Olissipo

joined 1 year ago
[–] Olissipo 2 points 2 weeks ago

As long as optional parameters are placed last, I don't see why not.

PHP8's named parameters lessen the pain of using a function with optional parameters spread around, but I still stick to that rule.

[–] Olissipo 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This one in South Korea is pretty recent (October 2022).

A special police team conducted an investigation of the disaster within a few days of it occurring, and concluded on 13 January 2023 that the police and governments' failure to adequately prepare for the crowds, despite a number of ignored warnings, was the cause of the incident.

[–] Olissipo 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ok, I understand what you meant, thanks.

Basically, after I’ve read all of that, it’s clear as day that security is not a priority on Testing. And while band-aid solutions do exist, it’s simply not designed to be secure.

Yeah, I wouldn't run it in a production environment.

[–] Olissipo 1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Sure, but even in those "few cases" Testing will get them soon.

I did read at some point that Testing may receive security updates later than stable, might be in those cases in which backports come straight from unstable.

[–] Olissipo 1 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I don’t recommend going for (Debian’s/Devuan’s) testing (branch) as it targets a peculiar niche that I fail to understand; e.g. it doesn’t receive the security backports like Stable does nor does it receive them as soon as Unstable/Sid does. Unstable/Sid could work, but I would definitely setup (GRUB-)Btrfs + Timeshift/Snapper to retain my sanity.

From https://backports.debian.org/ :

Backports are packages taken from the next Debian release (called "testing"), adjusted and recompiled for usage on Debian stable

So by definition, security backports in stable are present in Testing in the form of regular packages, right?

[–] Olissipo 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I remember having some issue like that, but I'm not sure if this was the fix.

Try unchecking "Show desktop notifications when the song changes" on Spotify's settings (right now it's under the Display section).

[–] Olissipo 2 points 4 months ago

Makes sense, thanks.

[–] Olissipo 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

New to Linux: in which case would you stick with an "old-old-stable" release?

Software incompatibility?

54
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by Olissipo to c/linux
 

The Debian Long Term Support (LTS) Team hereby announces that Debian 10 "buster" support will reach its end-of-life on June 30, 2024, nearly five years after its initial release on July 6th, 2019.

Starting in July, Debian will not provide further security updates for Debian 10. A subset of "buster" packages will be supported by external parties. Detailed information can be found at Extended LTS.

The Debian LTS Team will prepare afterwards the transition to Debian 11 "bullseye", the current oldstable release. Thanks to the combined effort of different teams including the Security Team, the Release Team, and the LTS Team, the Debian 11 life cycle will also encompass five years. To make the life cycle of Debian releases easier to follow, the related Debian teams have agreed on the following schedule: three years of regular support plus two years of Long Term Support. The LTS Team will take over support from the Security and the Release Teams on August 14, 2024, three years after the initial release on August 14, 2021. The final point update release for "bullseye" will be published soon after the final Debian 11 Security Advisory (DSA) will be issued.

Debian 11 will receive Long Term Support until August 31, 2026. The supported architectures remain amd64, i386, arm64 and armhf.

[–] Olissipo 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

At first glance the difference in width comes from the front wings, which protruded beyond the wheels in the '22 cars.

So hopefully the wings last longer in wheel to wheel action.

[–] Olissipo 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

restricting the total amount used and basically anything else makes more sense

Oh you meant eliminate the flow limit, I thought you meant eliminate the fuel itself. And I agree (with the caveat you said, also limiting the total amount).

[–] Olissipo 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

That won't happen for 15 years at least, only Formula E can be fully electric.

With an FIA exclusivity deal through 2039 to be the sole EV single-seat series on the FIA menu, Formula E has plenty of time to grow.

https://www.autoweek.com/racing/more-racing/a44319865/formula-e-ceo-jeff-dodds-sees-sustainable-future-for-electric-racing-series/

[–] Olissipo 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I particularly like the new Mapped Route Parameters.

/show/{id}/

/show/{id:document}/

For multiple entities, it's cleaner and more beginner-friendly than using the #[MapEntity] attribute (which is still an option).

And imo it's a good move to deprecate "not passing the mapping" even for single entities. With the mapping the behaviour is more intuitive and "feels" less magic.

6
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by Olissipo to c/[email protected]
 

This might not be new, I hadn't dealt with WordPress/WooCommerce in a while.

Currently (v8.8.2) in a new WooCommerce installation the "Checkout" page is created using blocks, like so:

<!-- wp:woocommerce/checkout-payment-block -->
<div class="wp-block-woocommerce-checkout-payment-block"></div>
<!-- /wp:woocommerce/checkout-payment-block -->

(...)

The problem

This might introduce breaking changes to the plugins and themes you normally use. For example, I couldn't add a new field - programatically or using a plugin.

The fix

Remove the blocks and revert to using the shortcode:

[woocommerce_checkout]

view more: next ›