Linoleum isn’t plastic, you may be thinking of vinyl flooring which looks similar. Vinyl is cheaper and newer while appearing very similar to linoleum.

Too long in the dryer and they cook. Think of dryered flowers, they go brittle and scratchy when they’ve been dried. When those same flowers are fresh their petals are soft.

Fabric softener is a scam. It just coats your clothes in plastic. It will lead to rougher clothes over time.

Your likely over drying your clothes and causing them to be harder and coarser than they need to. Your then compensating with fabric softener.

Not all patents are good. But a patent system is good. It could be better but the general concept is not flawed like the person I was responding to suggests.

The physical object isn’t what is patented in this case. It is the method to create the object that has a patent. One that can’t be reversed engineered as it isn’t part of the final product. You could only reverse engineer it if the process was not novel or not obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the field. If both of these conditions are true then the patent should not have been granted.

Patents are not inherently bad. This is a bad patent. Patent laws don’t have to be changed, because this patent shouldn’t have been granted. The issue is ineffective patent reviews, not patents. Getting rid of patents is not a good idea. If you think it is you probably don’t have a good enough grasp on what a patent is.

You can make something if you figure out how they did it because it was obvious. In this case the patent isn’t valid. If you have to develop a solution then the patent is probably valid. The patent is a reward for developing and sharing the solution publically.

If you still don’t grasp why patents are useful. It may be helpful to think of it like open source software. The patent is the code base that is freely accessible to everyone. This preserves the knowledge and lets others build on it. However, to incentivise people to make their code open source you provide protections that stop others from selling the same code you developed.

The incentive mechanism is why far more businesses produce patents than produce open source code.

If you remove patents businesses stop funding internal r and d overnight. It increase the risk and reduces the reward.

The patent system explicitly provides free access to knowledge. The patent is the knowledge that would be kept secret otherwise.

You would still have monopolies, except things like the ingredients to medicines would be unknown.

Patents do provide some value. If there were no patents than companies would make their technological development a a secret and not share the work with the world.

The patent systems exchanges knowledge and technology development for a temporary monopoly on the technology. It means a company can publish the ingredients to medicines, methods of manufacturing etc. if they didn’t have the patent system they would keep these secret and if a business folded this knowledge would be lost.

Probably better to make those submitting false patents pay a large fine.

RS, not the same breath but the pricing is usually good.

Whenever you get a new router or move somewhere, change the WiFi access point name and password. Set it to the same line you used previously. That way all your devices will connect to it without changing anything.

Use a new unique name and password. Never keep the one that is printed on the back of the router. You can make the password easier to share by making it a few words and numbers. Still very strong, but much easier to say aloud to someone.

People have attached pens to 3d printers and used them to write letters, effectively print. Most consumer 3D printers are useing or based on open source software.

I think the issue is, printers are relatively cheap to buy and replace. So building your own and programming it hasn’t been necessary. Where as 3d printing was completely in accessible before the reprap movement. 3D printing software is open source as it is motivated by people wanting to build their own machines that could build machines. Something you couldn’t easily buy.

It costs extra to have hardware that can support the full spec on all ports simultaneously. The rear ports have the higher bandwidth to support screens with lots of pixels and a high frame rate, plus they are more likely to be daisy chained.

The question wasn’t trying to assess your ability to analyse the picture accurately. It was testing your ability to determine the socially appropriate response. The ‘correct’ answer wasn’t relevant.

You were unable to identify that the questioner only wanted and only required a short simple response. One that only indicated the key concept the image related to. Further more you got fustrated with the question not having the ‘correct’ answer and got obsessed with it.

This type of question isn’t enough to diagnose someone, but it can be one of many indicators that may form a diagnosis.

No it doesn’t, or at least it didn’t for years if that has changed recently.

No one that knew about this was talking about it or doing anything about it.

The reality of the situation is only three organisations are capable of producing fully fledged browsers. Google, Apple and Firefox. Every variant, spin and de-whatever is nothing compared to developing a browser. All the chrome derivatives had this in them, arbitrarily execution of code from google. Code that wasn’t included in the binary when you downloaded or updated it. The sort of thing a virus would do. The sort of tool you would use to compromise the security of a system.

If you want a de-googled chrome the only option is safari, it’s chrome before google got its hands on it. If you want properly open and accessible browsers you need to use something else entirely like Firefox.

De-googled chrome is a myth.

Chrome excites arbitrary code from google.com (this wasn’t something widely known until recently and appears to effect all the chromium downstream browsers). This sort of back door and the design approach that made google do this means you can never really trust Chrome. The same issue with Firefox would be a bug, in chrome it’s a feature.

Head and shoulders has anti-fungal properties. That may have been the source of your smelling problem.

Google uses WiFi and Bluetooth info for location tracking. So they can track you when you don’t have GPS switched on. WiFi names, MAC address are correlated to locations by google.

So google infers any app that has WiFi or Bluetooth access can track you like they do.

Mac isn’t UNIX based, it is UNIX and comes with many of the UNIX tools a user would expect. Completely different situation.

I read it as just better than chrome, if you use chrome switching to any other popular browser is better. Not that edge is a particularly good browser.

Firefox, Brave, Edge, and Safari offer stronger privacy protections by default than you get from Chrome, which is the world’s most popular browser.

In the rest of the article they seem to suggest Firefox, safari and brave are the better options and point to evidence. And that Microsoft claim edge is a better option. Overall its suggest Firefox it better at evading tracking and safari at evading fingerprinting (largely because all the safari devices are so similar, and apple try to make them look more similar).

Anyone saying it works is lieing. Even if they have examples. Most of the time when companies self regulate it is to maintain control and avoid regulation. It’s a delaying tactic that allows them to exploit the mechanisms longer and minisme the impact that proper accountability would bring.

If self regulation was feasible we would never even be discussing it. It wouldn’t be a concept we would have to think about. It would just be the way things work and have always worked.

They aren’t getting google money anymore.