Maybe you do know, but in case you don’t, the “convenience fee” is (usually) just the price the vendor has to pay to process a credit card transaction. Because in order to accept credit cards as payment in the first place, they have to pay the credit card network for the privilege.

Providing the exact same service to you is more expensive for them based entirely on the method you use to pay. You bet they’re going to pass that extra expense onto you. The alternative is raising their service charge to eat the cost and screwing over people who pay with check or cash. Which is what most retail stores tend to do.

Though, I agree, I’d rather they just do the fucking math and charge a rate that covers their operating expenses. It’s shouldn’t be my problem to pay their itemized expenses. Just know that if they did so, we’ll be charged the same total either way.

It’s a similar argument with tipping culture. “Oh, you have to tip, employees rely on it to make ends meet!” Sure, but why is that my problem? If the business can’t create a business model that properly pays for the expenses it needs to function, they should go out of business. Raise prices. I’ll pay the same as the tip, fine, just stop playing these frivilous smoke and mirror games with my bill.

Remember when incandescent light bulbs were the norm? They worked by sending full line voltage through a tiny tungsten wire that would get so hot that it glows, making some light, but 95% of the energy that gets consumed is frittered away as heat? The high-power lasers needed to make fusion happen are a lot like that.

I believe all this article is saying is that 15% more energy than what came out of the lasers as useful laser light was liberated in the reaction.This completely ignores the energy it took to power those massively inefficient lasers.

I think it also ignores the fact that the 15% more energy liberated wasn’t actually, like, harnessed by a generator. I believe (and I may be wrong) this was testing only the reaction itself. Actually hooking that up to a turbine and using it to create energy that is cost competitive with contemporary sources is still a completely unsolved problem.

Yes.

I noticed my authenticator app (KeePassXC) offers the ability to customize the TOTP parameters (SHA function, time step, code size). But no combination of settings seems to produce a valid code.

I assume Lemmy uses the suggested defaults in the RFC 6238 standard?

Connect, Sync, and Boost all told me to go kick rocks.

Evidently, whatever happened, it doesn’t seem to be an issue with your platform.

I seem to have been screwed over by TOTP.

Hearing that this update was supposed to make borking your account harder to do when setting it up, I enabled it. Put the secret in my authenticator app, got my six digit code, and away I went.

Now, a few days later, having changed nothing on my end, Lemmy.ml won’t accept my TOTP code. My session token on desktop is expired so I can’t remove it now.

Currently my only lifeline to this account is my logged in session in Voyager, which, as far as I can tell, cannot access the TOTP setting. (Or any profile setting, for that matter… am I just stupid?)

No email to recover from, either. That’s on me, I guess. Ugh.

Not sure what my recourse is, if I even have any.

Thank you for the suggestion of Voyager, I have installed it and it looks quite nice!

Creators of Lemmy, owners of this instance, and creators of the Jerboa app are all the same people. As I understand it, Jerboa won’t be getting an update until they’re happy with the stability of the update to Lemmy itself. Lemmy is getting all the focus first. Also, no sense in pushing a client update for a server update that itself is not finished.

Getting really annoyed at that error toast in Jerboa, though, not gonna lie. And not being able to post on mobile. At least I can still read posts and comments, though. Hopefully the patch will release soon.