hehetrthrthrjn

Apple gear costs more in Europe because the market will bear it. It has almost nothing to do with regulations, which almost always benefits consumers at little cost. If prices are high it's usually due to a lack of competition.

Here's a couple of examples:

Free international roaming for mobile phones plans in the EU has caused the price of phone plans to move very little and mostly at the rock bottom end of the scale.

I bought the cheapest Kia Rio I could in 2016. It was bottom of the range (trim level) and yet it was decked out with ABS, electronic stability control and tire pressure monitoring. At least two of those things has saved me from a serious accident over the years. The only reason they were included was because they are mandated by the EU on all cars.

When I saw it I just thought it was needlessly redundant. He could have just said 'algorithm' since it's almost always mathematical in some sense and it's always an idea.

So even showing the infohash would be illegal? That's all you really need.

THey could just use the numbers as a suffix to a sanitized version of the name and everybody wins, but that would require them to think seriously about usability.

Imagine many years in the future, long after humanity has destroyed itself and become extinct, aliens land and all they encounter is this message transmitting on a loop.

It would become a hallowed relic of a mysterious civilization, uninterpretable but surely containing some powerful wisdom that was left behind in order to warn others.

If you change the subject or redirect when someone asks you a difficult question you're not lying. That sort of thing could be called social engineering.

> 3. It's not a good posture for focusing

I have the opposite experience.

> 2. The keyboard is not positioned correctly

This is probably the biggest issue which I think requires some kind of stand or other supporting equipment. Right now I prop up the keyboard in front of me using my arms and elbows or with the aid of a cushion or something on my chest.

One of the advantages of lying down is that you can take a lot more positions (especially your lower body) compared to sitting.

Of course if your intent is to be inactive then all bets are off. Even if you're not I don't think those little nudges are that effective.

Personally I've been working lying down for 20 years, almost all day, almost every day. I only have back problems when I use beds that are not very firm.

I'm over 6 feet tall and weigh about 120 kg and I'm in my early 50's. I run 10kms (without stopping except for quick drinks) regularly, in 1:20. I can do bench press, shoulder press, lateral pull down, seated row and seated dip machines with the weight set to my bodyweight (about 4 sets of 8 reps each machine, ramping the weight).

I actually don't do a lot of exercise on the scale of things, and I can regain the above abilities within a month or so if I become totally inactive for a long period. I'm actually a fairly large person which helps with the weights but makes the running pretty rigorous.

Like most things, if you work your body regularly you will be fine. How you don't use your body when you're not exercising doesn't affect that.

Also there is some research showing that people are more creative when lying down.

I have a lie down workstation: it's called a bed with wooden stand for my screen and a wireless keyboard.

It works a treat.

I get that, but the solution is not "enforce it with static type checking", especially when the default is non-nullable.

In my experience nullability is a dynamic constraint and it's most often just passed through various functions, until it becomes an issue some function. Static null checking then just becomes madness.

Other representable values can also can be invalid inputs to some code, but we don't implement draconian constraints throughout the code to manage that.

I don't understand the ritual flagellation of nulls that seems to be in vogue recently.

The null value is a necessary and critically important value: sometimes you have to represent 'nothing.' It's not particularly special as a value. It doesn't break type systems that are designed for it.

The issue seems to be that some people forget that their code might receive null values and that nulls are represented as a zero pointer which cause an exception if dereferenced.

The resulting backlash is worse than the disease: straightjacketing languages and littering them with more busywork.

I've gone the opposite direction in my work: not only can pointers be null but so can all other basic types. It's incredibly useful and a real design win.

I think the world is moving away from twin-aisle planes somewhat. The future is point-to-point in smaller planes. In that sense Airbus is well positioned.

The A321XLR is already a huge success.

Probably because they have none of these planes and no plans to add them.

It's not an irrational fear at all. The plane by any measure is a serious kludge, even after these patches have been applied.

Think about the fact that you're flying what is essentially a management designed plane. No reasonable engineer would chose to build this plane.

Yes it's required.

It's usually stated when you browse flights, but obviously planes can be substituted before you fly. You can take your chances.

The best plan would be to avoid airlines that own the plane, but that will be impractical for most. Even then you might be re-routed onto another airline or third party plane.

- reduced changes of uncontrollably flying into the ground at users' request

I only really use macOS these days, so they've clearly improved or borrowed features since I last looked, but I guess the point is that those features were implemented long ago.

The ability to implement file access the way is obviously possible on any OS, but on the Mac it's consistently implemented that way in applications, except for a couple of bad actors. On other OSes it's much more mixed. The same can be said for many other small features. There's a just a lot better consistency overall on macOS.

The main reason for me is that Apple hardware is (from my experience) unacceptably unreliable and their warranty service is infuriating.

Add to that a lack of expandability, customizability, (user) repairability and (hardware) compatibility.

Life is just a lot less miserable without having to deal with Apple hardware. PC components seem to be very reliable when you spend just middle-range prices and you can easily buy and swap out components when something does go wrong.

I generally go many months without having to reboot my Hackintosh, and I can't ever remember having a kernel panic after initial setup. Both of those things were not true with Apple hardware.

Generally good design and user-centered design (but that's being eroded with every new release) along with attention to detail.

Small examples: you can scroll a window without having to click on it to make it active, applications don't refer to files using paths but file ids instead so you can generally move files around a disk while they are open without things breaking.

x86, as a legacy architecture, has a lot of baggage and complexity and takes more space and energy to decode and translate instructions to micro-ops. Also because it was not designed as a RISC arch, but rather "backported" as one, it misses out on some RISC advantages.

This is why you don't see Intel being competitive in low power applications where ARM excels.

The pharmacist is supposed to make sure that the patient isn't being harmed by the medication.

That's the theory. In reality it's just as you say.

The two are connected. The more niche (or custom) software is the more resistant it is to porting. There's going to be a lot of Wintel based stuff which is a quick and dirty port from Windows with few Mac native elements. The years where Mac was Intel compatible made the platform more attractive to people who worked in a mostly Wintel environment. There is almost no incentive for those who ported software to the Mac because it was easy to now port to ARM.

So there are two sides to that: those people are going to hang on to their Intel machines longer and they'll want Intel compatibility when they finally buy ARM machines. This is important to Apple because it can shrink the pool of potential customers.

There's two parts to this issue: one is reverse engineering the Apple driver interface, the other is reverse engineering the third party target hardware interface.

Most vendors of graphics hardware keep their interface secret, but not all. The problem is that the set of hardware that isn't secret won't overlap much with what people have or want to run, which is pretty central to what makes Hackintoshes attractive.

Yes there is: the lack of third party graphics drivers. That single issue has the potential to nobble any useable ARM based Hackintosh, though someone might step forward and implement a graphics driver, but that's quite hard.

Keep in mind that there is a much larger installed base of Intel machines than any of those other transitions. Apple is unlikely to want to alienate so many people. It will take several years for the percentage of Intel Mac users to fall under 50%.

I see Intel support continuing for closer to 10 years.

No, only if you're planning on living in the Netherlands for 3 months or more.

I was being a bit flippant but the fact is that you're always relying on the decision of the front line employee. Of course there are guidelines and decisions sometimes travel up the management chain, but the attitude of the first officer you meet can dictate the outcome.

Here's an example: You decide spontaneously to travel to the UK from the US after having finishing a grueling contract. Your travel plans are a bit vague because of the short notice. You work on your CV on the flight with a view to your next job.

The border control officer finds your lack of detailed travel plans suspicious. He decides to carry out a search of your luggage and finds your CV. He claims you are coming to the UK to seek work. You protest but you have no evidence to the contrary.

You're refused entry and you will now find it difficult to enter the UK for at least 10 years. You can expect to spend 3 or more hours at the UK border each time you try to enter.

Or, alternatively, none of this happens and instead the officer has a laugh with you about disorganised trips overseas and waves you in.

These sorts of scenarios are very common. People should be aware of the peril of crossing borders and be informed and well organised.