Readit NewsNot affiliated in any way.
i put my air purifiers on low when the windows are open to deal with the particles i throw up by moving around and doing stuff indoors. with the windows closed (usually only at night), i put the air purifiers on medium/high.
Very much depends on where you live. I have a few DIY air quality stations with data being piped to Grafana. I just looked at the latest data, the average outside PM level for the past 5 months has been around 100 µg/m³, while inside it's around 10 µg/m³.
This spring happens to be pretty windy and this skews the outside levels down, otherwise the ratio would be much worse.
So, at least where I live, you can "buy stuff" with BC.
Deleted Comment
I keep hearing that the security community has doubts about OpenBSD, but I don't hear about those doubts being validated.
I am one of those people; I have ~150% zoom on most sites, often higher. It's 240% on HN right now, which is my "default" for HN. This is not because I'm visually impaired by the way – I don't even use (or need) glasses – I just like it. I've been doing this since I was in my mid-20s and I just find it more comfterable.
I find these kind of reflows frequently make the page worse, not better. Even with a high zoom level the full desktop site usually works better than the "mobile optimized" site.
It's not uncommon that zooming will make the text smaller. You're at 140% and want to go a tad higher, so you go to 150% and bam: you're over the limit, the text becomes smaller, and now you need to zoom to ludicrous amounts to actually get the desired 150%.
The overall layout also often becomes worse. A common issue is that it makes the box in which the text is displayed too narrow, wasting a lot of space.
This is basically what's going on in this story: it's not that the website shouldn't work well on all different zoom levels or that it shouldn't have any kind of reflow at all, it's that it shouldn't give me a "mobile" site when the desktop version is actually still just fine. I think you've misunderstood this post a little bit.
In my own websites/webapps I generally take a gradual approach. If the screen becomes too narrow to display a certain UI element then tweak that element a bit, and do this individually for every UI element. This is quite a different approach than the "IF smaller_than(1200px) THEN serve_mobile_site". IMHO that's just lazy and bad design.
I usually avoid device detection, but do use it for a few things (e.g. <input type="date"> is ugly on the desktop, so it always serves a JS version for that).
A related note: forcing mobile UX patterns on desktop in general is usually not a good idea. Today I wanted to copy some text from the Dutch parliament website, and I couldn't as the UI element was one of those "swipe left/right" things, so actually trying to select text would swipe the thing to the left/right. I had to resort to the inspector mode to actually be able to select/copy the text.
>It's not uncommon that zooming will make the text smaller
At least in Firefox you can enforce the minimum font size through settings without using any third-party plugins or custom themes (look in about:preferences → "minimum font size"). I have it set to something like 16 or 18.
This doesn't fix the actual problem, but I gave up on trying to change the world a long time ago.
If you use DKMS, then you might have issues, but there's no need with Ubuntu (and other distros like Manjaro) anyway.
Btrfs is probably never the right decision - use the FS that's right for you and your workload.
And you're posting anti-btrfs FUD.
https://lwn.net/Articles/824855/
https://facebookmicrosites.github.io/btrfs/docs/btrfs-facebo...
Even if it's the only deployment in the world, it's more than "never". They provide strong technical reasons for using it.
Distros should not include filesystems that aren't in the kernel in their official installer. Fedora made the right decisions with btrfs. If users want zfs they don't need the official installer for it.
# dpkg -L "linux-modules-$(uname -r)" | grep zfs.ko
/lib/modules/5.4.0-70-generic/kernel/zfs/zfs.ko
This is a consumer SSD, by Samsung's own classification: https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/minisite/ssd/product/c.... The 970 Pro goes into prosumer territory. The DCT range are their enterprise drives: https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/minisite/ssd/product/d...
> Also, are NVMe drives susceptible to faster degradation due to higher throughput
Only if you use the time saved to write more data than you would have with a slower drive. e.g. for 1TB both the 970 evo (nvme) and 870 evo (sata) are covered by warranty for 600 TBW.
The 883 DCT on the other hand offers 0.8 DWPD for 5 years or drive writes per day. So 5 * 365 * 0.8 = 1460TBW, or about 2.45x the consumer drive
Well, NVMe SSDs do get quite hot due to much higher data transfer speeds, and higher temperatures lead to faster flash memory degradation, although I have no idea how important it is in practice (probably on the order of an SSD dying in 10 years instead of 20)