today's howtos
-
Improve the Gnome Shell clipboard with Pano
The Gnome Shell clipboard manager is very basic. It can copy things to it and paste the items elsewhere (programs, file manager, terminal, etc.). However, it doesn’t let users sort through it, keep clipboard history, or anything like that.
Thankfully, a third-party extension has come along called Pano. It is for Gnome Shell 42+ and offers an elegant way to manage your Gnome clipboard items. Here’s how to improve your Gnome Shell clipboard with Pano.
-
Sadly, IT can no longer trust geolocation for much of anything
Ferraz is regrettably right. Regardless of which one of these many options a fraudster opts to use, the bottom line is that IT simply can no longer trust geolocation for much of anything. There are some applications where the risk of meaningful damage from location fraud is so low that it’s probably fine to use location — say, a gaming application where someone pretends to be in Central Park when they aren't. If all they get are points or access to a special visual treat, it’s likely harmless.
-
Embedding ain't easy, but its alright
To make life easier for myself, I wrote a shortcode called git-embed, which at build time will fetch the specified file, and embed either the whole file, or a line range in a highlighted code block. It supports line ranges (start, finish), and it will use the file’s extension as the highlight language, unless you override with lang parameter.
-
The Power of CSS Blend Modes
Here’s where it gets interesting. The fourth layer uses the same repeating radial gradient, but rather than alternating between white and gray, it steps through the rainbow, with hard color stops so there’s no blending.
-
On the credible probability of confidence intervals
Confidence intervals are commonly misinterpreted by consumers of statistics. Hoekstra et al. [1] presented 120 psychology researchers and 442 students with ‘a fictitious scenario of a professor who conducts an experiment and reports a 95% CI for the mean that ranges from 0.1 to 0.4’. 58% of respondents endorsed the assertion ‘There is a 95% probability that the true mean lies between 0.1 and 0.4’, and the proportions were similar between students and researchers. That assertion is incorrect,1 but clearly the misinterpretation is common.
The usual explanation for why the assertion is incorrect goes something like ‘The true mean is a fixed (but unknown) value, not random. So either it is in the interval (with probability 1), or it is not in the interval (with probability 1). There can be no probability in between.’2 But this seems unsatisfying, for it seems to beg the question. There are interpretations of probability which can assign probabilities to fixed-but-unknown parameters. Does adopting another interpretation of probability not resolve the issue?