chucky

As I understand it, Yuzu was backed by an actual company that they setup to process their "donations", and by getting donations you could get privileged access to new builds.

So for Yuzu there was an legal entity making money off (Nintendo argued) selling access to playing pirated games.

Dolphin doesn't accept donations, so there's no good way of arguing anyone is making any money off it. Sure, Nintendo could go after individual contributors to Dolphin (if they can find out exactly who they are - presumably many of them are aware of the risks and try to stay anonymous) but it would be costly and it's unlikely to yield any positive results.

I think it's more likely the original BeOS source code contains proprietary code licensed from third-parties, which means someone would have to spend significant effort on figuring out what can and cannot be released.

This looks great! As an engineer who has used Mixpanel at multiple companies it has always annoyed me that what you get for what you pay seems quite poor, so I'm very happy to see some alternatives.

I'm also happy to note that you are from (the wrong part of ;)) Sweden.

I have an XPS 13 (the current Intel version, not the ARM version obviously) and they definitely have not. In fact, I've had the touchbar replaced 3 times and the whole computer replaced once because when the touchbar gets too hot, it starts "phantom pressing" the keys on it.

The replacement machine still has the issue, but it has a newer generation CPU which generally runs a bit less hot, so it's not as big an issue as it was on the previous machine.

Yeah, but it's the "mostly" and "I think" that will cause lawyers to start sweating and force someone to do a bigger and more expensive investigation.

It might not be a problem for DOS 4, but often the source code of software that was only ever meant to be published as closed source contains source code that was licensed from 3rd parties. This license may not allow publishing the source code.

Doing an investigation of what licensed software was used and possibly trying to get permission from the relevant rights holders (if you can even figure out who owns the rights so many years later) can be a big and expensive task, unfortunately. I understand why companies might not want to take that on (even though it sucks).

What is that even supposed to mean?

The EU is applying similar scrutiny to other social networks as well.

Your comment reeks of whataboutism. If we need to apply the same scrutiny to everything at the same time we wouldn't be able to do anything at all.

AFAIK there's no "certifying body" that would be able to provide an external "certification".

In any case Filip Skokan has essentially made a career out of building open source OAuth stuff, so even if it's a bit humorous that he certifies his own stuff, it's likely that this implementation is one of the most compliant out there.

I'm not sure if you are joking or not, but in case you aren't, your iPhone won't let you directly address subpixels, so no.

There's a whole subcategory of beautiful bugs caused by recursive algorithms going way farther than their authors intended - it probably doesn't apply here.

> This is a topic that is useful for many more situations than just the military.

Fair enough, but that's not who funded your research (according to your own disclosure, the military paid for it).

If this topic is so useful for "more situations" , why didn't those "many more situations" fund it? Will you be conducting research into how this topic will have non-military usages, or is that just something you tell yourself to sleep better at night while the military pays for more research that "is useful for many more situations than just the military"?

That sounds like a clear GDPR violation, but I guess you are not in the EU?