kotlin – access intent storage internal directory specific

hello I want to open the file explorer in a folder of my internal storage, it always starts me in the wathsapp folder this is my code:

            val intent = Intent()
            intent.type = "image/*"
            val urixe: Uri = Uri.parse(filesDir.toString()+"/Pictures/images/")
            intent.action = Intent.ACTION_GET_CONTENT
            intent.setDataAndType(urixe,"image/*")
            startActivityForResult(Intent.createChooser(intent, "Select picture"), SELECT_FILE)

Is there a way to connect an external microphone to android, while using internal speakers and charging the phone?

I want to improve the microphone sound quality while using internal speakers. I also want to be able to charge phone while on the call. Is there a way to do it?

So far I only saw solutions that would require headphones to also be connected to the device.

How to push a file to internal storage?

I want to do this step to root my phone:
Copy it to the internal storage of your device

So the command is:

adb push <local file> <remote location>

The "local file" is "boot.img"
What is name for my phone’s "internal storage"?

Internal links from “money pages”

We have around 5 pages on our site that are our Money Pages. We do give them love internally with links from other pages such as blog posts, informational pages, etc.

We also link from our money pages to other money pages and to other pages/topics that we write about on the money page.
On our most important page, we have 7 internal links in the <body>.

What is best practice? Should we remove all internal links in our money pages or does it not matter?
SEMrush

Thanks!

 

ubuntu – Internal devices cannot access VirtualBox centos guest

My host ( Ubuntu ) can access to the webpage-wordpress running on VirtualBox guest centos8. But the other devices on the internal network cannot. The network setting is Bridged. I added some rules to host in ufw and port forward to the guest but nothing happen. In addition I have disabled the firewalld.service in centos for a while.
The ufw rules:

  • 192.168.1.72 80 ALLOW Anywhere
  • 192.168.1.72 443 ALLOW Anywhere
  • 192.168.1.72 80/tcp ALLOW Anywhere
  • 192.168.1.72 443/tcp ALLOW Anywhere

As you can guess the guest’s IP is .1.72

I have done this before with KVM and all devices can access the server. Is it possible with VirtualBox?

internal sd – SDcard not mounted properly in device

I have an Android 8.1 device (encrypted, not rooted) that is configured to use an SD card as internal storage. That SDcard broke down and needed to be replaced.

After inserting a fresh replacement card, the device recognized it and asked how it should be formatted. I chose “internal”, and the format went though without issues. The card shows up under “Storage” with the correct capacity, just as the old one did.

However, using this card is not possible. All apps that try to access it (like camera, browser downloads, file managers) show “SD card not available” errors.

When I connect to the device through adb shell to check how the file systems are mounted, I can see a difference. This is what shows up when the old card is inserted:

bbb100:/ $ mount
(...)
/dev/block/dm-3 on /mnt/expand/beb7cb3c-0c09-43cf-83b8-ce1eac90a92b type ext4 (rw,dirsync,seclabel,nosuid,nodev,noatime)
/mnt/expand/beb7cb3c-0c09-43cf-83b8-ce1eac90a92b/media on /mnt/runtime/default/emulated type sdcardfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,noatime,fsuid=1023,fsgid=1023,gid=1015,multiuser,mask=6,derive_gid)
/mnt/expand/beb7cb3c-0c09-43cf-83b8-ce1eac90a92b/media on /storage/emulated type sdcardfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,noatime,fsuid=1023,fsgid=1023,gid=1015,multiuser,mask=6,derive_gid)
/mnt/expand/beb7cb3c-0c09-43cf-83b8-ce1eac90a92b/media on /mnt/runtime/read/emulated type sdcardfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,noatime,fsuid=1023,fsgid=1023,gid=9997,multiuser,mask=23,derive_gid)
/mnt/expand/beb7cb3c-0c09-43cf-83b8-ce1eac90a92b/media on /mnt/runtime/write/emulated type sdcardfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,noatime,fsuid=1023,fsgid=1023,gid=9997,multiuser,mask=7,derive_gid)
bbb100:/ $

and this appears when the new card is inserted:

bbb100:/ $ mount 
(...)
/dev/block/dm-3 on /mnt/expand/49d563a3-0905-4173-a1b3-8c29e3917d2c type ext4 (rw,dirsync,seclabel,nosuid,nodev,noatime,data=ordered)
bbb100:/ $

So it seems the new card is not initialized correctly and/or several directories do not get mounted for whatever reason.

Things I tried to no avail:

  • re-formatting the card
  • eject, mount
  • reboot the device
  • ran sm partition disk:179,64 private in adb shell just to see if there are any errors on the console (via) – there is no error
  • tried with different SD card (also brand new) – same behavior

What’s going on here and what else can I do to make the card work?


Additional info: There seem to be permission problems on the new card:

bbb100:/ $ df -h
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
rootfs                1.1G  3.3M  1.1G   1% /
tmpfs                 1.3G  816K  1.3G   1% /dev
/dev/block/dm-0       4.2G  3.3G  973M  78% /system
tmpfs                 1.3G     0  1.3G   0% /nvram
tmpfs                 1.3G     0  1.3G   0% /mnt
/dev/block/dm-1       496M  393M   93M  81% /oem
/dev/block/mmcblk0p17  96M   74M   22M  78% /firmware
/dev/block/mmcblk0p47  12M  8.3M  3.1M  73% /dsp
/dev/block/mmcblk0p55 992M  8.6M  967M   1% /cache
/dev/block/mmcblk0p34  27M  596K   26M   3% /persist
/dev/block/mmcblk0p52  16M  156K   15M   1% /bbpersist
/dev/block/dm-2        22G   13G  8.8G  61% /data
/dev/block/dm-3        58G   52M   58G   1% /mnt/expand/ff86c4d9-5828-4ca5-9f6e-f4e5b02b7dd9
bbb100:/ $ mkdir /mnt/expand/ff86c4d9-5828-4ca5-9f6e-f4e5b02b7dd9/media
mkdir: '/mnt/expand/ff86c4d9-5828-4ca5-9f6e-f4e5b02b7dd9/media': File exists
1|bbb100:/ $ cd /mnt/expand/ff86c4d9-5828-4ca5-9f6e-f4e5b02b7dd9/media
/system/bin/sh: cd: /mnt/expand/ff86c4d9-5828-4ca5-9f6e-f4e5b02b7dd9/media: Permission denied
2|bbb100:/ $

Macbook Pro 15inch mid 2010 won’t detect internal hard drive

My mid-2010 Macbook Pro displayed the question mark on boot. I bought a new hard drive (SSD) thinking the hard drive failed (had a SSD in there).

After replacing the SSD, I still had the same question mark coming up.

I put my original SSD in an external case and successfully booting off USB.

It still did not recognise the internal disk.

After researching the problem, I have since replaced the hard drive cable as this seem a common issue with this machine at this age. This did not fix the issue.

I have been since using the Macbook Pro using my SSD via USB.

One day I booted up and received a message that there was a disk connected that wasn’t initialised. Curious, I opened the disk utility to see if my new SSD was recognised. It was! I formatted it and thought my issue had magically resolved itself!

Then the next day it refused to find it again. Then it found it again. And now, ever since it hasn’t been able to read the internal disk.

I was hoping to get this working as the machine runs fine, apart from this issue.

Any ideas?

System: OS X Yosemite 10.10.5
Macbook Pro mid-2010 15″ 8GB Ram 2.4ghz Intel Core i5

Tried replacing cable
Tried using 3 different working hard drives (SSD 500gb, SSD 490GB, HDD 320GB)
Tried running on El Capitan using USB
Tried zapping PRAM
Tried booting in safe mode/select disk boot mode

What is the difference between a router with an internal switch and a router without?

Its a matter of convenience.

If you already have a switch in place, where all your devices are connected, then all you need as the router. You would then connect that router to the switch, thereby giving all those devices connectivity.

However, if you do not have a switch, a router with one integrated, saves you the need to buy a separate one, since everything would be connected to the switch portion of the router/switch combo.

dnd 5e – Do bonus actions trigger the save from an Internal Injury?

The DM has the final decision.

The PHB (Chap 9, pag 189, section “Your turn”) says:

Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action.

The fact that some actions are bonus actions depends mainly on your class features: some of them requires a physical effort (e.g. an attack, dashing, hiding), some others just a quick thought or minimal body movement (e.g., cast a verbal spell). In the former case, suffering an internal injury (e.g. a broken rib) makes taking the action more difficult than in the latter.

Since the optional rule does not say anything about bonus actions, It is up to the DM. There are 3 options:

  • consider all the bonus actions as “normal” actions, as you called it;
  • the optional rule does not say anything about bonus actions, hence they do not fall in this ruling;
  • make the character take the saving throw depending on the type of the bonus action.

To clarify the above distinction among bonus actions that requires physical effort and others that do not, down below I list a few examples.

A rouge has the Cunning Action feature that says

You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action.

A monk can use its Flurry of Blows feature as bonus action (once the Attack action has been taken)

Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.

A druid of the Circle of the Moon can wildshape with a bonus action:

When you choose this circle at 2nd level, you gain the ability to use Wild Shape on your turn as a bonus action, rather than as an action.

Moreover, while wildshaped, the druid can use its bonus action to regain HPs spending a spell slot:

Additionally, while you are transformed by Wild Shape, you can use a bonus action to expend one spell slot to regain 1d8 hit points per level of the spell slot expended.

If I were the DM, I would apply the 3rd option: in case the taken bonus action is mainly physical, then the saving throw must be taken, otherwise you do bonus action safely.

architecture – Safety difference between running on localhost versus the private internal ip address?

I am wondering if there is any additional security increase by choosing to run your webserver on an internal private ip address and port like xyz.ab.cd.efg:8080 versus localhost:8080 or 127.0.0.1:8080

If so, what does this mitigate against?

For this scenario lets assume that your webserver is serving some site example.com, and that the policy of the load balancer (which is the only interface for internet traffic routed inside your box), is told to only deliver traffic over HTTPS on 443, where once inside your box, local iptables are configured to route the traffic to your local webserver running on {localhost or 127.0.0.1 or xyz.ab.cd.efg}:8080.