1019
Even paper glows (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
165 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 2 years ago (12 children)

I recently had to fax a document to the government, which meant I had to print the thing, then pay $12 at OfficeMax to send it. Absolute bedlam.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago

    From time to time I have to sign a form that specifically says "Print and sign, no digital signatures"

    I use Adobes "draw a signature" feature to do my squibble, then place it on the signature line taking at least a little care to make it look handwritten (So like a portion of my signature is dipping below the line etc.). Finally I print to PDF (Even if it is already PDF) and email that or use one of those fax apps if fax is absolutely required.

    I haven't had any such forms rejected (Well, at least not for "improper signature" or whatever) and I've been doing it on forms for well over a decade now lmao

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    Same happened to me two years ago. I signed up for a 30-day trial with one of those e-fax companies and after the doc was sent I cancelled. To be fair, my work had an account with that service so I already knew about it - but I knew I didn't want to pay a buck a page just to pay my taxes... Hopefully you don't need this advice in future but maybe it can come in handy just in case!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Why you did not use an app that can take a photo of a document? Even if you do not want to use free trial, they are still cheaper than $12 per single payment (usually a week of use).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Honestly, I'm not familiar enough with the world of faxing to know which apps are trustworthy, especially since the documents contained personal information. If I ever have to send another fax, I'll consider it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    If it is paid app with lots subscriptions, most likely it is safe (or as safe as government). The biggest problem with those if somebody else steals your login info from their system. I do not believe they hunt or store faxes themselves if you delete the document after sending.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    Just take a photo with a trusted regular camera app and then enhance it with imagemagick. I have this script, works like a charm: convert INPUT_IMAGE.jpg -colorspace gray \( +clone -blur 15,15 \) -compose Divide_Src -composite -normalize -threshold 80% OUTPUT_IMAGE.jpg. Pretty sure you can also specify multiple input images, and imagemagick can merge it into a PDF file. For joining a really large number of images into PDF files (e.g.scans of entire books), you can convert each image individually, and then pdunite them. So something like for i in *; do convert $i $i.pdf; done; pdfunite $(ls *.pdf | sort -n) output.pdf

    Apps are bloat. Reject modernity, embrace shell scripts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I agree.

    Does it count if one uses an LLM to help compose the shell script? I mean, I can and have written gnarly scripts by hand but it can take half an hour to work out a single line sometimes for a simple task versus 10 minutes describing it in plain language.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Of course it "counts"! Whatever gets the job done! I personally am pretty bad with writing shell scripts, so I often use LLMs as "pseudocode compilers". Like, I literally give it an entire program in pseudocode, and most of the time it can "compile" it to BASH or posix shell pretty well. Maybe some people might argue that it's better to just sit down and learn shell scripting yourself, but I would argue that just by looking at or tweaking LLM-generated scripts you're already passively learning the basic syntax and conventions. Not to mention that you can ask it to explain parts of the code to you!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Whew, thanks for not being a knee-jerk about my 'mental prosthetic'! It takes real skill and understanding, I think, to even write the pseudocode or plain language description of a working script. After all, describing the problem and the outline of the solution is usually the hardest part. Pecking out the syntax takes the bulk of the time, but if you can avoid that step, what is lost? Very little in my experience.

    I've begun collecting an assortment of custom python and shell script utilities to accomplish routine or one-off tasks for which system utilities don't exist. You bet you are still learning when doing it this way. After all, you have to understand the code well enough to tell if the output is what you need.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago

    After all, describing the problem and the outline of the solution is usually the hardest part.

    This is what people who think that AI will replace programmers don't understand. Programming is a way of thinking; knowing all the syntax and best practices is of course important, but secondary. If you've got that curiosity burning inside, those skills will come automatically as you gain more experience. Keep on learning, and don't be afraid to use the latest tools to your advantage, no matter what snobs on the internet say!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent