traspler

I tried keeping my comment very focused on one point that jumped out to me in the article instead of commenting on the whole situation. Their process, delays and circumvention of the intent of the law are indeed very problematic. They have been fighting the same fight with the same techniques on all fronts where they have to open their platform up. Disappointing but something that can be fought by governments and organisations at least. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the style of this article but at least to me the way how it presents it's critique, arguments as well as details of rejections feels a bit deceptive and overly broad while the reality is a bit more nuanced, even if the core of the critique is valid.

I think it is a valid article but it tries very hard to ignore that it seems like at least 12 (21%) of the requests are currently in development at Apple. If all of them are medium/complex requests then they are all still within the advertised timeline. So yes, technically nothing was released yet but I read at least an implied suggestion that nothing will be, which does not look like a conclusion that can be drawn at the moment.

While it‘s pretty great to have such a unified interface, there are many papercuts. To me it has become a bit of a meme that you always end up in this old-issue flow: I want to do X -> Try it -> Run into an issue -> Search for solution -> Find an official bugreport that is 3-8y old. Also many features seem to be stuck in either the 80/20 hell or it the „we needed a bulletpoint on a feature list and built a barely working MVP“-situation. The slow interface, as mentioned in other comments, is so incredibly painful on MR-views that it drives me crazy some days.

What's the "Non-invasive" metric? How is it less invasive than TSyringe or just as non-invasive as Awilix?

Even though I am for the eID I do share your worry but I don‘t think it‘s hopeless. Both politically and socially there are avenues to combat such over-identification. Still, most uses will probably more private than sharing copies of your ID so I am not sure what the gain for companies will be as it might just limit the customer base without much data gained. That does not seem in the interest of those companies. It‘s easier for the government to enforce certain checks, which is also not ideal but still there are avenues to fight this if it happens.

„Hey I have this nice picture in my living room. If you want to see it just come by.“ - People actually do. - „How dare they!“

Afaik they respect robots.txt on crawl and later when using the data they re-check the robots.txt and will exclude the data if the new robots.txt was updated to deny access. They have further data filtering bit for that you better check the technical report.

I just got the iPhone 14 Pro version of it two days ago.

I like the texture very much and all-in-all it seems like a great case. The textured buttons and the wide island are very nice touches :)

The way I hold the phone in my right hand does make the connector-corner dig into my palm, which is not very comfortable. I'll see how well I can adapt.

Also the top piece has veeery slight warping which makes some seams not as seamless but does not impact functionality. I know it's a hand-made product so that's fine to me, just a reality check on what to expect.

The clasp of the top piece also seems a bit flimsy and even with the adjustments mentioned in the video I worry if it will break at some point.

Maybe you are right. „blocked“ still is a strange term to use when normally people speak of „rejected“ so maybe they just told them they won‘t approve it. The latest news is that they were told to resubmit for EU only and that will get approved.

The title is a bit misleading, Apple did not reject the submission, just not approved it (yet). I know ignoring a submission is practically the same as blocking or rejecting it; but I think this case is already messy enough so that these things should be read with more nuance.

Also the situation is much more complicated. In the EU, Fortnite has been available for a while through their own Epic Games AppStore. This submission seems to have been for both, the EU distribution and the US AppStore. I am surprised that such a situation is even possible, I thought if you opt-in your app/account for EU alternative AppStores you are kind of blocked from the standard AppStore submission as the requirements for the alternative distribution path are different from the AppStore. At the same time it seems to give Epic more arguments for pressure on Apple as sabotaging the release in the EU might be against the DMA laws.

Why do all articles say "with 784 GB of unified memory" for the Station when on the official spec page it's not listed as unified but as "GPU Memory: Up to 288GB HBM3e | 8 TB/s" and "CPU Memory: Up to 496GB LPDDR5X | Up to 396 GB/s"?

After re-reading and reading many other comments in various posts I think I have misunderstood it partly. So the workers part has been overhauled in Rust for Synapse Pro. Is this a complete re-implementation of Synapse so the big deployments with Synapse Pro will not run anything from the normal Synapse or is this only part of the whole stack and the Pro deployments will also run most of the normal Synapse?

"Look, big organisations: if you try to freeride on FOSS your projects will fail" - I always understood "freeriding on FOSS" to mean reselling/repackaging without contribution to the project. But using "freeride" in the context of a company using a freely available FOSS tool by themselves ("org decides to do the project in-house") sounds strange to me. If the license allows me to use it why blame and shame orgs and people for using it?

So there is the Synapse version that is required to get the big money contracts and the Synapse that is pretty inconsequential to the business except as a testing playground. - Makes it difficult to see how "Element is fully committed to community Synapse" can be true in the long run. Does this not spread the development effort & focus even thinner across these projects? And would reduced memory & cpu requirements not benefit all deployment sizes and not just nation-scale ones? It feels very much as a pivot towards a closed stack.