• 1 Post
  • 549 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle



  • I think this is just a picky optimization.

    The first one runs the constructor to instantiate a new string, then gets its class (which is presumably a static property anyway). The second doesn’t have to run any constructor and just grabs the static class name from the type.

    Maybe there’s more implementation nuance here but it seems like an opinionated rule that has zero effect on performance unless that code is being called thousands of times every second. And even then the compiler probably optimizes them to the same code anyway.










  • This happened to me once and I completely overthought it.

    In my case, I removed the PCB from the drive and took a close look and saw a single scorched IC that I figured was the problem. I think it was a voltage regulator or something like that.

    So I bought a scrap drive and tried to transplant the PCB onto my dead drive, but of course that wouldn’t be able to read my old data.

    So took it into a local electronics repair shop and asked if he’d be able to make it work.

    He took one look at the damaged PCB, pushed the scrap one back at me and said “yeah I’ll just replace this part.”

    40 bucks later I had a working drive again and was able to rescue the data.


  • Amazon pro tip: if you find something that has lots of good reviews, sort them by Recent. Those ones are the reviews by the people who were suckered in by the initial dump of 5 star fake reviews and you’ll probably see a lot more honesty from those people.

    Even better: run Fakespot on the listing to see if it detects manipulation or fake reviews.

    Best: don’t use Amazon to buy things.






  • The short answer is no.

    You can do an easy experiment to see this using image files. Grab a random JPG file and open it in a graphics program and save it as a BMP format image.

    JPG is already compressed, and BMP is absolutely not compressed. Then try compressing each image. You’ll find that the JPG doesn’t get much smaller, or might even be a bit bigger when compressed. Now do the same with the BMP - that one makes for a smaller RAR!

    The main issue here is that compression is about removing empty space in a file (it’s a weak analogy but bear with me). If the file itself already had some kind of compression (basically every AVI or MP4 or MKV you download probably is already compressed), then there’s already a lot less empty space inside the file. RAR doesn’t have much empty space left to work with, so it can’t really reduce the file size any more.

    It’s worth doing some testing on a single movie to see how this all works. You’ll probably find that it’s best to just leave the files exactly the way they are. No RAR. No ISO. No tricks. The gains simply aren’t there.

    If you’re looking to save on some disk space with your movies, you’d get a lot farther by just deleting one movie you don’t really want that badly. The amount of space you get back from that will exceed your compression gains. It also means you don’t have to go and uncompressed the movies every time you want to watch one.




Moderates