Windows 10 not visible in bootloader after installing Fedora 33

Im totally new here, and totally new to Linux. I recently wanted to make a dual boot, and so I prepared the USB disk with Fedora 33 installation, I managed to make a free space on C drive, right next to Windows, and performed installation.
The installation went fine, the steps of tutorias were reproduced accordingly
( except I went for advanced, because I had to pick the said space for system from C drive.
Restarted the machine, and … there was no grub (Or at least I thought there was no grub, because I didnt press “shift” during boot – read about that later. )
I read some articles about UEFI / Legacy problems, but I dismissed the idea, because
my W10 was installed in compatibility mode/ UEFI + Legacy, and so was Fedora (there was no changes to BIOS during W10/Fedora installation).
Now, grub works (after pressing “shift” at the start of boot), but there is no W10 on a list, just three versions of Fedora.
Tried to check if there is a fourth system somewhere, read that someone here had problem, that W10 was hidden in grub. Nope, not it, checked it with the arrows, and scrolling, Ive got only three Fedora lisings.
Tried Windows Recovery USB, tried advanced recovery, Windows was unable to “fix” the problem.

What I would like to achieve:
- a dual boot, with bootloader having option to see Windows 10, and finally boot to windows 
What I have: 
- a Fedora 33 installed on same disk as Windows 10, just a separate partition
- a bootloader with no Windows option, and a console
- a Windows 10 hidden somewhere in my PC ...
enter code here

I humbly ask for your assistance, dear Linux users.
I am a noob, I am a weirdo (I use Windows :P)
I know what Im doing here: I seek help

Please, help.

gnome – Apps launch but are not visible and desktop freezes

Ubuntu Desktop 20.04.1 LTS

For example if I open the Terminal app the Terminal window doesn’t appear but the mouse pointer does change to a cursor when hovering over the area of the desktop where the terminal window should be.

The mouse pointer can still be moved around the screen but clicking has no effect.

Keyboard shortcuts like Alt + Tab also do not work.

Tried the following but these have not resolved the problem:

sudo apt install --reinstall gnome-shell
sudo apt purge gnome-shell
sudo apt install gnome-shell

magento2 – Size filters are not displayed when the configurable product is set to Not individually visible Magento 2

I have this structure for my products, I have a grouped product that has two configurable products which are configured as Not visible Individually but in the filter section does not show any size, if I configure my configurable products as Visible or Search will show the sizes

i use this module to achieve grouped product with configurable products since Magento 2 does not allow it by default

Here is my website

I will appreciate any suggestions. Thank you!

macos – No disk visible when installing OS x Mavericks

I wiped my Macbook air and am trying to reinstall the OS. I had Sierra. When I install that it says I don’t have prebooted afps volumes. But when I try to istall OS X Mavericks from internet it shows no available disks. I do have Mackintosh HD mounted (clean) and created a new untitled drive too as someone recommended. I am a complete rookie in this. No access to something like Genius bar due to lockdown. Thanks a lot for help.

android 10 – Making apps installed by Owner visible to other users/profiles

So, as you might know, Android 10 supports Multi-User feature (for reference – this thing)

I have some apps from F-Droid, installed while on Owner profile. But most of the apps are only visible to Owner (I suppose those are User apps, as the universally visible are System apps).

Can you tell me how I can make some of these apps visible to other profiles so I can use them with all the features provided with separate user accounts (e.g. compartmentalized app data)?

There are similar questions on this topic (1, 2, 3), but the answers are outdated. The newest one is 7 years ago.

procedural generation – Mesh seams visible in Unity

I’m currently working on a procedurally generated sphere but I can’t get rid of those seams between the meshes. My first step is to generate a cube and normalize all vertices. I’ve already search the internet for solution but I never achieved a full removal only just made less visible the seams.

Correct me if I’m wrong but the root cause is this: Unity uses per vertex normals for creating smooth shading instead of flat shading and at the mesh edge the normals are not correctly calculated by the built-in RecalculateNormals method.

So the solution what I found: during vertex generation of a mesh also create border vertices and Unity will calculate correct normals and after that I remove border vertices and triangles from the mesh.

Here you can see seams without any fix:
enter image description here

I tried to generate border for every side of the cube, call RecalculateNormals on the Mesh object and reassign vertices, indices and normals without the border.
The result is better but not perfect (Solution A):
enter image description here

I was thinking about this border. If I generate one strip border and I normalize also the border vertices then these border triangles won’t be there where adjacent mesh’s edge triangles are located:

enter image description here

So I tried to move the border vertices to overlap the adjacent mesh’s most outer triangles (most outer strip):
enter image description here

And the result is almost perfect but the borders are visible (Solution B):
enter image description here

Is it possible to remove seams fully? I want to use that solution where I just create border on the plane of the current mesh and not move to adjacent mesh. It’s easier to create meshes with one unit wider.

encryption – Does encrypting in transit serve to avoid in transit attacks or to signal less visible backend security?

Common advise and legislation requires that even small organizations implement encryption at transit, considering that encryption represents implementation and maintenance costs, it is important to accurately gauge the risk of sending data unencrypted between two physical locations. Not only because resources spent on risk reduction might be better spent on other benefits, but even if only measuring risk, overestimating one type of risk might cause other more risky vectors to be ignored.

The main hypothesis is that the risk of interception is low, put measurably: lower than currently estimated to be by the industry. The reasoning is that the only possible attackers in transit are state actors, rogue ISPs, and physical wiretappers, while attacks performed by these actors do not represent a significant share of the damage caused by information security incidents.

This then raises the question, why is EiT so ubuquitous? One posssible explanation is that becaue EiT occurs at the border between user and service provider, it is visible, transparent, so the user’s tools can verify whether security measures were taken and inform them via green locks, https prefixes and browser warnings. These security measures, typicially enforced by a browser, grow in quantity and complexity beyond the point that they reduce risk, in order to filter out ‘incompetent’ developers and service providers, this mechanism extends far beyond EiT, and explains security requirements like CORS and some authentication flows. The security measures then serve as an honest costly signal that the user’s information is safe, more specifically the service provider proves that they are competent with encryption, that they have a reliable server, that they can follow documentation.

The terms honest, costly, and signal are borrowed from a biology branch called signalling theory which studies how animals communicate non-visible properties like health, wealth or hunting prowess mostly to sexual partners, by producing signals that are reliable or honest, that are hard to fake or cheat by actors with incentive to do so. One such method is to emit signals that cost something, such that less fit adversaries cannot waste the resources to do so.

The invisible property here would be security measures at rest, data is at rest for FAR longer than in transit, years to milliseconds. So the hoops the fornt-end has to jump through to be greenlit by the “user agent” would be a way to prove that the non-visible backend will be safe.

Undo-Redo for sections not visible to the user

In a multi-step task-based UI, imagine the flow below –

  1. User adds a task and a panel opens up to fill in the task details
  2. User fills the details and saves the task
  3. User closes this add-on panel
  4. User performs an undo for some reason
  5. The undo operation is applied to the closed task panel as that was the last action

However, this does not seem right as the action taken by undo isn’t in the user’s view. Thoughts?