposed and look ugly.
Anyway, it wasn't really a strong complaint, but parent poster said Apple generally doesn't do it, but I have it on at least two generations of apple tv.
As someone with a fair bit of astigmatism... a visble white dot maybe 6 inches from the edge of the TV is just about worst case for making any sort of dark scene look blurry.
I'm not convinced. Recently moved to a new computer and firefox didn't sync my settings in about:config and didn't sync my container assignments (had to go in and enable it manually in both the source and target computers, buried deep in the settings for the containers extension). It doesn't sync addons or addon settings. I don't think it synced all the interface customization (like removing pocket icon from the url bar, separate urlbar/search box), only some of it. I got my bookmarks, so that was helpful. To sync a lot of other stuff I was able to copy my prefs.js from the old to the new, and most of those settings worked.
I use Fastmail and 1Password, and I do used the masked email functionality. There is a massive gap, though, that makes it very difficult to rely on masked email. When I sign up for a new account somewhere, I can choose to create a masked email. If I later need to email that company (not reply via an existing email message), I must first somehow look up what email I used for that company, go into fastmail settings and create a "sender identity", remember the email address again, and then when I compose, remember to choose the sender identity that is associated with the masked email address I created for that specific company. If I forget or mess up any of those steps, I end up sending from my primary account or some other masked email address associated with some other company. Multiply that by dozens or even a hundred companies!
It would be really nice if adding a masked email automatically created a "sending identity." Further, it would be nice if the masked email account had a nickname that included the domain I was on when I created the account. That way if I need to send an email to support@nike.com, I can use the filter and type "nike.com" and get the correct masked email address.
> It would be really nice if adding a masked email automatically created a "sending identity."
It does.
Just click "... Show all" when choosing a sender, and that will expand the list/search to include masked emails. It should also show you the domain/service it was set up for. And as you noted, the masked email will automatically be used as the sender when replying to an email that was sent to it as well.
Using 1Password makes it super easy to see which masked email was used for each service, so I can't really relate to your frustrations there either.
I think it's a pretty polished experience, and definitely beats everything else I've used in the past.
Only sort of. First, this is a new feature, there used to be a whole section on adding "sending identities" and describing how to do it in order to send from a masked email address. I have support emails from 1Password pointing me to those docs as well. That whole section has been removed and now there's a note in the docs saying why (no date, though, so I don't know how recent).
Second, your description glosses over the fact that if I click the "from" address dropdown, and then in the filter/search field, type the domain associated with the masked email address, nothing shows up except "Show All." Why wouldn't a filter/search find the address? I have to click "Show All" and then repeat the search.
However, if I search/filter for any of the dozens of "sending identities" I created previously, the search/filter works correctly. So the UI is completely broken. When I search/filter something, and nothing shows up except a "Show All" button, that's the UI telling me that there were no matches. Oh, but now I learn that there are matches, they're just hidden under "Show All" (which should be renamed to "show matching masked email addresses" or something!?).
What's missing? The old experience definitely sounds pretty frustrating.
Personally, I really like that masked emails are hidden by default. I've got 20 "real" sending identities, so when I'm searching I want a quick selection that doesn't include dozens of masked results. The amount of times I start a new email thread with a masked email would probably be a small handful of times per year.
Edit:
> I have to click "Show All" and then repeat the search.
Maybe that's a bug you can report for your browser? I don't need to retype anything and just hit enter when I get no results, then it expands the results to include masked items.
This has been one of my biggest peeves about the WWW since 1993. Please include publication and/or change dates and/or include a changelog on your pages. Do not force your users to resort to reading metadata, the URL path, the Wayback Machine, or dark magic to figure out when and what changed. Diff is a solved problem; why can't I diff a generic web page?
> there used to be a whole section on adding "sending identities"
This still exists, by the way. They moved it to Settings => Migration => Import => Add alumni email forwarding address or non-SMTP sending identity, which makes absolutely no sense to me.
> go into fastmail settings and create a "sender identity"
Not anymore, they've made it much simpler for you now by combining "aliases" and "sending identities" into "my email addresses". If you thought it was confusing before when you had to click "create new" under "sender identities" in settings, now all you need to do is:
1. Head to Settings → Migration → Import page.
2. Click on Add external sending address (SMTP) without importing emails.
3. Enter the email address and click Next.
4. On the following screen, skip the password prompt and click on Manually configure.
5. Disable the option - User authenticated SMTP when sending.
6. Save the changes.
And just like that you can start sending emails with your new address, easy peasy.
A "Sender identity" should just be a different From: mail header; it shouldn't involve disabling SMTP authentication. The SMTP envelope address and authentication are unaffected.
Instead of generating a unique email per relationship, it'd be better if the email provider generated a unique key when the relationship is established that the customer or end user can revoke.
Email me at my well known identity "whoever@whatever.com" -> my provider gives you a key that you must store and continue to use for the duration of our relationship. I can terminate it if I want. If you lose the key, you must ask for a new one. If you ask too many times, I can silence you forever. You'll have to provide your own identity when asking.
For noisy environments, I can choose to give you the key upfront and only allow for that style of relationship.
I could imagine encoding the concept of entity or organization type into the keys as well so that we can distinguish individuals from companies. Professionals, academics, official employees, etc.
If you delegate your key to another party, I can choose to pre-authorize it, manually approve it, or outright deny it. Extend it haphazardly or without my consent and you may be blocked.
I'd like that type of system.
Emails shouldn't have to change. The protocol should. Getting parties onboard might be hard unless a key stakeholder (eg. Google) decides to implement this, but they're in a position to unilaterally dictate.
OK. Sure. It’d be better, for you, a technologically savvy receiver of email. I can’t see anyone else in the equation that stands to benefit from this. I can’t see non-tech-savvy email receivers caring much about this at all, or any of its effects, until it has near-universal adoption. Part of solution engineering is coming up with something that people actually want to use.
So I don’t really see it as better. I see it as pie-in-the-sky fan-fiction to address part of what masked emails aims to address. A significant portion of the time that I used masked email, it’s in service of increasing anonymity (to the organisation i am giving the email address to), not an anti-spam measure.
While the protocol details would undoubtedly be somewhat complicated, the user-facing UX wouldn't necessarily have to be.
The only part I'm not quite sure how to do seamlessly is the initial exchange. You sign up with your email at a new website, and need to also give them the unique key that allows them to correspond with you. This would require browser support, and a standardized protocol for letting the browser request a new key from your email provider. Also means your browser would need your email credentials (well, an OAuth grant, more likely). And the problem here is that, until all browsers (or whatever) support it, you'd have to run the system in a default-allow state.
Another option for the initial per-contact setup is a sort of trust-on-first-use kind of thing. First email from a new recipient is allowed through, but at that point your email client will ask if you want further emails to be allowed (and if you do, it'll send the key to the sender behind the scenes). Problem there is that spammers could just burn through new email addresses to keep contacting you.
Anyway, I'm sure there are solutions to these problems, even if I can't think of them in the 12 seconds I've allowed myself to do so. I expect this would be something that would remain disabled for a while, until all the infrastructure and client support is in place.
Also, every website would have to have a way to do this. That's a massive bootstrapping effort that, you can't change every website in the world very easily, there'd have to be a very massive advantage for them. I don't see the evolutionary pathway to get your suggestion implemented.
Besides, this already exists anyway, it's basically:
This has been a very gradual change. The earliest announcement I can find is from 2018[1] but I'm pretty sure it was in the works long before. That's more than five years to implement a technology that browsers and servers at the time already had known how to do for a decade or more.
The users don't have to interact with any piece of this. It can be 100% a backend implementation detail.
If you did want to surface it, the controls could be as simple as "block sender", "opt out of 3rd party contacts", "sender X wants you to connect with sender Y - allow?", etc. Very coarse grained, very easy and intuitive.
This was also an issue I had, but there is actually very good support for this hidden by an invisible feature. Simply add an `*@domain` as your email address identity. When you select that as your from address the fastmail UI gives you an input box to use whatever email you want, you don't need to make a new identity each time. For lookup, I just use my password manager.
Agreed. I recently moved into a new house. The builder put in a "clare smart home system." This included a clare home display mounted in the hallway with an inward facing camera. This device is exclusively controlled by security/smart home companies that contract with clare. I have no option to disable the camera, disable the phoning home, etc. In fact, before I can do anything meaningful on the device, they required an in-home appointment where they would set up every smart device in the house for "free," but future additions would require a paid service call for them to come out and set them up.
I had emailed them asking about whether there was an alarm system, and before I got any reply I found an option on the display to activate the alarm. Which I did. But before it actually activated (it gave some sort of countdown), I pressed Cancel. It prompted me for a PIN, which I could only get from the installers. I had no option to cancel the alarm other than to cut power to the device, but once I pulled it off the wall it started wailing a tamper alarm that wouldn't stop until I pulled the backup battery. Oh and I found out later that it was snapping photos of me against my will and without my permission. Please note this all happened before the in-home appointment (which never happened).
I canceled the appointment, permanently tore the thing off the wall, and it's destined for a landfill because the only way to get it to work is to activate it through that alarm company. Oh and they won't even return my calls/emails after I canceled the appointment. I tried calling them to see if they wanted it so they could use it as a warranty replacement or something, instead of putting it in the garbage.
Every "smart" thing they put in this house sucks. The Ring doorbell doesn't function as a doorbell if it loses wifi connection. Oh and when it's connected, the initial press does ring the doorbell, but subsequent presses don't ring the doorbell, and this is by design. During the brief time I had it connected, I was getting constant alerts of suspicious people in my neighborhood, with attached photos of black people walking on a sidewalk. what!? It turns out it didn't recognize my address so connected me to some default place in Texas (I live in Washington!). There was no way to manually select a location, so I guess I was going to get false, racist alerts until such time as Ring decided to recognize my address. I reset it and canceled my Ring account. I'm going to replace it with a normal door bell button. This is getting thrown in the garbage as well.
The "smart" z-wave switches haven't been connected/activated so should function as normal switches right? Nope, they do this stupid dim/undim thing and periodically completely fail to work until I turn off/on the circuit breaker. Another 5 items destined for a landfill to be replaced by regular switches.
The smart front door lock (keypad) and smart garage door openers have never been connected to anything and I'm going to leave them that way. I really wish there was a hardware kill switch that would disable all wireless connections and leave them in a dumb mode. I'm worried someone else can come in and connect their phone or something, since I've never set them up.
(in case anyone wants a free clare home panel, PM me an address to mail it to and I'll send it; rather have someone tinker with or hack it than trash it)
> The Ring doorbell doesn't function as a doorbell if it loses wifi connection. Oh and when it's connected, the initial press does ring the doorbell, but subsequent presses don't ring the doorbell, and this is by design. During the brief time I had it connected
The Ring doorbell absolutely works as a mechanical doorbell if it's hard-wired into the doorbell system in the house...if there is one.
Other than that, totally agree with you re: built-in "smart home" systems. They are cheap systems builders use to drive the home price up that you don't have much control over.
If we build our own house, I'll ask for non-smart devices but replace them with my own. I LOVE our smart home stuff.
> The Ring doorbell absolutely works as a mechanical doorbell if it's hard-wired into the doorbell system in the house...if there is one.
When the ring doorbell lost wifi, because we changed ISPs, it no longer functioned as a doorbell. When pressed, it would only make the chime outside at the button, it would not ring inside the house. Yes it's hard wired to a doorbell inside the house.
When connected to wifi and active, when the ring doorbell button is pressed, it will ring inside the house one single time. Then it starts recording, by default for 2 minutes. During the time it's recording, if the button is pressed again, the button press is completely ignored. So by default you can ring the doorbell 1 time every 2 minutes -- anything more often gets ignored. There is a huge bug report / thread about this on ring's site and they just say it's by design.
When the ring doorbell is completely disconnected from wifi and reset back to factory settings, it indeed functions as a regular doorbell. But it also has a spinning light that notifies everybody that it's not set up and is not recording.
My brother in law works for a home builder that installs Ring doorbell buttons by default on all their homes. He said he noticed that about half of them get replaced with a regular doorbell button or a different "smart/camera" doorbell within a few weeks of initial move-in.
I understand the sentiment but it's not a solution. The only solution is to prohibit plastic packaging or force companies to use types of plastic that are easy to recycle. I believe it's easier to regulate the company producing the waste than try to get the entire population to agree on and behave in a certain way.
This is a controversial position, but: Because technology exists for all product packaging to be made from single-process-recyclable/biodegradable materials and only using plant-based ink we could force companies to use it. This would drastically change the marketing landscape and make it much less shiny but everyone would be on the same level field and consumers would adapt.
The other way is to reuse very inert materials like stainless steel or glass. Outlaw all the silly marketing designs and make them standarized like shipping containers and buy them back from the consumer. It used to work this way before plastics came along anyway. Beer and milk bottles would be swapped for instance.
Right now we have 4 items we can basically recycle.
Glass -> fairly straight forward to recycle
Metal -> fairly straight forward to recycle
Paper -> depends and very water intensive but kind of OK and not totally terrible if it is just burnt. But nearly as all over the place as plastic.
Plastic -> All over the place and dozens upon dozens of differing types rules regulations and depending on your local area how much is actually 'recycled' (a lot less than you think)
Then on top of that we are to reduce, reuse, recycle. The manufactures have skipped the first two steps and blame us for it.
Plastic is the worst of them to recycle it has the least recyclability. I have seen estimates from anywhere for 5% to 10% of the total plastic stream. Then customer shaming and deceptive tactics to make me feel bad for this. The bottom line is plastic is the worst for recyclability yet we use it for a good portion of our containers. We are worried about plastic straws and yet a good portion of the food I buy comes in a plastic container. Instead we should be putting pressure on the upstream to give us containers that they and we can reuse.
It's worth separating out the packaging waste in statistics e.g. if you buy a plastic doll in plastic packaging, the doll might account for most of the plastic.
If you buy a plastic lawn chair there may be no packaging, but still a sizeable lump of plastic.
Plus global averages hide variation in package recycling (and reclamation) rates are surprisingly okay in developed nations, even in the US which you'd think is culturally incapable based on the anecdotes you hear. It seems like big cities where lots of people live are doing better than less dense areas where relatively few people live, which keeps the stats high.
> ...or force companies to use types of plastic that are easy to recycle.
And code them in such a way that allows easy automatic sorting, say by requiring type-specific colors (e.g. PET is allowed only certain shades, and HDPE different shades, etc.).
As is standard, perhaps, the concept and ideas are already well-established, the only requirement is to enact them. I also suspect that many of the initiatives are pretty weak, watered down by packaging producers who don't want to bear the full cost of waste management.
Why should we not try to get the population to behave a certain way? The alternative is a society full of people who behave antisocially, acting as if only their needs matter. It’s hard to say whether a concerted effort to make people more invested in the civic good will be effective, but throwing our hands in the air will undoubtedly have the intended effect.
I feel that this has things inverted. People generally don’t care about the packaging or even the materials in the product. Those choices are made almost entirely by the seller.
Why should the buyer be responsible for cleaning up the seller’s mess?
If it’s possible to economically create products that don’t produce waste then this should be mandated, because otherwise there will always be some asshole corporation who is willing to undercut competitors on price by externalising costs to the environment.
The plastics lobby argued in favour of single use plastics many decades ago, and that's where the focus on end consumer responsibility comes from. These were literally the same PR firms that used those same tricks on behalf of the tobacco industry not long before that.
Putting the onus exclusively on the end consumer is the easiest way to ensure the industry doesn't bear the burden and expense, and that's entirely the point.
Because changing one thing that has a huge impact (the manufacturer) is a lot easier than changing hundreds of millions of things with each a tiny impact (people's habits).
How about, instead of doing the almost-impossible thing that is not necessary or logical (why should everyone else change in order to offset lost profits for a company that doesn't care about them?), do the easy thing that is practical and rational.
Or you can decry society for doing the easy thing, but remember that trying to shape outcomes when dealing with large numbers of people almost always leads to consequences that seem obvious in hindsight but were unpredictable at the onset.
FWIW in Washington state where I live (and in the 3 cities/towns I've lived in here), multiple times a year Waste Management/WM sends out a flyer explaining what can and can't be recycled. It changes over time and it's extra confusing because the recycle cans have different rules printed on them than what is in the flyer. We used to be able to recycle juice boxes and milk cartons, no more. Then we were supposed to recycle glass jars and their metal lids, but now "no lids of any kind." We were told to flatten and recycle all paperboard boxes, but now we are supposed to skip recycling any paperboard boxes that have a clear coating on them (every freezer box, according to their instructions). Plastic bags have always been prohibited. But of course I see my neighbors putting plastic bags in their cans all the time. There are so many rules about what plastics can be recycled that I can't even remember them.
I think the "education" aspect has been attempted and it's not working. It's time to go nuclear and have the government dictate what types of materials can be used for packaging and ban everything else.
If I never see another blister pack it will be too soon.
I can't speak for other countries, but in the US trying to get everybody on the same page in terms of recycling habits would be worse than herding cats.
It's not something anybody wants to put energy towards because they're trying to keep 50 other plates spinning at any given time (which as an aside, is also a huge source of plastic waste because nobody has the time or energy to cook) and there's also a chunk of the population who will take any kind of push to change behavior as a personal affront.
You can probably get a small percentage to adhere fully and a slightly larger to partially adhere, but I agree with parent comments that it's better to make companies use materials that are easier to recycle in the first place.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but it isn't mutually exclusive with having the government do what it can do educate the public in order to get them behave more responsibly and civically minded. Obviously this would require a bit of a re-think in terms of what we value as a society. Doesn't mean that it isn't worth trying.
Apple maps enrages me for doing this. When you first open the app it like shows a screenshot of what you were looking at last time while it loads. Sometimes that screenshot is retained as the active view (for example if I have a search up), but other times after a couple of seconds the whole app just resets. This causes me to hit the "dictation" button quite often instead of the X button that was on screen when I start tapping (X button to close previous search result is replaced with a view reset and now the dictation button is under my thumb).
A screenshot of the app shouldn't be a loading screen!! It seems to depend on how long it's been since the app was last opened and/or how the internet connection is at the time. Bank apps show a proper loading screen.
> Apple maps enrages me for doing this. When you first open the app it like shows a screenshot of what you were looking at last time while it loads.
This has started to really irritate me since it feels like every application in Apple's mobile ecosystem does this. My device has SIX GIGABYTES OF MEMORY[0]. Why do you need to swap everything out of RAM almost instantaneously?
What grinds my gears the most is that state isn't preserved. Apple Maps and Music are the absolute worst for this. Music will show the same screenshot and then just unceremoniously dump me to the "Listen Now" or "Browse" screen (it seems random which) and completely disregard whatever playlist or album I was in. The last song I played and track position are kept but good damn luck getting back to the spot I was in--particularly which playlist--before the app got put on ice.
That screenshot is just a point of "hahaha nope" frustration.
0 - Yes, I mean actual Random Access Memory, not "storage capacity."
Yes, as a music app both apple music and youtube music are completely worthless. Why can't they remember where I was at when I get back into my car and the bluetooth connects. It can't be that hard right? I get that apple's stupid policy kills the active process if I haven't used it in a while, but it can't be that difficult to just store where I was so next time I hit play, it's in the same place? Oh, amazon music can't remember my place either. I never had this problem with an ipod, a creative labs music player, a cassette tape, or even a cd (in my car where they will pick up where it left off).
