The Official Status Thread
-
Signed up for Visual Studio Team Services from India (using an account created in India with anything remotely region related set to India) and the default region is set as Russia. More strange than
.
-
@stillwater
Puttin rigged it!
-
@TwelveBaud Yes, "stucco" brings up more relevant pictures in GIS, at least. "Lime render" is what I thought about as well, except it's not "lime" render (well, I don't really know what's in it but since "lime render" is a well-known thing, that would be mentioned on the label if it had some), and it's for internal decoration (not external), but it's this kind of material.
@Gribnit said in The Official Status Thread:
@remi said in The Official Status Thread:
light switches only, these beasts cost a fortune
So uh, out of curiousity and academic interest only because pranking is wrong, what kind of SoC do those use?
I am severly
'ing here, I don't have the slightest clue of what SoC refers to and what's the relationship between changing light switches, them being expensive, and any kind of prank.
-
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@Tsaukpaetra That window was the asking. If you push deny, then you've said no. If you push allow, then you've said yes.
No, that window was Google's answer to apps running willy nilly with permissions their users never glanced at and complained about when abused. It indicates that the app assumed it was fine to access contacts and just did it.
False. Requesting the permission is a separate action from using the permission.
Yes, ever since Android 6.0-ish after too many fake apps on the store e were found doing dodgy things. Prior to that, the app could just do it and handle the exception if for some reason it wasn't granted.
I might possibly be understanding if, after logging in and completing some kind of tutorial, it had a screen (or button, Apps are all about them buttons!) for adding friends, upon which clicking it would display something to the effect of "Sifting through your contacts to see if we know any of them!" and then that dialog window would pop up.
So it should notify you that it's about to notify you? That's as dumb as the NodeBB toaster asking you whether it's okay to ask you whether it's okay to show notifications.
If I don't expect the permission to be needed? Hell yes! Picture if you will, a game of Pong. Now imagine that, once you launched the game, as soon as the paddles appeared you were prompted without warning by Android to allow placing calls. This is perfectly logical, because the app would like to call Support in case something goes wrong, and clicking an easy "Call Support" and instantly being connected is a lot friendlier than hitting the button and being placed in the Dialer app with a number, waiting for you to hit Send.
However, the user doesn't know that's why it would like to be able to make calls, and Pong has done nothing to indicate that's what it would like to be able to do (that's what the dialog is for, after all. It doesn't necessarily mean that you'll instantly start dialing once you say Yes, but prior to 6 this was the case).
What is your reaction then?
Instead, what I got was a two logos, some music, then BAM! Contacts rape. No explanation, no warning,
It's very obvious what it's for. You learn these things after a while. And you know what you can just as easily do if your answer is 'no'?
Click deny.
Boom, done, easy. I don't know why you're so annoyed by this.Is it obvious what it's for? "You learn these things after a while." Not an excuse. "Oh, sorry judge, I didn't know you're not supposed to download child porn! It just asked me to click here!"
And for the record, I did hit Deny. And guess what? I can't log in (apparently) because of that. (Or maybe not. Who can tell, there's no error other than a spinning symbol after the first try).
That's not the point though, it's the principle of least surprise. I wasn't expecting to splurge my contacts list at a title screen, and other users shouldn't "Learn these things after a while".
and on earlier Androids it would have silently let Niantic gobble all my contacts, ripe for the selling.
Incorrect. An app for older Android versions tells you what permissions it requires when you install it.
Sure, and users "learned these things after a while" so well that Google had to make a second prompt outside the installer screen just because people were so knowledgeable they wanted to be super sure, right?
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
False. Requesting the permission is a separate action from using the permission.
Android provides several methods you can use to request a permission, such as
requestPermissions(), as shown in the code snippet below. Calling these methods brings up a standard Android dialog, which you cannot customize.From that same document:
Explain why the app needs permissions
In some circumstances, you want to help the user understand why your app needs a permission. For example, if a user launches a photography app, the user probably won't be surprised that the app asks for permission to use the camera, but the user might not understand why the app wants access to the user's location or contacts. Before your app requests a permission, you should consider providing an explanation to the user. Keep in mind that you don't want to overwhelm the user with explanations; if you provide too many explanations, the user might find the app frustrating and remove it.
One approach you might use is to provide an explanation only if the user has already denied that permission request. Android provides a utility method, shouldShowRequestPermissionRationale(), that returns true if the user has previously denied the request, and returns false if a user has denied a permission and selected the Don't ask again option in the permission request dialog, or if a device policy prohibits the permission.
If a user keeps trying to use functionality that requires a permission, but keeps denying the permission request, that probably means the user doesn't understand why the app needs the permission to provide that functionality. In a situation like that, it's probably a good idea to show an explanation.
More advice about how to create a good user experience when asking for permission is provided in App Permissions Best Practices.
Tl;dr: Exactly what I said before. If it's obvious why you're requesting a permission (i.e. I launched a camera app, it needs access to the camera hur dur) don't need to explain. If I'm at a fucking title screen for a game whose primary social premise is real-world interaction, explain of thyself why thou needest my contact ledger, sir!
-
@remi said in The Official Status Thread:
@Gribnit said in The Official Status Thread:
@remi said in The Official Status Thread:
light switches only, these beasts cost a fortune
So uh, out of curiousity and academic interest only because pranking is wrong, what kind of SoC do those use?
I am severly
'ing here, I don't have the slightest clue of what SoC refers to and what's the relationship between changing light switches, them being expensive, and any kind of prank.Normally I'd assuming System on Chip because this is a techy forum, but that doesn't make sense to me either...
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@Tsaukpaetra That window was the asking. If you push deny, then you've said no. If you push allow, then you've said yes.
No, that window was Google's answer to apps running willy nilly with permissions their users never glanced at and complained about when abused. It indicates that the app assumed it was fine to access contacts and just did it.
False. Requesting the permission is a separate action from using the permission.
Yes, ever since Android 6.0-ish after too many fake apps on the store e were found doing dodgy things. Prior to that, the app could just do it and handle the exception if for some reason it wasn't granted.
No. Requesting the permission has always been a separate action code-wise, even if the permissions were predetermined.
Instead, what I got was a two logos, some music, then BAM! Contacts rape. No explanation, no warning,
It's very obvious what it's for. You learn these things after a while. And you know what you can just as easily do if your answer is 'no'?
Click deny.
Boom, done, easy. I don't know why you're so annoyed by this.Is it obvious what it's for? "You learn these things after a while." Not an excuse. "Oh, sorry judge, I didn't know you're not supposed to download child porn! It just asked me to click here!"
Any non-contacts-related app that asks for contacts wants to find friends to connect me with. I can't think of any where that's not the case.
And for the record, I did hit Deny. And guess what? I can't log in (apparently) because of that. (Or maybe not. Who can tell, there's no error other than a spinning symbol after the first try).
Ah, the wonders of Niantic servers. Try again in a few hours.
That's not the point though, it's the principle of least surprise. I wasn't expecting to splurge my contacts list at a title screen, and other users shouldn't "Learn these things after a while".
Then don't. There's a deny button.
and on earlier Androids it would have silently let Niantic gobble all my contacts, ripe for the selling.
Incorrect. An app for older Android versions tells you what permissions it requires when you install it.
Sure, and users "learned these things after a while" so well that Google had to make a second prompt outside the installer screen just because people were so knowledgeable they wanted to be super sure, right?
what?
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
False. Requesting the permission is a separate action from using the permission.
Android provides several methods you can use to request a permission, such as
requestPermissions(), as shown in the code snippet below. Calling these methods brings up a standard Android dialog, which you cannot customize.From that same document:
Explain why the app needs permissions
In some circumstances, you want to help the user understand why your app needs a permission. For example, if a user launches a photography app, the user probably won't be surprised that the app asks for permission to use the camera, but the user might not understand why the app wants access to the user's location or contacts. Before your app requests a permission, you should consider providing an explanation to the user. Keep in mind that you don't want to overwhelm the user with explanations; if you provide too many explanations, the user might find the app frustrating and remove it.
One approach you might use is to provide an explanation only if the user has already denied that permission request. Android provides a utility method, shouldShowRequestPermissionRationale(), that returns true if the user has previously denied the request, and returns false if a user has denied a permission and selected the Don't ask again option in the permission request dialog, or if a device policy prohibits the permission.
If a user keeps trying to use functionality that requires a permission, but keeps denying the permission request, that probably means the user doesn't understand why the app needs the permission to provide that functionality. In a situation like that, it's probably a good idea to show an explanation.
More advice about how to create a good user experience when asking for permission is provided in App Permissions Best Practices.
Tl;dr: Exactly what I said before. If it's obvious why you're requesting a permission (i.e. I launched a camera app, it needs access to the camera hur dur) don't need to explain. If I'm at a fucking title screen for a game whose primary social premise is real-world interaction, explain of thyself why thou needest my contact ledger, sir!
Here, why don't I quote a thing you just quoted.
One approach you might use is to provide an explanation only if the user has already denied that permission request.
-
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@Tsaukpaetra That window was the asking. If you push deny, then you've said no. If you push allow, then you've said yes.
No, that window was Google's answer to apps running willy nilly with permissions their users never glanced at and complained about when abused. It indicates that the app assumed it was fine to access contacts and just did it.
False. Requesting the permission is a separate action from using the permission.
Yes, ever since Android 6.0-ish after too many fake apps on the store e were found doing dodgy things. Prior to that, the app could just do it and handle the exception if for some reason it wasn't granted.
No. Requesting the permission has always been a separate action code-wise, even if the permissions were predetermined.
Doesn't negate what I said at all. Only difference post 6.0 is that now there's possibly an extra dialog that gets popped up while you're actually in the app, wherase before Google assumed you read the ToS and EULA and Permissions and Size Estimate and Update Notes like a good little developer before ever thinking about hitting that Install button.
Instead, what I got was a two logos, some music, then BAM! Contacts rape. No explanation, no warning,
It's very obvious what it's for. You learn these things after a while. And you know what you can just as easily do if your answer is 'no'?
Click deny.
Boom, done, easy. I don't know why you're so annoyed by this.Is it obvious what it's for? "You learn these things after a while." Not an excuse. "Oh, sorry judge, I didn't know you're not supposed to download child porn! It just asked me to click here!"
Any non-contacts-related app that asks for contacts wants to find friends to connect me with. I can't think of any where that's not the case.
Your naivete amuses me. Stay in your bright sunshine world friend.
And for the record, I did hit Deny. And guess what? I can't log in (apparently) because of that. (Or maybe not. Who can tell, there's no error other than a spinning symbol after the first try).
Ah, the wonders of Niantic servers. Try again in a few hours.
I've been trying every half hour for the last five. Several sites claim it's working, so...
That's not the point though, it's the principle of least surprise. I wasn't expecting to splurge my contacts list at a title screen, and other users shouldn't "Learn these things after a while".
Then don't. There's a deny button.
And I said I used it. But it's unclear if that's what's breaking login or not.
On a whim, I decided to allow it. Nope, no effect on logging in.and on earlier Androids it would have silently let Niantic gobble all my contacts, ripe for the selling.
Incorrect. An app for older Android versions tells you what permissions it requires when you install it.
Sure, and users "learned these things after a while" so well that Google had to make a second prompt outside the installer screen just because people were so knowledgeable they wanted to be super sure, right?
what?
Oh, sorry, couldn't understand my sarcasm, huh? Let me rephrase with an anecdote: Google found that users did not understand or possibly read the text vomit permission screen when installing an app, and were taken advantage of their implicit acceptance of all the permissions by hitting that Install button. "Why did this game just blast text all my contacts?" The users cried, and Google scratched their head and said, "Well they agreed to let the app do it before they installed, why so confuse?" And then added a second dialog with only the permission being asked for at the time being displayed. Thence, all the previous apps suddenly bombarded users with unexpected permission request after permission request, and thence the documentation for developers saying "Bad devs, ask for permission only when you need it, and maybe whine at them if they deny it and you think you actually need it". Users were thenceforth trained to always click the Accept button whenever an App asked for permission, because that's how they learned they should do things to get that extra life in the game.
Is it any more muddy?
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
False. Requesting the permission is a separate action from using the permission.
Android provides several methods you can use to request a permission, such as
requestPermissions(), as shown in the code snippet below. Calling these methods brings up a standard Android dialog, which you cannot customize.From that same document:
Explain why the app needs permissions
In some circumstances, you want to help the user understand why your app needs a permission. For example, if a user launches a photography app, the user probably won't be surprised that the app asks for permission to use the camera, but the user might not understand why the app wants access to the user's location or contacts. Before your app requests a permission, you should consider providing an explanation to the user. Keep in mind that you don't want to overwhelm the user with explanations; if you provide too many explanations, the user might find the app frustrating and remove it.
One approach you might use is to provide an explanation only if the user has already denied that permission request. Android provides a utility method, shouldShowRequestPermissionRationale(), that returns true if the user has previously denied the request, and returns false if a user has denied a permission and selected the Don't ask again option in the permission request dialog, or if a device policy prohibits the permission.
If a user keeps trying to use functionality that requires a permission, but keeps denying the permission request, that probably means the user doesn't understand why the app needs the permission to provide that functionality. In a situation like that, it's probably a good idea to show an explanation.
More advice about how to create a good user experience when asking for permission is provided in App Permissions Best Practices.
Tl;dr: Exactly what I said before. If it's obvious why you're requesting a permission (i.e. I launched a camera app, it needs access to the camera hur dur) don't need to explain. If I'm at a fucking title screen for a game whose primary social premise is real-world interaction, explain of thyself why thou needest my contact ledger, sir!
Here, why don't I quote a thing you just quoted.
One approach you might use is to provide an explanation only if the user has already denied that permission request.
One approach you might use is to provide an explanation only if the user has already denied that permission request.
Emphasis mine. This would be an acceptable result if, for example, after tapping the "Take a selfie with your pokemon" button popped the "Can Use Camera plz?" prompt, and if they then click Deny, pop a whiny "Oh, iz too dark, Need permission to see! Click the selfie button to try again!" message.
I repeat: Being prompted at the title screen for Contacts (which you claim the only reason they would do so is to "find your friends" peh) BEFORE LOGGING INTO THE GAME is rude, unacceptable, and likely against the guidelines as you and I have both linked.
Further discussion, please start a new topic, you're making me derail the Status Thread and that irks me.
-
This post is deleted!
-
status: my skyrocket to the forum seems permanently unsubscribed, I don't get any events for notifications and the number doesn't update until pull it down. Whatever.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@Tsaukpaetra That window was the asking. If you push deny, then you've said no. If you push allow, then you've said yes.
No, that window was Google's answer to apps running willy nilly with permissions their users never glanced at and complained about when abused. It indicates that the app assumed it was fine to access contacts and just did it.
False. Requesting the permission is a separate action from using the permission.
Yes, ever since Android 6.0-ish after too many fake apps on the store e were found doing dodgy things. Prior to that, the app could just do it and handle the exception if for some reason it wasn't granted.
No. Requesting the permission has always been a separate action code-wise, even if the permissions were predetermined.
Doesn't negate what I said at all. Only difference post 6.0 is that now there's possibly an extra dialog that gets popped up while you're actually in the app, wherase before Google assumed you read the ToS and EULA and Permissions and Size Estimate and Update Notes like a good little developer before ever thinking about hitting that Install button.
Actually, the permissions get shown after you hit the install button, in a confirmation dialog. Just to make sure you've read them.
Instead, what I got was a two logos, some music, then BAM! Contacts rape. No explanation, no warning,
It's very obvious what it's for. You learn these things after a while. And you know what you can just as easily do if your answer is 'no'?
Click deny.
Boom, done, easy. I don't know why you're so annoyed by this.Is it obvious what it's for? "You learn these things after a while." Not an excuse. "Oh, sorry judge, I didn't know you're not supposed to download child porn! It just asked me to click here!"
Any non-contacts-related app that asks for contacts wants to find friends to connect me with. I can't think of any where that's not the case.
Your naivete amuses me. Stay in your bright sunshine world friend.
If you know an app that does something different, by all means cite it.
And for the record, I did hit Deny. And guess what? I can't log in (apparently) because of that. (Or maybe not. Who can tell, there's no error other than a spinning symbol after the first try).
Ah, the wonders of Niantic servers. Try again in a few hours.
I've been trying every half hour for the last five. Several sites claim it's working, so...
And all of them are wrong all of the time. I played this game for a while, trust me when I say it'll go out for no reason on no schedule with no cross-device consistency.
That's not the point though, it's the principle of least surprise. I wasn't expecting to splurge my contacts list at a title screen, and other users shouldn't "Learn these things after a while".
Then don't. There's a deny button.
And I said I used it. But it's unclear if that's what's breaking login or not.
On a whim, I decided to allow it. Nope, no effect on logging in.Told you.
and on earlier Androids it would have silently let Niantic gobble all my contacts, ripe for the selling.
Incorrect. An app for older Android versions tells you what permissions it requires when you install it.
Sure, and users "learned these things after a while" so well that Google had to make a second prompt outside the installer screen just because people were so knowledgeable they wanted to be super sure, right?
what?
Oh, sorry, couldn't understand my sarcasm, huh? Let me rephrase with an anecdote: Google found that users did not understand or possibly read the text vomit permission screen when installing an app, and were taken advantage of their implicit acceptance of all the permissions by hitting that Install button. "Why did this game just blast text all my contacts?" The users cried, and Google scratched their head and said, "Well they agreed to let the app do it before they installed, why so confuse?" And then added a second dialog with only the permission being asked for at the time being displayed. Thence, all the previous apps suddenly bombarded users with unexpected permission request after permission request, and thence the documentation for developers saying "Bad devs, ask for permission only when you need it, and maybe whine at them if they deny it and you think you actually need it". Users were thenceforth trained to always click the Accept button whenever an App asked for permission, because that's how they learned they should do things to get that extra life in the game.
Is it any more muddy?
Yes.
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
False. Requesting the permission is a separate action from using the permission.
Android provides several methods you can use to request a permission, such as
requestPermissions(), as shown in the code snippet below. Calling these methods brings up a standard Android dialog, which you cannot customize.From that same document:
Explain why the app needs permissions
In some circumstances, you want to help the user understand why your app needs a permission. For example, if a user launches a photography app, the user probably won't be surprised that the app asks for permission to use the camera, but the user might not understand why the app wants access to the user's location or contacts. Before your app requests a permission, you should consider providing an explanation to the user. Keep in mind that you don't want to overwhelm the user with explanations; if you provide too many explanations, the user might find the app frustrating and remove it.
One approach you might use is to provide an explanation only if the user has already denied that permission request. Android provides a utility method, shouldShowRequestPermissionRationale(), that returns true if the user has previously denied the request, and returns false if a user has denied a permission and selected the Don't ask again option in the permission request dialog, or if a device policy prohibits the permission.
If a user keeps trying to use functionality that requires a permission, but keeps denying the permission request, that probably means the user doesn't understand why the app needs the permission to provide that functionality. In a situation like that, it's probably a good idea to show an explanation.
More advice about how to create a good user experience when asking for permission is provided in App Permissions Best Practices.
Tl;dr: Exactly what I said before. If it's obvious why you're requesting a permission (i.e. I launched a camera app, it needs access to the camera hur dur) don't need to explain. If I'm at a fucking title screen for a game whose primary social premise is real-world interaction, explain of thyself why thou needest my contact ledger, sir!
Here, why don't I quote a thing you just quoted.
One approach you might use is to provide an explanation only if the user has already denied that permission request.
One approach you might use is to provide an explanation only if the user has already denied that permission request.
Emphasis mine. This would be an acceptable result if, for example, after tapping the "Take a selfie with your pokemon" button popped the "Can Use Camera plz?" prompt, and if they then click Deny, pop a whiny "Oh, iz too dark, Need permission to see! Click the selfie button to try again!" message.
I repeat: Being prompted at the title screen for Contacts (which you claim the only reason they would do so is to "find your friends" peh) BEFORE LOGGING INTO THE GAME is rude, unacceptable, and likely against the guidelines as you and I have both linked.
Ah, so you'd be fine with it after logging in. I see.
Further discussion, please start a new topic, you're making me derail the Status Thread and that irks me.
If you have a problem with it, you fork the topic.
-
@Tsaukpaetra what is a skyrocket
-
-
@Tsaukpaetra you're looking at this the wrong way. Your friend Bob already gave them your contact info. You may as well return the favor now.
-
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
Any non-contacts-related app that asks for contacts wants to find friends to connect me with. I can't think of any where that's not the case.
Well, I mean, that doesn't mean that they won't also upload your contacts list to their server and then sell it to some third party who's mapping out social connections so they can get better ad targeting.
-
Status: as long as I'm rebooting for an update, I may as well clean up as much stuff as I can while the Windows Update attempts to get past nice%:
For example, I ran zerofree on my virtual machine and it saved a little less than fifty gigabytes:
Considering that
D:is my SSD, saving 50GB of space without deleting any actual data is pretty damn good.
-
Status: Uh, please? Come on, it's right there and in scope:
Edit: The problem is
Add Watch, if you manually put the full reference in the watch window rather than right-clicking it works fine.
-
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
Just to make sure you've read them
Have you ever met a human being?
-
What's the fucking obsession with advertisers and slim wallets?
They're so damn persistent about it. For many years I've been seeing "Slim your bulky wallet!" ads. I've never once cared about my wallet being bulky, but clearly they're going to keep trying until I do.
-
@anonymous234
Well, it's either they call your wallet fat or they call your ass fat. And their focus groups don't poll well when they call your ass fat.
-
@remi said in The Official Status Thread:
assuming your posts make sense for others than you
Bad assumption. Very bad.
I don't have the slightest clue of what SoC refers to and what's the relationship between changing light switches, them being expensive, and any kind of prank.
I assume he's talking about IoT shenanigans.
-
@HardwareGeek said in The Official Status Thread:
I assume he's talking about IoT shenanigans.
No chance of any of that in my house, and certainly not for a light switch.
-
@remi said in The Official Status Thread:
No chance of any of that in my house, and certainly not for a light switch.
But what will you do if you need to turn your light on when there's nobody there to press the switch?
-
@Jaloopa
Press his LifeAlert button?
-
@TwelveBaud That sure is a terrible way for them to say, "We'll flash the icon momentarily on your screen when you change or switch contexts to something with IME settings active."
-
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
Actually, the permissions get shown after you hit the install button, in a confirmation dialog. Just to make sure you've read them.
Personally, I read the permissions on the store (which, AIUI, cannot be customized to explain why the app wants the permission) before I even install an app. And 99% of apps I think I might want get a giant "NOPE!!!!" because they either have in-app ads or want permissions they don't need; so they don't get installed.
-
@ChaosTheEternal said in The Official Status Thread:
I'm not ruling out .NET fuckery
I might be now, as viewing the "source" for TextBox shows:
TextBoxMode textMode = this.TextMode; if (textMode != TextBoxMode.MultiLine) { if (textMode != TextBoxMode.SingleLine || string.IsNullOrEmpty(base.Attributes["type"])) { writer.AddAttribute(HtmlTextWriterAttribute.Type, TextBox.GetTypeAttributeValue(textMode)); } //... }Definition of TextBox.GetTypeAttributeValue()
It's just as boring as you'd think.internal static string GetTypeAttributeValue(TextBoxMode mode) { switch (mode) { case TextBoxMode.SingleLine: { return "text"; } case TextBoxMode.MultiLine: { throw new InvalidOperationException(); } case TextBoxMode.Password: { return "password"; } case TextBoxMode.Color: { return "color"; } case TextBoxMode.Date: { return "date"; } case TextBoxMode.DateTime: { return "datetime"; } case TextBoxMode.DateTimeLocal: { return "datetime-local"; } case TextBoxMode.Email: { return "email"; } case TextBoxMode.Month: { return "month"; } case TextBoxMode.Number: { return "number"; } case TextBoxMode.Range: { return "range"; } case TextBoxMode.Search: { return "search"; } case TextBoxMode.Phone: { return "tel"; } case TextBoxMode.Time: { return "time"; } case TextBoxMode.Url: { return "url"; } case TextBoxMode.Week: { return "week"; } default: { throw new InvalidOperationException(); } } }
So as far as I can tell, ASP.NET shouldn't be "downgrading" the type to telephone. That means Android is doing something dumb, maybe. Android didn't support "number" input until Android 4.0, but supported "tel" as far back as 2.1.
The only info I have is that an "LG V20" (which started with Android 7.0, and supposedly could be running Android 8.0 by now) is doing it, but my Droid Maxx 2 (which currently has Android 7.1.1) and my work's Nexus 5X (which is running Android 8.1.0) don't have the problem.
-
@stillwater Microsoft's region detector code is a bit fucky. I've posted this before. I think sometimes it's served me pages in Greek too.
-
Status: Today's the last day before I have a week of PTO away from work. I have no motivation to do anything at all. I'm currently just doing an archive backup of my important stuff to our team Sharepoint and watching the progress bars is just...dull.
-
@remi Sorry, System-on-Chip, for a light switch to get painfully expensive it is usually either high-quality (decorative, custom, X10) or negative-quality-but-expensive (ethernet IoT). If it was an Internet-o'-Things switch it'd have an SoC and some vulnerabilities.
-
@e4tmyl33t Ummm does your work machine have a graphic card?
-
@stillwater Only the Intel integrated stuff.
-
@e4tmyl33t Run of the mill gaming is out. Catch up on Reddit,Coding confessional,devrants and what not? Or one of those extended smoke breaks or lunch breaks that start way early and last well upto 4 pm? Time to go flirt with the resident office hottie?
-
@Gribnit Ah, a post that makes sense!
It's more of the high-quality type, not because I want something fancy but because my experience with cheap stuff is that plugging the wires in them is a royal PITA (more so for power sockets than switches, but still), and they also look nicer than the bog-standard ones where the plastic edges never fit properly, or look a bit ragged or whatever. I went for Legrand ones, which around here is a standard good-quality-but-not-too-fancy brand with nice flexible modules, no idea how widespread it is.
They're not that expensive (about 10 bucks/switch), but since it turns out that there is roughly one switch per door and given the number of doors I listed, well, that adds up quickly!
-
@stillwater said in The Official Status Thread:
Run of the mill gaming is out.
Definitely on the work machine. I've been putzing around with some of the games on my phone now and again.
@stillwater said in The Official Status Thread:
Catch up on Reddit
Already doing this, though not logged in, because I'd rather not pollute my work machine with the rather large number of NSFW subreddits I'm subscribed to and I can't be arsed to maintain two Reddit accounts.
@stillwater said in The Official Status Thread:
Time to go flirt with the resident office hottie
Social anxiety's a bitch...though in my eyes, the "resident office hottie" is one of my team's helpdesk technicians, which would introduce a whole other set of HR problems...
-
@stillwater Nethack does not require a graphics card.
-
@e4tmyl33t
I hear if you install a Windows Update, it'll bring back Candy Crush Saga for you
-
@izzion said in The Official Status Thread:
@e4tmyl33t
I hear if you install a Windows Update, it'll bring back Candy Crush Saga for youUnfortunately, still on Windows 7 on the office machines, so not even the shiny bright-colored allure of candy can be achieved on this thing.
@Gribnit said in The Official Status Thread:
@stillwater Nethack does not require a graphics card.
I almost went out and downloaded Dwarf Fortress but the main download site is blocked via the work firewall.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in The Official Status Thread:
I almost went out and downloaded Dwarf Fortress
Wow, you're really desperate for "entertainment."
-
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
If you have a problem with it, you fork the topic.
I'm not a mod. Asshole.
-
@HardwareGeek Eh. I enjoy playing Fortress Mode every now and again, and it'd be way easier to play on this machine than Rimworld or Prison Architect.
-
@Gribnit said in The Official Status Thread:
@stillwater Nethack does not require a graphics card.
I am surprised!
-
-
@stillwater In a world...
-
@e4tmyl33t said in The Official Status Thread:
the "resident office hottie" is one of my team's helpdesk technicians, which would introduce a whole other set of HR problems...
Not if you do the HR too! But in all seriousness people aren't really allowed to sleep around with people in the office? This is news to me.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
If you have a problem with it, you fork the topic.
I'm not a mod. Asshole.
You fork the topic first!
No you fork the topic first!Alright, you two love birds, if I have to fork a topic for you, you won't be able to see each other for a month...
-
@stillwater said in The Official Status Thread:
@e4tmyl33t said in The Official Status Thread:
the "resident office hottie" is one of my team's helpdesk technicians, which would introduce a whole other set of HR problems...
Not if you do the HR too! But in all seriousness people aren't really allowed to sleep around with people in the office? This is news to me.
Yeah, we have whole training videos all about sex in the workplace. Wait, I mean....
-
@stillwater
It's more a matter of not knocking boots with someone who reports to you.Since, by default, that's a lost lawsuit for wrongful termination / discrimination / wrongful lack of promotion when the junior decides that the company didn't treat them fairly.
-
@Tsaukpaetra I think I've seen some of those on the tubes.
-
@izzion said in The Official Status Thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
If you have a problem with it, you fork the topic.
I'm not a mod. Asshole.
No you fork the topic first!Alright, you two love birds, if I have to fork a topic for you, you won't be able to see each other for a month...
So..... Downsides?
-
@izzion Ah makes sense. Jeez, looks like you can't even put your dick out for 5 minutes without lawyering up in advance. The times we live in!
Request runtime permissions | Android Developers
?!