Somewhat unrelated but as a Pixel Watch user (since I'm in that ecosystem), I envy the Apple Watch just for the square display. It is just the fundamentally correct design for text imo (which is a large part of what is going to appear).
One of my main uses for my Pixel Watch is reading notifications, and even for a 2-3 line text message I have to scroll to read it because it gets cut out by the roundness.
I have never bought an Arduino. I have bought a few Picos, a few ESP32s, and a couple Picos. And a clone of an Arduino Nano integrated in a system with a Pico for 5V logic, specifically, to implement a PS/2 controller. I don't see any advantage an Arduino has over an ESP32, aside from 5V logic support.
While that is true, both Espressif and the Pico have their own SDKs, and they're really well written too.
The Arduino SDK is the simplest to use, sure, but the Pico framework (I don't have experience with the Espressif one) is extremely good, and the Pico's PIO is a godsend. I used it to implement 3 wire SPI (data bidirectional on the same wire) at almost 'real-time', which is to say, at half the speed of the hardware SPI controller (half the speed because the interface clock is put up one cycle and down the next; this also gives enough time for data shuffling).
Why does the Arduino SDK necessitate a huge markup on Arduino boards, when $0 of every computer I buy to run Linux on goes to GCC?
Yep. And that's exactly why the EU has the structure it does.
Unfortunately the only country that ever left proceeded to shoot itself in both knees, light itself on fire and jump in a pool of gasoline. For NO reason.
Because if function foo's third flag parameter supports FOO_ENABLE_FEATURE_X starting from 2.31, and a program only occasionally calls foo with this flag, there is no good way to detect this incompatibility on a 2.30 system at link time.
The restriction is only annoying because there is no way to trivially link against an older "minimum requirement" ABI.
This is not an ABI stability problem, this is a UX problem.
iOS and Android do backwards incompatibility all the time. If you find a mobile app that hasn't been updated in 10 or 15 years, you won't be able to install it on a modern device. But, iOS and Android ship apps to billions of users, nobody complains about ABI stability and nobody uses a Win32 compatibility layer.
glibc already has decent UX in that it doesn't allow you to load an app built for a newer version on a host with an older version. Unfortunately, the message is not user friendly at all "could not load @@GLIBC_X.YZ@@foo()", instead of something more readable, but the restriction is, in itself, good.
The problem is that there is no system to trigger backwards incompatibility at any point, nor is there a simple way to target an older Glibc version without spinning up a docker container.
And glibc is a HELL of a codebase, I would NOT want to be responsible for implementing those features, so I understand why they're not there. But 'our Linux build for our game we are still selling and advertising as working on Linux is no longer compatible with new Linux distributions, so let's rebuild it' is a much easier decision for a developer, publisher, etc. to make than '"some" Linux users are reporting issues with our game, should we dedicate resources to investigating this?'
Yes but there is simply no reason to have two devices. There are a large number of Windows tablet-laptop combo machines that work perfectly well and prove touch apps work perfectly well on a desktop OS.
Yeah, that took a long time for MS to get to not suck after Windows 8, but touch and tablet interactions on Windows 10 and Windows 11 work perfectly well.
I simply do not think that the popularity of US tech is due to anything other than the quality of US tech.
I live in Romania, and the people that were rushing to pirate Windows in the 90's after communism fell because they couldn't afford licensing weren't doing so because of any US imposition, but simply because they wanted to use personal computers, and Windows was the best OS for most people at the time for that purpose.
Just like when phones came around they rushed to buy Nokia phones; when smartphones came around they rushed to buy Samsung phones; when they wanted DLSRs they bought Canon and Nikon cameras and now that they want easily transferable digital cash and cheap tech trinkets they opened up Revolut accounts and order stuff off Temu.
Not because of any "influence" or "position" of Finland, South Korea, Japan, the UK or China, but simply because they are the best offer on the market as perceived by consumers.
What tech does Europe lead in? To be fair there are still some fields, like Aerospace (Airbus), Lithography (ASML) or Pharmaceutics (BioNTech). But on the consumer tech market, the phones, laptops and streaming services people want? The EU has no presence. Even the auto industry is going to be eaten up by China, because Europe simply pivoted too late to EVs. I know someone who works at Renault and they're just terrified of the cars that are coming out of China.
That was not done by the European Commission. It was a document with no legal power. And it was an acknowledgment of an existing market trend. non-iPhones had already began converging on USB charging (including mini-USB and micro-USB) in the years before.
By the time the EU actually first proposed regulation on the matter, which was only in 2020, there were in effect three ports on the phone market: the Apple Lightning was still used in iPhones, and the rest of the market was undergoing an orderly migration from the cheaper micro-USB port, to the more expensive but better USB-C port.
So yes, the free market was entirely responsible for transitioning from dozens of ports to 3 ports, and would have very likely eventually transitioned to 2 ports. The fact that the EU made recommendation to that effect years ago after the trend had begun that was purely voluntary is an entirely irrelevant datum.
Once again, the EU coming 30 years later to do something everyone else is doing, and everyone will credit them for some odd reason.
In the 90s, there were dozens (hundreds?) of phone charging ports. A couple of years ago, there were only two. The dozens -> 2 simplifications occurred on the purely free market. And the EU mandated a simplification from 2 -> 1 and gets the credit for the entire simplification.
What is the point of this license? Either the GPL is invalid in the EU, in which case why aren't companies moving to the EU to infringe on the GPL? Or it is valid, in which case a a bunch of EU lawyers were given a bunch of MY money to do nothing of value to anyone.
Can anyone using GrapheneOS report if Firebase notifications come in consistently and reliably via sandboxed Play Services?
I'm in the market for a new phone, and I'm going to buy a Pixel 9a this week for GrapheneOS if I can reliably get notifications on it. (I already have an A05 for banking apps)
Ok, but there's nothing stopping from writing a "discoverable" GUI or TUI or CLI for this interaction.
To the user it doesn't matter.
To the developer, it makes a difference.
/proc/<pid>/ctl is not any more or less simple or discoverable for the end user than TerminateProcess or kill(2). It's all opaque esoteric stuff.
But for the developer /proc/<pid>/ctl is MORE discoverable than TerminateProcess or kill(2), since it's a file you can list, so you know it exists. Yeah, you still have to read the man page (you always have to read the docs as a developer), but you know there's a ctl file that probably controls some stuff about the process there. And you already know how to interact with it (the same IO interface as everything else).
Unfortunately, my comment was simply not a defense of the company, since I know little about the situation, nor was it an attack on the city's actions. It was a reply to the comment I was responding too, which voiced a call to "lock 'em up" and punish them more, which I see all too often.
I certainly do not support government surveillance for any reason.
My comment was a defense of the legal proceedings as-we-have-them, in which the city issues a cease-and-desist, the company ignores it, the problem persists for a while, litigation start, the city demand a court order etc. And in the end the company is massively screwed, if they were wrong.
The alternative is simply that city decides, and the company is forced to follow.
The problem is procedural and structural, not consequentialist.
Me: "I do not think the population should live under fear of excessive, arbitrary and unaccountable law enforcement. The company may be entirely in the wrong in which case they should be punished to the full extent of the law, including for present non-compliance, but that should be up to the judge and to the extent determined in the written law."
What that may all be very true, would it not be better if law enforcement was predictable and in accord with the written law passed by the legislature and settled, in cases of dispute, by the judiciary?
One of my main uses for my Pixel Watch is reading notifications, and even for a 2-3 line text message I have to scroll to read it because it gets cut out by the roundness.