kemayo

I'm one of those people who really likes the camera features, so there's no question about which one interests me. The Pro also has a battery life estimate that's 45% longer than the Air's, which is pretty important to me. Those two things combine to be a pretty big differentiator.

EDIT: actually, base Pro is only 22% more battery life. I was accidentally comparing it to the Pro Max. Still, important.

Subjective indeed. I don't mind the broad camera bump -- it's a good trade-off for getting the increased zoom, honestly. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the differently-colored ceramic bit on the back, though. But, on the plus side, not like that's the bit of the phone I look at.

Plus, the orange looks great. (In their promo shots. We've occasionally seen these look a lot less vivid once you see them in real life.)

I like the orange one. It's nice that there's finally a vivid Pro color, after years of black / white / "it's not quite black or white, we swear".

The blue is pretty subdued. I guess we'll see how reflective the finish on the aluminum winds up being...

I've found that the support for multiple eSIMs has replaced that pretty well for me. That's probably incredibly dependent on where you travel, though.

It's certainly not "full of", though I'm sure it's there. I never see it, but then I don't follow people who post it.

I certainly see less random pornographically-tinged content showing up in my day-to-day usage than I did when I was on twitter. The default view being literally only stuff I've explicitly followed does rather change that experience.

I think the sort of person who would paste/type the URL for another social service into the freeform "or some other service" input on ShareOpenly is exactly the sort of person who has that web literacy, though. Which I guess doesn't support my "delete them all!" desire, but rather sadly reinforces keeping the status quo.

Looking at ShareOpenly, I think this is basically a reaction to "Mastodon instances make social sharing complicated from the web". A "share to Mastodon" button is impossible, and a button for every Mastodon instance in existence is impractical. Thus a "fuck it, I guess just put in a URL and we'll work out how to send something to it" solution.

Speaking as someone who never ever uses a share button I think this is misguided, we should just remove that entire class of widget from the web, and people who want to share things can copy-paste the URL into their platforms of choice.

I think they're talking about outputting XML+XSLT on those microcontrollers, i.e. just putting out text. Chromium would come in for the viewer who's loading whatever tiny status-webpage those microcontrollers are hosting on a separate device.

Sure, but the specific thing the person I was replying to said the developer was complaining about was not getting paid.

The difficult bit is working out what percentage of pirated copies are actually replacing a sale that would have happened if the content wasn't available to pirate. The more dramatic industry numbers like to claim it's 100%, which is ridiculous. It's certainly more than 0%, though.

I'd assume that for your indie game, there were a lot of people who wound up thinking "I would play this if it's free, but I wouldn't spend $X" on it. Adding successful DRM wouldn't have done anything to them but drive them away, and reduce the amount of buzz the game received. But then, particularly in the indie game space, maybe trading away a lot of buzz for a couple hundred more full-price game sales would have been completely worth it...

This is where the concept of services like Xbox Game Pass seem to be landing. Once someone has paid their fairly-small-amount each month, every game is now "free". Much like fairly-cheap streaming music basically stopped music piracy from being mainstream, cheap game-services might have the same impact on the game industry.

Though, much like streaming music, whether it turns out to be economically viable for the average game studio is certainly a question.

(For the sake of completeness: I don't pirate anything, so I have nothing to justify here.)

> Chat is like the command line, but with easier syntax.

I kinda disagree with this analogy.

The command line is precise, concise, and opaque. If you know the right incantations, you can do some really powerful things really quickly. Some people understand the rules behind it, and so can be incredibly efficient with it. Most don't, though.

Chat with LLMs is fuzzy, slow-and-iterative... and differently opaque. You don't need to know how the system works, but you can probably approach something powerful if you accept a certain amount of saying "close, but don't delete files that end in y".

The "differently-opaque" for LLM chatbots comes in you needing to ultimately trust that the system is going to get it right based on what you said. The command line will do exactly what you told it to, if you know enough to understand what you told it to. The chatbot will do... something that's probably related to what you told it to, and might be what it did last time you asked for the same thing, or might not.

For a lot of people the chatbot experience is undeniably better, or at least lets them attempt things they'd never have even approached with the raw command line.

> AI unlocks what seems to be the future: dynamic, context-dependent generative UIs or something similar. Why couldn’t my watch and glasses be everything I need?

Voice input isn't suitable for many cases, and physical input seems generally superior to AR -- I've used a Vision Pro, and it's very impressive, but it's nowhere near the input-performance of a touchscreen or a mouse and keyboard. (To its credit: it's not aiming for that.)

Unless the argument is that you will never have to be precise, or do something that you don't want everyone within earshot to know about?

Also, a "dynamic, context-dependent generative UI" sounds like another way to describe a UI that changes every time you use it depending on subtle qualities of exactly how you reached it this time, preventing you from ever building up any kind of muscle-memory around using it.

They do kinda make the journalist look bad. That email exchange opened with a bunch of extremely-loaded questions, and quickly transitioned into the journalist actively advocating for the transfer of the domain, and using "I'm going to report about this" as a threat.

Plus, I can find absolutely zero evidence of the existence of a German journalist called "Mirai F", so I'm a bit suspicious. (It might be the "PuPRed" person being maybe-doxxed -- but that's a blog site which entirely consists of a single article about PuTTY, so I'm not convinced "journalist" applies in a meaningful sense.)

The Bitvise answers also don't look good, of course. Nobody comes out of that one smelling like roses.

I say this as someone who thinks putty.org was pretty sketchy before it went full anti-vax, and is currently looking like a slam-dunk example of the kind of thing trademark law was meant for.

The definition is:

> In paragraph (1), a “content recommender system” means a system, used by the provider of a regulated user-to-user service in respect of the user-to-user part of that service, that uses algorithms which by means of machine learning or other techniques determines, or otherwise affects, the way in which regulated user-generated content of a user, whether alone or with other content, may be encountered by other users of the service.

Speculating wildly, I think a bunch of the moderation / patroller tools might count. They help to find revisions ("user-generated content") that need further review from other editors ("other users").

There's not much machine learning happening (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ORES), but "other techniques" seems like it'd cover basically-anything up to and including "here's the list of revisions that have violated user-provided rules recently" (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter).

(Disclaimer: I work for the WMF. I know literally nothing about this court case or how this law applies.)

That's their existing Apple One program: https://www.apple.com/apple-one/

I guess I could see it for decoupling your need to control the API you're using. The case where you have an existing API, whether your own or someone else's, and just want to get a new frontend hooked up to it.

Funnily enough, just starting your class method/variable name with __ does do magic things as a pseudo-keyword. Specifically, it mangles the name for callers outside of that class -- `self.__foo` would need to be accessed as `obj._ClassName__foo`. It's python's approach to having private methods, while remaining somewhat ideologically opposed to them existing.

This doesn't apply to the dunder methods, though. They're magically exempt from this magical mangling, so you could call them directly if you wanted. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> You don't think the Python way is worse?

They seem about equivalent? I don't see any real reason to pick one or the other, beyond personal preferences.

I think the more interesting one is "religious people unaware their religion is in the majority".

Not sure that's really "odd", given that NYC is a city where car ownership is an extreme class / living-situation signifier.

A camera that costs as much as a flagship smartphone shouldn't need a "setting expectations" section. Particularly when those expectations are "this is going to take worse pictures and be harder to use than your smartphone"...

It might be an okay intro-to-"real"-cameras device, since it's far less huge-and-clunky than an equivalently priced DSLR. But even there the tradeoffs don't look great.

I don't mind if a meeting is an hour, but I'm genuinely a bit peeved every time I'm in a 50 minute meeting that just automatically rolls over. If you want to do an hour, book an hour.

(All I actually do about this is be the person who pops up in meeting-chat at XX:51 with a "time-check: we've gone over".)

The power of the executive is constrained, ultimately, by what people let them do. Including people inside the executive branch -- the people who're doing the arresting, transporting the prisoners, gunning down the protesters, etc. There's a lot of people involved who aren't committed to some authoritarian project, they're just... doing their job. They can be swayed by vibes, and general unpopularity of the regime.

The alternative to this view is either giving up or preparing for armed struggle. It's certainly possible that we could get there, but I don't think it's guaranteed yet.

(I acknowledge that this position is quite the blend of optimism and cynicism.)

I don't think we've got enough information to say how similar it is. That one sounds like it hung on Joseph actively helping the immigrant to take an unusual route out. If this judge just sent the agents off for their permission then wrapped things up normally and didn't get involved beyond that, I can't see this going anywhere.

There's a lot of room for details-we-don't-yet-know to change that opinion, of course.

I'm not saying it's good, for sure. But I don't think it's a sign that the push for autocratic authoritarianism is winning, either.

My optimistic take is that this is the sort of stupid overreach that works to turn other arms of government against the executive. The judiciary tends to be prickly about its prerogatives, and Trump's far from the point where he can just push stuff through without some cover.

Article has been updated with more context in recent minutes:

> ICE agents arrived in the judge’s courtroom last Friday during a pre-trial hearing for Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican national who is facing misdemeanor battery charges in Wisconsin.

> Dugan asked the agents to leave and speak to the circuit court’s chief judge, the Journal Sentinel reported. By the time they returned, Flores Ruiz had left.

So, yeah, sounds like they literally walked into court and interrupted a hearing. Given the average temperament of judges, I think the least immigrant-friendly ones out there would become obstructionists in that situation...

I updated my post with new information from the updated article, and in the context of that I think you're pretty much right. It sounds like the judge basically said "you need permission to arrest someone in the middle of my hearing, go get it" and then didn't change anything about the process of their hearing while that permission was being obtained.

This was definitely not them being helpful, but I'm incredibly doubtful that they could be successfully prosecuted for this.

> the law is simply being applied evenly, and judges are not above the law.

We obviously don't know the details yet, but this case does sound like it's on the more frivolous end of such charges. If they actually wanted to prosecute on it, they'd need to convince another judge/jury that this judge didn't just make a mistake about where the targeted person was supposed to be right then. This kind of prosecution normally involves comparatively more concrete things -- say, someone claiming to have no idea about a transaction and then the feds pulling out their signature on a receipt.

Of course, this could be a case where the judge knew the person was in a waiting room because they'd just talked to them there on camera, and then deliberately told the ICE agents they were on the other side of the courthouse while they were recording everything.

> He accused Dugan of “intentionally misdirecting” federal agents who arrived at the courthouse to detain an immigrant who was set to appear before her in an unrelated proceeding.

It sounds like the arrest isn't because of any official act of the judge, but rather over them either not telling the ICE agents where the person was or giving them the wrong information about their location.

There are some pretty broad laws about "you can't lie to the feds", but I think the unusual thing here is that they're using them against a reasonably politically-connected person who's not their main target. (They're normally akin to the "we got Al Capone for tax evasion" situation -- someone they were going after, where they couldn't prove the main crime, but they could prove that they lied about other details.)

EDIT: since I wrote that 15 minutes ago, the article has been updated with more details about what the judge did:

> ICE agents arrived in the judge’s courtroom last Friday during a pre-trial hearing for Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican national who is facing misdemeanor battery charges in Wisconsin.

> Dugan asked the agents to leave and speak to the circuit court’s chief judge, the Journal Sentinel reported. By the time they returned, Flores Ruiz had left.

I.e. the ICE agents showed up in the middle of a court proceeding, and the judge said they'd need to get permission from the chief judge before they could interrupt proceedings. The judge then didn't stop the defendant from leaving once the proceeding was done.

EDIT 2: the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article says:

> Sources say Dugan didn't hide the defendant and his attorney in a jury deliberation room, as other media have said. Rather, sources said, when ICE officials left to talk with the chief judge on the same floor, Dugan took the pair to a side door in the courtroom, directed them down a private hallway and into the public area on the 6th floor.

Which is an escalation above the former "didn't stop them", admittedly, but I'm not sure how it gets to "misdirection".

There's a reason I put "if" before that.