Instead of a case, I have a couple old laptops which broken screens but everything else is okay. Could I not just detach the screen (hinge and all) and just have the base case with the default laptop keyboard? Then just plug in a hdmi cable in the port and use that as my new screen?

In this case, there would be no need for a universal case because I'm repurposing everything in the laptop "as is" except the screen.

I should buy a lottery ticket.

I'm also quite certain that a factory reset would fix it but it's a last resort because I'm a fool who doesn't backup their phone regularly.

Maybe I'll have this phone as an expensive paperweight and hopefully if technology advances enough in the future to be able to pull data from it or find out what's wrong, I can grab my sentimental data on there.

Reading this makes me feel like a super slow learner. I've experienced the "15 minute rule" before and for me, 15 minutes goes by so quick.

I might have a question, try to find the answer, find several answers and have to dig into them to understand the answer to determine which is likely the better one etc. But this in no way takes 15 minutes, could be 30 45 60 or more. It's like I get a step closer and each "phase" is a new 15 minutes and so a new question to ask.

Hasn't there been multiple variations/iterations of "validity of climate change"? As in, some form of "climate change isn't real" to "climate change is real but it's normal and not man made" to "climate change is real and man made but it's not that bad" so on so forth.

I wonder if the opposite exists. People in climate change denier groups that exaggerate just how normal it is which as you said only causes more doubts and recruits for the opposition.

I admit I haven't delved into the "opposition" - in this case assuming that "deniers" are a loud minority and the main agreed viewpoint is some form of climate is going to be bad for everyone regardless of the source. But given the rigorous process in science and how much evidence is available (whether deniers are skeptical of ALL of the evidence or not) - is there any research with a similar process against it? Regarding what you said about how the "irreversible collapse is also quite unlikely"?

Haldane's theory on stages of acceptance:

1. This is worthless nonsense.

2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.

3. This is true, but quite unimportant.

4. I always said so.

Doesn't mean others are in the same boat as you. The team I work on frequently write detailed commits to the point where I can (and have several times) successfully searched information from years ago on a block of code with the ticket number and the developers (even myself) reasoning at the time.

Maybe it depends on the project but I've found myself doing this so often that I won't stop, it's such a small task that has given me so much benefit. If it doesn't help anyone then nothing was lost.

To explain why a certain block of code exists. When the code came into existence is rarely that important. You just want to know why.

Why does the code fence against a particular circumstance you didn't think should be possible? Why does it call out to something you think is unrelated? Those questions can be answered by a proper commit message.

Sometimes, in some kinds of projects, the commit messages looks like this:

  JIRA: #1234

  Adjusted the FOOBAR parameter from 42 to 73.

To know the "why", you have to read the ticket; you will not find anything in the git log.

Oh jeez, please do not make me run “git log” and then open a hundred tabs in an old bug tracker that may or may not still exist to figure out when a problem may have been introduced. I want code reviewers to insist on at least somewhat useful messages for us to skim at 3 AM.

I set a breakpoint and run the test suite for that answer

That answers what the code does, but not why it does what it does.

So you never need to understand when or why a bug was introduced? Or you never need to understand why the current behavior as is it is?

Why don’t you put that as a comment on the code?

Comments are for why code is written the way it is, commits are for why the code is written in the first place.

You _could_ tag every line of code with

  // JIRA-123 The PM wants this to be blue

but if you did it would become unreadable and wouldn't be kept up to date.

Because if 37 changes are done to the same 15 line function over time, the amount of comment material will dwarf the function. And most of it will pertain to historic versions of the function which are not what actually appears below the comment; a comment made 13 revisions ago makes sense for the 13-revision-old version of the function.

You just update the comment?

I used to use tools like these but then I wondered - why do I "need" to make an image look scanned? Why do I have to add all this noise to the image before sending it over? Why can't I just take a photo of whatever I need to send and leave it at that?

I've had this issue before. If you're on Firefox, open up the history sidebar with ctrl + h,then in the top left corner click on the word History to open the dropdown and select Bitwarden. You'll be able to have it "open" without clicking the extension popup.

No, I have no trouble opening it (sorry that I wasn't clear enough). I meant that my entire UX in that window is full of mistakes and confusion. To name a few, clicking on an item shows "unable to autofill" message as if I wanted to autofill my gmail password on other sites and not open a card. Lock button is hidden obscured in a settings menu. Password length slider is too sensitive in a generator tab. And the window is always not high enough to include most important options. It feels half-assed all over the place.

> a recent study found a physical cause for this - something about a genetic mutation that causes our sleep-signaling hormones to be created without the tails they usually have to navigate to the correct spots in the brain

I know someone who is currently going through the diagnosing phase, could you please link that study? Their GP mentioned that you could take medication to "work" through it in order to match societies "normal" times.

I don't know what a hormone "tail" means but if they have trouble navigating to the correct spots in the brain, how does it eventually find the correct spot? That reads to me like the hormone won't be able to navigate to the correct spot or it'll have trouble every time but from what I read those with DSPD do have a typical, consistent sleep time, it's just delayed (relative to the majority of people)

I would speculate that for some people, while the feature that they removed was preferable for the consumer, it wasn't necessarily a deal breaker. So in the same vein, if they included that feature, it wouldn't be a deal maker either.

With all these features they are removing, I personally can't ever see myself buying a device solely based off of that one feature and so I compromise.

I'm not happy with having to compromise but it's not a perfect world and I'm not so set in my opinion that I would consider not buying it based off of X feature (to an extent)