KarimAziev

$fn=360;
screw_dia     = 9.2;
upper_height  = 37;
upper_dia_1   = 25.38;

upper_dia_2   = 30.6;
lower_height  = 10;
lower_dia_2   = 52.15;
lower_dia_1   = 51.8;

KarimAziev

# Detect default interface and run sudo nmap -sn on the local IPv4 subnet (CIDR)

sudo nmap -sn $(ip -4 route list match $(ip -o -4 addr show dev $(ip route get 8.8.8.8 2> /dev/null | awk '{for(i=1;i<NF;i++) if($i=="dev"){print $(i+1); exit}}') | awk '{print $4}') | awk '{print $1}')

KarimAziev

pkill -SIGUSR2 Emacs-real

KarimAziev

#!/bin/sh

###
# SOME COMMANDS WILL NOT WORK ON macOS (Sierra or newer)
# For Sierra or newer, see https://github.com/mathiasbynens/dotfiles/blob/master/.macos
###

# Alot of these configs have been taken from the various places
# on the web, most from here
# https://github.com/mathiasbynens/dotfiles/blob/5b3c8418ed42d93af2e647dc9d122f25cc034871/.osx

KarimAziev

Table of Contents

• Chapter 1. Introduction
• Chapter 2. Getting started
  • 2.1. Requirements

KarimAziev

#!/usr/bin/env bash
export DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive

set -e
set -o pipefail

git clone [email protected]:openscad/openscad.git

cd openscad

KarimAziev

I have to say - as the developer of such "insecure" extension (Chrome-Emacs), I'm baffled by this "insecure” label. Every time I update my add-on, I submit the full source code and detailed instructions, yet it seems that no one ever really looks at what I provide. It feels like my work is automatically dismissed, and I'm being penalized just because it didn't go through some manual review process I can't even influence.
What exactly does "actively monitored” mean? If my extension were truly dangerous, this would be highlighted with concrete evidence or specific criteria. Instead, it simply gets tagged with a warning that nothing more is expected from me. It's hard not to feel brushed aside by a process that appears to rely more on automated checks than genuine security evaluations.

I'm all for keeping users safe, but by lumping all non-"Recommended” extensions into the same category, it feels like you're ignoring the effort and transparency many developers like me put into our work. Clear guidance on how to

KarimAziev

I have to say - as the developer of such "insecure" extension (Chrome-Emacs), I'm baffled by this "insecure” label. Every time I update my add-on, I submit the full source code and detailed instructions, yet it seems that no one ever really looks at what I provide. It feels like my work is automatically dismissed, and I'm being penalized just because it didn't go through some manual review process I can't even influence.
What exactly does "actively monitored” mean? If my extension were truly dangerous, this would be highlighted with concrete evidence or specific criteria. Instead, it simply gets tagged with a warning that nothing more is expected from me. It's hard not to feel brushed aside by a process that appears to rely more on automated checks than genuine security evaluations.

I'm all for keeping users safe, but by lumping all non-"Recommended” extensions into the same category, it feels like you're ignoring the effort and transparency many developers like me put into our work. Clear guidance on how to

KarimAziev

module debug_polygon(points, paths=undef, convexity=undef, debug=false,
                     arrow_size=1, font_size=4, font_color="red",
                     show_arrows=true) {


  polygon(points=points, paths=paths, convexity=convexity);

  if (debug) {
    for (i = [0 : len(points) - 1]) {
      pt = points[i];

KarimAziev

(defvar km-tailwind-candidates nil)

(defun km-tailwind--serialize (data filename)
  "Serialize DATA to FILENAME.

The saved data can be restored with `km-tailwind--unserialize'."
  (when (file-writable-p filename)
    (with-temp-file filename
      (insert