And the authorities are blocking it to protect people from falling into the honeypot, right?

What's up with all the space waste, the search button is almost as big as the input box, so you can't fit a long query on a phone (and the query box doesn't expand to fit more than one line)

In what way are they semantic? Can you avoid a conflict if 2 people change the names of 2 different variables on one line as these are semantically unrelated changes? Does git do crdt?

This article fails to distinguish between false claims and true claims - VPN providers sometimes explicitly mark some locations as virtual, so there is no mismatch between the claim and the real exist as the title says, because the original claim was never "Bahamas is a physical exit"

> Running the script with PowerShell 7 can cause issues, to avoid this ensure you are running Windows PowerShell (5.1)

Interesting, I'd expect it to be more backwards compatible given the overall reputation

PowerShell 5.1 is the last of the .net framework version. Everything newer switches to .net core open source flavored which is cross platform. it's mostly compatible but not really either.

> The reach and pace of AI’s impact to society, including many dimensions of higher education, means that we at Purdue must lean in and lean forward and do so across different functions at the university

Not really, you're the one accelerating "reach and pace" based on hype, and you'd naively expect more educated approach at institutions that educate.

Of course they don't, but since there is no magical way to make incompatible desires/workflow compatible, configuration is the only way out

I rarely need to configure something on my PCs, but rarely is not never, and when I do really need an option, it better be there. There's a gradient between unmaintainable multidimensional matrices of options and "one size ought to fit everyone" and both ends of it make the user miserable.

I think when it comes to config too people really underestimate its power.

On desktop, I often see people waste inordinate amounts of time on workflows that don't suit their use case. Little do they know - there's a config for that!

For example, I'll see people holding outlook like it's radioactive. They'll do the same busy-body work of manually pruning their inbox and sorting stuff and deleting stuff. The config can really help them there, but I think they either don't know it's capabilities or are scared of it.

Indeed, people aren't paid to do the good things, only the easy ones

The famously ironic case of honesty in a study about honesty

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/09/14/highly-criticized-pap...

and BMP in this context is not BitMap, but Unicode Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP) of the first 65,536 code points of the Unicode

Amusingly, here it is also BitMap [1]. Why they use an obsolete noncompressed proprietary format instead of PNG I don't know.

Edit: looks like it's because BMP supports 1-bit packed pixels and ~~PNG doesn't~~ (Edit to edit: this is wrong). The file sizes are almost identical; the 8x difference in the number of bits is exactly balanced by PNG compression! On the other hand, PBM [2] would've been a properly Unixy format, and trivial to decode, but I guess "the browser knows how to render it" is a pretty good argument for BMP. macOS Preview, BTW, supports all the NetPBM formats, which I did not expect.

[1] eg. https://unifoundry.com/pub/unifont/unifont-17.0.03/unifont-1...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netpbm

Maybe they set everything up before png was popular and never changed the workflow since then (or didn't care about the website to adjust anything)? After all, the PNG is only about 2 years younger than the font

That's plausible. Or maybe they just liked the BMP vs. BMP coincidence.

> Edit: looks like it's because BMP supports 1-bit packed pixels and PNG doesn't. The file sizes are almost identical

That's nonsense, PNG supports 1-bit pixels just fine, and the resulting file is a lot smaller (when using ImageMagick):

    $ file unifont-17.0.03.bmp 
    unifont-17.0.03.bmp: PC bitmap, Windows 3.x format, 4128 x 4160 x 1, image size 2146560, resolution 4724 x 4724 px/m, 2 important colors, cbSize 2146622, bits offset 62
    $ magick unifont-17.0.03.bmp unifont-17.0.03.png
    $ file unifont-17.0.03.png 
    unifont-17.0.03.png: PNG image data, 4128 x 4160, 1-bit grayscale, non-interlaced
    $ wc -c unifont-17.0.03.*
    2146622 unifont-17.0.03.bmp
     878350 unifont-17.0.03.png
    3024972 total

Thanks! I definitely should've double-checked. Apparently it was just the image viewer that didn't bother converting the 1-bit BMP to 1-bit PNG.