The only way to win is not to play

Touch screen tap works, but laptop track pad 'tap' does not count as a click on the button.

It is true I didn't market it, so possible it suffered a bit from that. Some of the 'Doesn't work on my device' comments were a bit unexpected (and unsolvable without $$$ to test on the devices), so I didn't want to spend money promoting it with issues. I was charging $3 I think, it has been awhile.

There was another seemingly popular paid ringtone app at the time, but I can't recall what it was. And a search now for 'android ringtone app' now brings up lists of 'Top X ringtone apps of 2018/2019' populated exclusively by free apps.

As a business idea I don't think it would take off. I had a somewhat related project idea to rotate ringtones.

Such an idea can be done on Android, but would have been impossible on iOS (at the time, have not looked into it since).

It was mildly popular for download on the store, but supporting issues on various phones was a hassle, and Android update occasionally changed the required APIs. Currently the project is broken and on the back-burner to get it fixed again. However, it is freely available if you want a look.

https://github.com/chad-autry/rototone

Not mentioned, but for node.js dev termux almost gets there, but just falls short. You can't hit a node.js server running in android/termux from a full fledged local ChromeOS browser tab. It doesn't have port access. Have to go run an android browser.

Alternatively, I've been just doing browser based dev. The free GCP google cloud shell lets me edit and host so long as I have a connection. If I wanted I could still keep it in sync with git running under termux.

> Github recommends using the same contact procedure for anti-circumvention takedown requests as for normal DMCA takedowns

I made this mistake to, Admiral's blog post does imply it. However, they were making a DMCA take down request, based off the reasoning it was for anti-circumvention.

From what I can tell, the DMCA does apply (sort of)

Admiral seems to be a paywall server basically. If blocking their domain gave access to paywalled content, then the DMCA seems to apply http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/circumventing-copyright-cont...

However, that defense is a bit flimsy to me since the fall back to having the paywall blocked could/should be a "Paywall blocked, please disable your addblocker to gain access to our content" msg.

Anyhow, that is immaterial because so long as they don't actually serve adds, Easylist could/would have removed the line no problem. Admiral should have just said "Our domain doesn't serve adds, we work on paid content access" and they would have been removed without all this hassle.

I attempted to switch to Yarn immediately, but actually hit one of the few issues they ended up documenting (can't remember which now). Never actually ended up switching, so no need to switch back.

Study seems to exclude e-ink, (when grouping kindle with iPad, I assume they mean the android tablet) while many of the comments here are arguing about e-ink vs books.

I'm not surprised by the study. My 2.5 year old would much rather watch something if the tablet is available than read. Even the interactive and pictures + audio books aren't much competition.

Disclaimer: This is some totally untested work, but is the direction I intend to go

I have a docker ansible image, which I could just DL to the local storage they give: https://github.com/chad-autry/wac-ansible

Seems like tons of nice changes.

Free f1-micro instance! That is nice. I was paying for one to dev test a webapp on. Not quite clear if it is per account or per project. Guessing per project.

Google Cloud Shell: Not sure that was free before? Looks like an excellent place to run ansible playbooks from. I could swear I had thought that before, but rejected it due to costs.

I can see myself giving some of the other services a try, not sure what didn't have free tiers before that do now other than the above.

Currently a woefully outdated github pages static site, so my github account itself is better.

Interested to see other comments and find a better way myself.

Special weights to place in cars/bikes/vehicles with little inertial mass, but heavy gravitational mass would improve traction but not affect acceleration (on a flat plane).

If you took the opposite to extremes, high inertial mass with low gravitational mass...remember the whole planet is moving quite quickly! The reason it sticks together is everything is moving relative to everything else. So, such a material would likely not be able to exist free-standing on the planets surface, it'd be ripped away by inertia. It'd make an interesting fuel for lift off if it could be harnessed.

pfffft Bunch of yammering without any good analysis. Disappointing.

The new terms don't do anything except make explicit what they were already doing.

D.7 + D.4: They were already doing activities these terms explicitly give them the right to do. They are internally copying (backups), modifying (compressing and indexing), and displaying anything uploaded. If having it spelled out violates your license, I don't see how them just doing it without having it spelled out doesn't also violate the license. Maybe this just shifts where the license violation is occurring from GitHub's doing to a user's uploading, but it doesn't change the fact that a license is being violated somewhere on either the old or new terms.

D.5: This section was already in the old terms! The new terms actually clarify and limit what they mean by "fork". It still doesn't give the forking user a right to modify, just create their own copy within the context of GitHub. You already granted users the right to "fork" anything publicly submitted under the old terms.

D.3: The rant (the writers own tag, but I find it appropriate) is just nitpicking here. It om-mitts the reason why they would remove content, which is because it violates their policies. GitHub needs this right to enforce their content restrictions. Also, if GitHub ends up removing partial content such that it violates the license it was submitted with YOU aren't the one breaking the license. They are.