Are they Bluetooth headphones? If so, check the protocols supported by your phone, and by the headphones, e.g. aptX vs LDAC vs SBC. It’s possible that it’s not a “downgrade” on the new phone, but rather an upgrade to a better protocol, but unfortunately not one compatible with your headphones, so you end up using a low quality fallback.

You may also want to check your settings, and see if you can select a specific protocol. Sometimes a lesser protocol is chosen by default, if the better protocol uses more battery. This may be available to you in the phone settings, or as an option in an app for the headphones (e.g. my Anker Soundcore app allows choosing between two protocols).

it doesn’t unravel the underlying complexity of what it does… these alternative syntaxes tend to make some easy cases easy, but they have no idea what to do with more complicated cases

This can be said of any higher-level language, or API. There is always a cost to abstraction. Binary -> Assembly -> C -> Python. As you go up that chain, many things get easier, but some things become impossible. You always have the option to drop down, though, and these regex tools are no different. Software development, sysops, devops, etc are full of compromises like this.

I think that applies to the others as well, except in some cases when they are tuned to the same fundamental, e.g. Bb Trumpet, BBb Tuba. But tubas commonly come in C, F, and Eb as well (trumpet variants also exist, but are less common).

Because of the rotary valves and trigger? Or for some other reason?

If that’s the only difference you’re calling out, it’s worth noting rotary valves and triggers show up on other instruments as well. In particular, tubas often have rotary valves, and it’s not uncommon to see trigger valves on trombones.

Having played both piston valves and rotary, the difference is negligible.

it has its flaws.

Yep yep. I was aware of some of what you pointed out - I think this might be a “perfect is the enemy of good” scenario, though. GitHub alone accounts for over 84% (based on the awesome-selfhosted-data repo):

$ grep -r 'source_code_url' | cut -d ' ' -f 2 | cut -d '/' -f 3 | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -n 15
   1068 github.com
     36 gitlab.com
      7 git.mills.io
      6 sourceforge.net
      6 framagit.org
      4 www.atlassian.com
      4 codeberg.org
      3 git.drupalcode.org
      3 git.cloudron.io
      2 repos.goffi.org
      2 git.tt-rss.org
      2 git.sr.ht
      2 cvsweb.openbsd.org
      1 yetishare.com
      1 www.wiz.cn

$ python -c "print($(grep -r 'source_code_url' . | grep github.com | wc -l) / $(ls -1 | wc -l))"
0.8422712933753943

Adding in gitlab gets you to 87%:

$ python -c "print($(grep -r 'source_code_url' . | grep -i -e github.com -e gitlab.com | wc -l) / $(ls -1 | wc -l))" 0.8706624605678234

Also popularity != quality.

True, but a thriving community generally means more resources, guides, etc, which can be important, especially for self-hosted solutions.

In any case, the project is great, and much appreciated. Additionally, the enriched html version looks fantastic, and exposes most of the metadata* I’d want to see, regardless of how it’s sorted.

*One other item to track, that I thought about after making my previous comment - number of contributors. It gives an additional data point on the size of the community, as well as an idea of how many people can be hit by busses before the continued development of the project gets called into question.

I would imagine the source for most projects is hosted on GitHub, or similar platforms? Perhaps you could consider forks, stars, and followers as “votes” and sort each sub category based on the votes. I would imagine that would be scriptable - the script could be included in the awesome list repo, and run periodically. It would be kind of interesting to tag “releases” and see how the sort order changes over time. If you wanted to get fancy, the sorting could probably happen as part of a CI task.

If workable, the obvious benefit is you don’t have to exclude anything for subjective reasons, but it’s easier for readers of the list to quickly find the “most used” options.

Just an idea off the top of my head. You may have already thought about it, and/or it may be full of holes.

At 1:30 in that second video, he shows that YouTube already converts dot zip domains, even in old comments that predate the domain’s existence. At 3:19, he shows/mentions Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and LinkedIn. I would consider those major platforms. And keep in mind, it only takes one person downloading one file to cause major damage - the LMG hack was due to someone downloading and trying to open a fake PDF that was sent via email: https://youtu.be/yGXaAWbzl5A.

So yes, not everything does or will auto convert the links, but I think you are underestimating the potential for issues here.

See https://youtu.be/GCVJsz7EODA and https://youtu.be/V82lHNsSPww

There are a few problems, but I believe the biggest issue is that .zip and .mov are valid and common file extensions, and it’s common for people to write something like ‘example dot zip’ or ‘attachment dot mov’ in emails, tweets, etc. Things like email clients have features where they automatically convert text that looks like a web address into clickable links. So now, retroactively, all those emails etc suddenly have a link, where they used to just have text, and the domains that are equivalent to those previously benign file names are being purchased by nefarious actors to exploit people unaware of the issue.

I like pass, It’s just a wrapper around standard tools - gpg encrypted files in a directory, with git for version control. You can organize the subfolders however you’d like, and store whatever you want in them. You can sync the files across systems however you’d like - copy/paste, rsync, network drive… You can even go as far as to install a git server, e.g. gitlab, and clone, push, and pull into password synchronization bliss.