torstenvl

I am immensely skeptical that any sizable company would be willing to do that.

> shoe horn multiplatform UI into MFC

This is nonsensical. What are you even trying to say here? MFC isn't available on macOS or GTK.

> Just look at Unicode. It’s an unholy mess.

This seems utterly unrelated to the issue under discussion.

> Qt does what it does, even if the approach is not the same (arguably superior), there’s also Tk. There’s also libui and IUP.

None of those allow a single codebase to compile on Windows, Mac, and Linux, and get native UI elements on each.

Flatly incorrect on all possible counts.

Pro tip: if your substantive argument requires gaslighting people about the literal definitions of words, maybe you should take a step back.

> Lockout is a real risk, but there is nothing insecure about passkeys.

secure - adjective

se· cure si-ˈkyu̇r -ˈkyər

securer; securest

1

a: free from danger

b: affording safety (a secure hideaway)

c: TRUSTWORTHY, DEPENDABLE (a secure foundation)

d: free from risk of loss

Passkeys as a sole/required method of authentication increase the risk of permanent loss. In any other configuration they do not mitigate phishing risk.

It is not possible to say there is nothing insecure about them.

> To an individual, the greatest risks are instead permanent account lockout, automated account bans, and device loss. By using passkeys, you gain better security against man-in-the-middle attacks but face the higher probability scenario of losing access to your accounts.

I'm glad to see this view becoming more mainstream. Passkeys are grotesquely insecure.

The only possible way to consider them more secure is if phishing attacks were more common and more damaging than lockout, which is so implausible that I reject the idea that someone could take that position in good faith.

Yes. Agreed. Did you intend to respond to someone else?

Those comments may be fair. Defamation is not.

It appears you're calling something a scam because an early alpha version was early alpha quality. If so, that would be unprofessional and inflammatory.

I'm open to being wrong. So again, can you explain what you mean?

Can you explain what you mean by this? They haven't had a first release yet. They're still in beta.

It was never true.

> the vast majority of buyers are willingly choosing large phones

This is patently false. It is widely known to be patently false. I cannot understand why you would confidently assert something commonly known to be patently false.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apples-iphone-16-still-lead...

Every single generation, without fail, larger phones are outsold by smaller phones of comparable performance and features.

Literally all available evidence directly contradicts you. There is not a single iPhone generation in which larger iPhones outsold smaller iPhones of comparable capabilities.

As was clearly, painstaking explained to you already, using easy-to-understand language, the 4.7" iPhones outsold the 5.5" iPhones. And today 6.1" iPhones outsell the 6.7" iPhones. Every single time, without fail, smaller iPhones have outsold and continue to outsell larger iPhones of similar capability. This is an objective and indisputable fact.

If you're not going to engage in good faith then don't engage. My post is right there for anyone to read.

Flatly incorrect.

In 2020, the iPhone SE sold over 24 million units.

In 2022, sales of iPhone mini 13, iPhone mini 12, and iPhone SE made up 12% of total iPhone sales.

Thats despite intentionally nerfing every one of those models.

If you look at comparable phones, the iPhone 7 and 8 (4.7") outsold the iPhone 7 Plus and 8 Plus (5.5") by significant margins.

Nobody wants large phones.

In what way is the fundamental idea of wxWidgets not sound? It works very well, and is pretty much the only toolkit to do what it does.

What? How exactly would you make that work in practice?

Are you going to release the source on day one?

Because good luck trying to convince the board to pay for source escrow.

And if you don't do any of those things then you will, in fact, need a separate release of source code.

> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

In what ways does an exclusive right promote the progress of science and the useful arts other than by incentivizing that creative work?

In what way can that incentive work other than by compensating for the cost of production?

I typed 'Xlookup' in the search box and hit return. Nothing happened.

Prior to that date, presumably it would be under some proprietary license, right?

That means two things:

(1) It'll be difficult to manage community changes and proprietary changes (they might even be mutually exclusive or get on different trajectories). Ultimately this model probably means little to no open contribution, little to no community.

(2) There is nothing actually forcing the open source release.

If this is something one is interested in doing, it should be woven into the AOO/AOI/OA/bylaws with an enforcement mechanism. E.g., explicitly acknowledge that the corporation is directed to treat the trust of the open source community as among the highest goods, open source has to happen at a certain interval (you might choose 14 years, modeled after the original copyright term).

You might even create structures to enforce this, e.g., SPI has a board seat with no power except to force a vote on not releasing changes on schedule, and that such a decision requires a 3/4 majority or something.

An absolute statement cannot be "mostly true."

The definition of political is irrelevant. The result is supertrue. "If even one example of software is not political, then 'all software is political' is false" is true under all admissible values of "political." This is simple logic.

All assertoric claims about the world are either true or false. If they are false they should be rejected. If they are true they should be spoken. Treating factual claims about the world as a partisan psychological litmus test is, in my judgment, morally repugnant. There are four lights.

You are quite simply wrong. It would appear willfully so.

To be fair, Objective C uses message passing, which doesn't have the same performance characteristics as C++ (worse initially dealing with the selector pool rather than a vtable offset; much better later when maintaining stability in your brittle C++ ABI requires pImpl->pImpl patterns jumping all around heap memory).

Incorrect. "all software is political" is a proposition; it can be true or false.

If any minimal counterexample exists, then "all software is political" must necessarily be false.

A minimal counterexample is a valid proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_counterexample

Please don't make personal attacks on other posters.

The government choosing not to engage in or endorse certain speech does not suppress others engaging in that speech.

What is your argument here?

This is a decent point but still falls flat for now. Their proposals are just that: proposals for government-funded speech.

That said, it's plausible it could have a chilling effect on their independent research, which is of concern.

That string of words is nonsensical. Literally nothing in the OP is talking about "your grant."

If you want to start your own grant, either personally or through a foundation you start, nothing in the OP pertains to you.

The OP is only about whether the government will endorse speech contained in your application for a government grant, which—again—is categorically different from what you said and fundamentally not censorship.

True. And a lot of examples from the previous administration, for example, where you weren't allowed to say "gay" or "equality" or "equal opportunity."