The way I read it, he was making it hard to remove the empty sidebar after blocking the ads in it.

I’m confused what your issue is with the dev. He seems to have posted because uBO was breaking the site for premium users and then got told “just stop monetizing effectively.” Only one reply (don’t use such an obnoxious way to insert the ad sidebar) was actually helpful, though it was at odds with part of his monetization strategy (pay for Premium to get that extra space).

If uBO devs had said “Sure, give this account premium access and we’ll check it out” and he’d refused, that would be different, but instead they said there was nothing he could do to help them and banned him from participating.

It also doesn’t seem that he’s intentionally breaking the app when uBO is in use. Rather, uBO breaks the app when ads aren’t being served and he is now detecting when this happens and serving a message about the fact.

Does anyone know of similar image editors out there that can batch-crop images in a certain aspect ratio/resolution and then export them to webp?

Not similar, but Image Magick can crop images from the cli and has webp support.

You should consider talking to a therapist about why you don’t consider non-romantic relationships to be valuable, because your take is not only not universal, but also indicative that you have some shit you need to work through.

When I started playing the game, one of the rules was that if someone else announced they’d lost the game, I didn’t lose. It was only if I thought about it when someone hadn’t lost (within the past 20 minutes) that I would lose. And since you have to announce you’ve lost when you think about it, just whispering “the game” or something similar, when your intent is clearly to get someone to lose the game, is also functionally an announcement of your loss.

You might say that I’m not playing right, but I’d argue that my version of the game is more mature and functions like a pink elephant challenge (“Don’t think about pink elephants. What are you thinking about?”), giving the game more nuance and depth. Not much, but still. And besides, I’d say that your version of the game is supposed to have that rule, too, and whoever told you about it just forgot to mention it. Maybe because they want you to lose more frequently. Maybe they just didn’t know.

You’re welcome to play my version of the game.

Sorry for your loss, but I haven’t lost the game for years.

Some more discussion on the topic: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/32570282

Even some free users aren’t affected. EAP and community editions are treated the same as the paid versions. It’s only the noncommercial licenses of the paid tools that are affected by this. Those users also can’t disable the (admittedly less invasive) anonymous data collection feature, either - at least they can disable this one.

I don’t know if “monetizing” is the right term, though… are they selling this data? I had assumed it was intended solely for improving their own tooling. (Obviously that has a monetary value, too, but using that term if it’s only to make their own tools better feels inaccurate)

Interesting. Where did you go to see that? Did you have anonymous data collection enabled, by chance? I wonder if they tied enabling it to that setting by mistake or if something else is going on… Just to confirm, do you have a noncommercial account or is it corporate?

Assuming it’s corporate - if you haven’t already, can you report that to JetBrains? What you described is out of line with what they published. I would expect them to take it seriously as I would expect their corporate customers to be very unhappy about this, if it impacted them.

Just to do my own due diligence - I have a personal “All Products Pack” license. Of the tools installed, only Datagrip has an update to 2025.2.4 available (the version where this data collection was added). When I opened it for the first time, I was prompted to “Help Us Improve Full Line Code Completion.” I clicked “Don’t Send,” then confirmed that everything was unchecked in Settings > Appearance & Behavior > System Settings > Data Sharing. So for individual users, at least in my case, it seems it’s behaving as described.

No, but I do know how to read.

Stating that this is on by default is misleading. If you or your company pay for the product or if you use the open source (“community”) or EAP version of it, it’s disabled by default.

The option is only enabled by default in one very specific use case:

We are asking our users to help with this, and here’s how it works:

• For companies: Admins can enable data sharing at a company-wide level. To support early adopters, we’re offering a limited number of free All Products Pack subscriptions to organizations willing to participate while we explore this program. For companies that are not willing to opt in to the program, nothing changes, and as always, admins are in control.
• For individuals on non-commercial licenses: Data sharing is enabled by default, but you can turn it off anytime in the settings.
• For individuals using commercial licenses, free trials, free community licenses, or EAP builds: Nothing changes. You can still opt in via the settings if you are willing to share data with JetBrains (and your admins, if any, allow it).

For reference, the non-commercial licenses are the full, commercial versions of the IDE provided “at no cost for education, hobby projects, and open-source work.” The risk of entering confidential data into your IDE that could then get collected is much lower for these use cases… though still not zero.

Do those users get a notification of this change when installing an update? If not, that’s concerning. But if they do, and can then quickly opt out if desired, then this really seems like a non-issue. This is especially true since JetBrains makes it clear that being able to anonymously collect data is the reason they’re able to offer those products for free; thus why users on those licenses cannot opt out of that anonymous data collection.

It’s pretty clear that JetBrains is saying “We would like your data so we can improve our product; if you’re okay with that, we’ll let you use our tools for free.” And they also have options, free and paid, where you don’t have to give up your data. Seems like a reasonable trade for a person to be able to make to me.

I didn’t say it wasn’t convenient. I said it was counter intuitive.

That’s pretty much the standard.

• On iPhones and iPads, swipe from the left to go back. In a book on such a device, swipe from the right to go forward.
• On eReaders, particularly Kindles, tap on the right side to go forward; tap on the left side to go back.
• On Android with gestures enabled, swipe from the left side to go back. Or… swipe from the right side to go back. Counter intuitive but apparently at least one person uses that.

Assuming OP has standard gestures enabled, they could still swipe from the left side.

Only if you have a sign posted, reading “All ye who enter here forfeit thine selves – body, mind, spirit, and soul – to the owner of these lands, until such time as ye leave or are slain,” with the sign carved from stone by hand, with a willowbark dagger, blessed under the light of a blood moon, approximately eight feet tall, flanked by two shrubberies – that look nice and are not too expensive – and visible to all who enter, lit eternal by the captured light of the new moon.

I believe you set env vars on Windows through System Properties -> Advanced -> Environment Variables.

I believe you just need to set the env var OLLAMA_HOST to 0.0.0.0:11434 and then restart Ollama.

What OS is your server running? Do you have an Android phone or an iPhone?

In either case all you likely need to do is expose the port and then access your server by IP on that port with an appropriate client.

In Ollama you can expose the port to your local network by changing the bind address from 127.0.0.1 to 0.0.0.0

Regarding clients: on iOS you can use Enchanted or Apollo to connect to Ollama.

On Android there are likely comparable apps.

Please, enlighten me - how do you propose we use the term “AI” in a way that’s more useful than a definition that includes machine learning, large language models, and computer vision?

I doubt I’ll agree with your definition, but I’m curious to see how you would exclude machine learning, computer vision, LLMs, etc., from your definition. My assumption is that your definition is going to be either a derivative of “AI is anything computers can’t do yet” or based on pop culture / sci fi, but maybe you’ll surprise me.

To be clear, I’m a software engineer; I’m not speaking in sales speak. I’ve derived my understanding of the term from a combination of its historical context and how it’s used in both professional and academic contexts, not from marketing propaganda or from sci fi and pop culture. I’m certainly aware of the hype machine that’s ongoing, but there are also tons of fascinating advancements happening on a regular basis, and the term “AI” is at minimum a useful term to refer to technologies that leverage similar techniques.

it’s not ‘ai’, it’s just a poorly trained voice recognition system that’s trying to decipher any random person’s voice.

I’m baffled that you can say “It’s not ‘AI,’ it’s a machine learning powered speech to text system” with a straight face.

Even if we were to agree that ML-powered speech to text isn’t AI (and I don’t agree to that premise, for the record), there’s still the matter of processing the transcription to transform it into something that can be understood by the point of sale system - aka natural language processing. And while that NLP could be implemented without use of an LLM, given LLM’s current level of hype and the ease with which they can be shoved into any given product, I wouldn’t bet on Taco Bell execs approving such an approach, much less asking for it.

If you’re a size 4-24, the Gloria Vanderbilt “Amanda” line has a variety of jeans with almost bo embellishments. They come in multiple shades of blue, black, mint, khaki, white, off white, etc… The colors other than blue are a bit stiffer and less stretchy, but they fit very similarly. They also have “Ponte pants,” basically business casual dress pants (though basically only in black), which I also recommend. I’ve worn the black jeans to the office mid-week and could probably get away with wearing the khaki ones, too.

I get them at Kohl’s, but from a quick web search I see they’re also available at Amazon, Walmart, JC Penny, Macy’s, and Costco. MSRP is around $50, but I don’t think I’ve ever paid more than $30 for a pair. I see some listed at $20 or so right now and I think I’ve gotten some (maybe on clearance?) for as cheap as $15.

Do NOT buy the “Pull-On” versions! Those either lack pockets entirely or have inadequate pockets. I could fit my phone in, sideways, but it dug into my side (my hipbone, I think, though it’s been a while since I wore those and tried to use the pockets).

Sizing is split between products (at Kohl’s at least): 4-18 and 16W-24W, with 16W being one size above 18 as opposed to overlapping. There are also Short (or Petite in the Ponte Pants) and T/L variants.

For reference, I have a standard sized iPhone - specifically the 15 Pro - in a case, with a MagSafe wallet. I often carry a similarly sized work phone in the same pocket, also in a case, so my pockets need to be able to handle both. The top of my phone is basically flush with / right below the opening of the pocket, which I prefer. A taller phone, like a Pro Max iPhone, would fit, but would need angled a bit to not have the top poking out.

Some other info on these:

• The fit, for me at least, is comfortably snug, but not tight. The cut is flattering, but not lewd.
• Durability is better than expected for fairly stretchy jeans. I ended up with a hole in the first pair I bought after a year or so, just from walking around (inner thigh friction basically) - but to be fair at that point I was wearing them twice a week, so that’s like 100 wears, 50 or so washes… I think that’s reasonable. However I don’t think they’d hold up as well if I wore them while doing yard work or something similarly stressful.
• Sizing down - I can fit into up to two sizes down, but even one size down: the fit wasn’t flattering, they were less comfortable, and they were so tight that my phone barely fit into my pocket (and wouldn’t have fit if I were sitting).
• Sizing up - one size up is great. I haven’t tried two sizes up. The fit isn’t as flattering, but it’s still fine. I generally wear a belt when wearing a sized up pair, since the waistband ends up a bit loose otherwise, but they’re still snug around my hips, so they stay up well enough without a belt.

If you’re a size 0 or a size 2 and don’t want to size up, they sadly aren’t an option (I may be wrong - their size chart goes down to 2, but I didn’t see any offered in a 2). If so I can keep an eye open for decent jeans in that size range, but I won’t be able to speak to fit, of course, as I’m nowhere near a size 2 myself.

To be clear, I’m not saying most women’s pants have pockets. I’m saying that there are options, and I’m of the opinion that if you care about something enough to complain about it, you should also care about it enough to do something about it.

I own dozens of pairs of women’s pants and shorts with pockets large enough to comfortably fit my cell phone. Several pairs where I can not-so-comfortably. Probably a dozen each of dresses and skirts with decent pockets, too.

Would you like some recommendations?

This is basically an “I can’t have my cake and eat it, too” complaint. If none of your pants have good enough pockets, it’s either because someone else is buying your clothes or because you didn’t prioritize having pockets when you bought them.

When buying women’s pants or shorts (and even dresses and skirts), you have the choice between a pair that has decent pockets and a pair that doesn’t, generally because the designer chose to prioritize aesthetics over pockets. If you buy the cuter pair, despite their lack of suitable pockets, you’re reinforcing the designer’s decision.

Even leggings / yoga pants and short running shorts / leggings have versions with pockets. Not every brand, sure, but enough.

With men’s pants and shorts, there’s much less variety. You have to go out of your way to find pants without decent pockets, but at the same time:

• Your pants and shorts are all bulkier and thicker than the equivalent women’s style
• Your shorts all come down to the knee, if not a bit further
• You don’t have the option of skirts, dresses, capris, leggings, etc…
• You don’t get the same options within a given style, i.e., far fewer embellishments, less stretch (in, e.g., jeans), often fewer colors, and most cuts are looser

Now, maybe the store you’re shopping at or the brand you love doesn’t sell women’s pants with pockets. I’m sure there are many like this. If it bothers you, find another store that does. Buy from a different brand.