[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 55 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

"You shouldn't be sad while others have it worse."

Therefore,

"You shouldn't be happy while others have it better."

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 47 points 6 months ago

Why do you need to bring politics into it?

/s

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 87 points 7 months ago

Lots of people shitting on Microsoft on this thread ignoring that it's not Microsoft who charge for a codec and that Microsoft promote a royalty-free HEVC competitor called AV1.

Guaranteed this video file is from an Apple device, where patent-encumbered HEVC is the default recording format.

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 57 points 8 months ago

Bad UX is bad UX. Regardless of how drunk, high, thick, distracted, restricted, whatever, a person is, any UI that is 1% more awkward, counterintuitive or demanding than is needs to be is that much more awkward, counterintuitive or demanding for everybody that uses it. And when the user is also trying to drive a fucking car that becomes dangerous.

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 81 points 10 months ago

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." - Feddit.UK

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 47 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

"We need a cheery headline for our upbeat vision of a bright future."

"How about a fuckload of dead people."

"No, no, it needs something else..."

"They drowned."

"You may be into something..."

"And we'll mention some are missing, suggesting that some families will never get closure and will spend the rest of their lives haunted by visions of the nightmare that might have befalled the one they loved."

"By jove! Brilliant! Okay, now about the videophone picture..."

"How about a wife getting a call about her husband from the coastguard..."

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 57 points 1 year ago

This is almost certainly the case.

BUT

If I were an admissions officer and got an application like the one hinted at I'd probably put the time into a rejection like this since it's clearly what the sender was really after. I mean, it's clear fake, but I kind of wish it wasn't

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 78 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Theory: they know. They know we're in trouble, that we need to take action, that we can fix the problems. They know that they're wrong and that they're making things worse, but they don't care about being right or making the word better, they only care about winning. To change is to admit defeat and, therefore, lose, so the only way to win is to make sure that your opponents lose too.

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 53 points 1 year ago

I just want a simple car. One without extraneous functions.

My old boss bought a brand new car that was in the shop for two of it's first four weeks. The issue? The capacitive touch sensor that operated the motorised glove box door was activating automatically because it was being confused by dust.

My shitty 15 year old VW's plastic glove box door has a metal latch and had never experienced this bug.

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 55 points 1 year ago

When you're supporting ten thousand machines on four continents and confirming to twenty different data protection doctrines the last thing you need is some neckbeard rocking up demanding to store data in their unauditable homebrew fork of Haiku or some shit.

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 52 points 1 year ago

And it's never quick, either, like "in 50 meters turn left", is it?

"In 50m stay in the left hand lane marked 'left turn only towards Manchester, Salford, Liverpool, Eccles, M60, M602, M62, A580', then in 200m take the exit following signs for 'Manchester, Salford, Liverpool, Eccles, M60, M602, M62, A580' then at the fork take the left exit towards 'Manchester, Salford, Eccles, M602, A580' and we've found a quicker route that saves nine seconds and avoids congestion on the M602 Manchester Approach Road West via the A580 East Lancashire Road and A580 Salford Bypass. To not avoid unselecting this not route don't unpress the button."

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah. Story time:

In the England we have ancient rights-of-way laws but a lot of private landowners try to block footpaths that cross their land. If a landowner can argue a footpath hasn't been used in (I think) two years they can have it removed, but in 2025 all the existing footpaths will be made permanent and indelible except with explicit local government permission so between now and then a lot of landowners will be rushing to get paths removed.

I've made a point of walking every footpath in my area and making sure they're all documented on OSM. If any of the landowners try to get a path removed I have my GPS tracks as proof of use.

Edit: FWIW, I find OSM to be the best map for rambling. Google and Apple don't come close and OSM even gives Ordinance Survey a run for it's money.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

rmuk

joined 1 year ago