I can't speak for the parent, but I rarely login to the same remote server twice and don't want to need to set things up and clean them up anytime I do. This is why I try to keep my stuff as close to vanilla as possible. If anything goes wrong on a server and someone sees I have a whole bunch of dot files to customize my config, it becomes a red herring that I have to spend time explaining away.
No, wanting to keep things vanilla when you're dealing with lots of random servers is a valid concern. Just because you can solve this with shell scripting doesn't mean you should.
Sometimes I ssh into a server as a specific user (e.g. as the "app" user that is used to run a web app), sometimes only root is available (probably not best practice, but it's not like I can or want to fix it myself).
In any case it's not practical to carry your dotfiles everywhere you go. Changes are also a hassle to propagate
Two things come to mind: 1) if any arcing occurs, a metal enclosure will shunt to ground and (hopefully) trip a breaker; 2) in the event of an overload, plastic melts which might result in a fire.
Sadly, I have a family member who is susceptible to these types of scams. They’ve been duped too many times to count. They’re overly eager to believe they’re exceptional and that good fortune is due them. No amount of explaining has had any impact on their beliefs for the past fifteen years. It’s heart-wrenching.
I can almost understand the replies to this thread where the victim was never exposed to a scam before and didn't know what to look for. It still sounds wild but I guess people are sheltered. My kid was scammed out of some virtual pet in an online game at six years old and learned that whenever someone offers something to you, but requires you to give up something first, it's a scam.
But how does one get scammed over and over, having seen it before and knowing what the playbook looks like?
Except for when the placement of the icon strip with the trashcan symbol changes to the bottom of the context menu because of the location of the context menu on the screen. Bonkers. No idea why the UI committee would’ve okayed that one.
> Imagine having to raise your arm to swipe, pinch and tap across an ultra-wide screen several times per minute. Touch works best on small surfaces, even if it looks impressive on a bigger screen.
I regularly find myself wishing pinch zoom were available on my large multi-monitor setup, even if i only used it occasionally, i.e. to augment interactions, not as a replacement for other input methods. As a (poor) substitute, I keep an Apple trackpad handy and switch from a mouse to trackpad to do zooming. Sadly I’ve found not all macOS apps respond to Magic Mouse zooming maneuvers.
reply