disintegore

There's something I'm just not getting with Prusa's justification. With open hardware, anyone can take your designs and run with them. Not just Chinese companies with zero regard for IP law. There is no IP to have regard for. Mercantilist policies in China should affect all western companies in that market more or less the same. I am not seeing how relicensing will make Prusa3D's business more viable.

with built-in antivirus protection for untarnished signal quality

source : https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-xbox-hdmi-cable-has-anti-...

It does not appear that you have read the article

That's fair, but your post might have been more prescriptive than you intended. Your wording insinuates that New York doesn't actually have a problem with incomes relative to cost of living because most people make up for that through an informal economy. There is ambiguity, granted, but on the surface that looks like a massive stretch. The figure might be impacted, but for it to be completely eclipsed is another order of magnitude entirely.

I find it hard to believe that the amount of tax fraud in NY is enough to throw this figure off. Even if what you're describing is true, it would hardly be "the actual problem" here.

I think the idea of being able to develop both kinds of games with one (mostly) shared skillset has a ton of appeal. Not to mention the assumption that games are either 2D or 3D is not always correct.

Isn't there a better way to do this? Rate limiting, splicing ads into the audio signal for non-paying users, providing a stable API for paying users only, etc. Beats siccing your lawyers on hapless geeks.

I don't think you're wrong, but it's worth mentioning that you can't outlook-change your way out of having executive dysfunction. Recognizing the problem is the first step, but getting help comes soon after.

There is a very strong chance that you are sick with depression. Consulting a health care professional should be your first priority, in my opinion. If you can't find treatment where you currently live, then it could be a good idea to move, if only temporarily.

That's actually a good point. I made assumptions about the meaning of the term `null` that can't be true in every language that uses it.

There are some exceptions to the behaviour you describe, like for instance with C# which for the longest time only allowed value types to be annotated as nullable, and only very recently extended this to reference types, and only as an opt-in feature, and the type checker only throws warnings, etc. That would be a case of a language which is not "null safe" but provides faculties for accomplishing that.

I'm talking about the fact that nullable types do not on their own guarantee null safety and that these two things are not equivalent.

I am supposing that the further back in time you go, the more likely it is that simplicity and performance would influence language and compiler design. As opposed to developer experience.

I think this can be supported by the fact that these fancy language features have been successfully implemented for decades and are only now showing up in mainstream languages.

Which can still lead to unrecoverable runtime errors, that could otherwise be compilation errors.

Null safety means you can't dereference a null pointer. Therefore something like `T | null` is not possible, because `null` doesn't exist. What you'd have instead is an Option or Maybe type and a compiler that requires exhaustive handling of it.

The more I think about it, the more it sounds like hubris. If Tony Hoare hadn't made that design choice then somebody else somewhere would have.

I think the sentiment behind the quote and its widespread use is correct however. It definitely does seem like the tradeoffs of null safety are worth it in the vast majority of cases. Most of us who use GC languages with massive runtimes sacrifice a lot more performance for a lot less value.

My understanding is that subsidies also drive down the cost of meat quite drastically.

In theory, I don't see any reason not to. In practice, it depends on a million things.

It seems more accurate to say that the business model is contingent on a number of breakthroughs that may never occur. It's not hard to see how the development of a more (and, let's say, sufficiently) economical process would retroactively justify all the capital invested and press generated up to that point, especially if it can put an end to the ecological disaster and permanent superholocaust that is the modern meat industry.

I'm personally surprised that with so much of the workforce gone, and internal operations being total bedlam, the only thing that went down were 2FA emails.

Someone at Twitter knew what they were doing. Let's hope they didn't get swept up.

I love the idea that neutral means "status quo" and not the absence of bias, which is far from being the status quo in most cases.

It's crazy how well this comment aged.

Mastodon and ActivityPub in general have UX issues. I can't imagine trying to explain to non-technical users why they have to open a pop-up window to another website just to be able to follow someone, or why people keep changing handles, etc etc.

For most people using social media outside of the context of a professional organization, it also means trusting whoever operates the instance, most of which will probably be less reliable and potentially trustworthy than Twitter was or currently is under Musk ownership.

Something tells me you're not going to Qatar to attend the World Cup

I'd be surprised if they didn't already know

It's disheartening that while I can point at demonstrable harm and conduct which matches what we commonly understand to be "anti-competitive" in both intent and effect, what I get in return is a handful of facile value statements. Yes, it may be that Apple has a legal right to sell you a walled garden system. Price fixing was also legal for most of human history. If your rights are harmful, they are abolished. That's how it's always been.

As it happens, the implementation details of platform security are typically not secret. It's the keys that are. The "intellectual property" in question is only the solution to a very well understood but computationally infeasible problem. It has no use or worth beyond protecting the vendor's restrictions on your device. This has precisely nothing to do with the tech being proprietary. You could implement a platform monopoly with nothing but FOSS tech. I'm starting to think you don't understand the technology very well.

For instance, It's not terribly difficult for security hackers to blow the door open on these systems even when they're proprietary and no public documentation or datasheet is supplied. George Hotz famously published the private keys for the PS3 and was sued into oblivion. You'll find this isn't about technology at all, but law.

The "just buy a Jolla/Sailfish phone" argument is a non-sequitur. For starters, who says I haven't? That doesn't mean I need to accept that my friends and family are getting fleeced. Let's assume I'm also purely self-interested, who do you suppose they go to when they can't get basic computing tasks done because it conflicts with their hardware vendor's interests?

Yes, they are responsible, because the chose to design the product that way, and they chose to misrepresent it, and they chose to forbid competitors to interact in their privileged space.

I still fail to see how engineering your own cryptographic monopoly and abusing it is different from abusing any other sort of monopoly.

It absolutely is abuse. Service degradation pushed through system updates which cannot be opted out of. Charging premiums over utilities that its consumers are already paying for. It is a predatory business model, nothing less.

I can think of three reasons why someone would opt into that, as opposed to "buying an unlocked computer system". The first being lacking the technical knowledge to understand that your machine is sold to you pre-compromised. The latter two being exclusive titles and the fact that your social circle may coax you into that platform, both of which throw "personal choice" out of the window.

This isn't just about video games either. My career field doesn't require me to use Gillette razors.

In any case, if there isn't a legal distinction between a monopoly that forms through incidence and one that was purposefully designed and planted into an already thriving market, there ought to be.

Embarrassing

Did anyone here actually read the article? The author is not putting the usefulness of good engineering management into question. He is criticizing the culture around the organization of knowledge work. If the hat doesn't fit, don't wear it.

It looks like you've read the headline and decided to get angry.