Multiplexer

joined 1 week ago

l think you are right... Damn fisheye effect!

[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Although, judging from the picture, they seem to be NOT at a 90° angle.
Would personally classify this as "mildly infuriating" ;-)

[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ok, which one?
(No way I'd follow a Clickbait heading link to the Bild Zeitung...)

[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Nöö, hält meinen Körper aber nicht davon ab, 10 min später nochmal zu wollen... 🤷‍♂️

10% higher prices for the US, right?
...RIGHT??

[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Ich fühle mit Dir, bei mir ist es aber andersrum... 🥴

Google <-> Browser

[Add "They are the same" Meme here]

Depending on the age of the EEE, you might run into problems because the old low end CPU doesn't support instruction set extensions that are assumed to be present by distros nowadays. I think it was SSE2...?

[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 27 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Can anybody tell me the background to this?

[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yes, as it basically is just foreign, untrustworthy Code executed on your own PC.
But total blocking will make most of the web unusable.
I use a selective Script blocker extension (Noscript), that lets you instead choose which domains are allowed to use Javascript.
Works great after the initial try-and-error setup phase.

[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The slightly worrying part is though, that they apparently were in an ionized state before... 😬

Blizzard: WHAT THE HELL?

[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wouldn't that not just be British spelling meaning the same and coming with the same ambiguity?

Well, anyway, better stay away from high level electrostatic fields, just to be on the safe side! ;-)

view more: next ›