- If you have a 3D printer you can print enclosures https://www.printables.com/model/139879-framework-laptop-exp...
- XPS are pretty mediocre build quality in my experience. Precisions are better.
- Dell build quality and longevity vary wildly.
My XPS 15 had a host of issues, all of which occurred commmonly but weren’t knowable at the time of purchase since it was early.
1. Battery swelling which wrecks the touchpad
2. Sleep issues so it would turn into a furnace in a backpack
3. Screen and keys randomly stops responding
4. Creaky body
5. Screen gets weird temporary burn in.
- Quite a few laptops support dual side charging fwiw. It’s definitely useful but not all that rare.
- The modules are just inset usb-c dongles.
Handy that you can have them fully encased but there’s nothing really limiting any other laptop on this front. You just use an external dongle and have the same flexibility.
Maybe some people really want the enclosed module so they have fewer things to carry, but that’s a pretty small advantage that I’m not sure many people will value.
I could get something like this ( https://satechi.net/products/undefined/products/pro-hub-slim ) for my MacBook Air and come out ahead on weight and size.
- That’s a bit of an uncharitable take.
Fleet was very stable to use , it just never successfully turned into a product which they address in their link as well why that happened
- It’ll go through. It’s not an acquisition, it’s an exclusive licensing deal. Same end result, but it lets them runaround the usual regulatory approvals for acquisitions.
- All the other IDEs they have are variants of IDEA.
Fleet is a completely different codebase.
So they’re correct, there’s only two families of IDEs.
- By whose definition of reasonable though?
Without knowledge of costs of delivery, api development and support, anything dealing in terms of subjective reasonable values is just speculation.
- This feels very much tinfoil.
There’s no incentive to the companies or the employees to draw out the discussion, especially over something so trivial. It’s much more preferable to try and speed through things to get things done in a time frame that can be adopted.
And regardless, if you don’t feel it’s worth your time, then why cast aspersions that it was something clandestine and intentionally hidden? You could have shown up and kept up with it, just like everyone else involved presumably did.
- Paying users to use your app is against the App Store rules, I’m pretty sure.
- But if you were the one who tuned out, then isn’t it uncharitable to describe it as their failing to make you aware of the vote? Isn’t it on you to stay in the loop?
Surely they can’t start just pinging everyone who might have cared at some point during the time to get involved.
- The key part is “free to play”
These would not be free to play. They would have an up front cost beyond what the free users would be paying otherwise.
- I’m sure they’ll oppose it but I’m not sure what footing they’d have if this doesn’t fall under googles collusion case, seeing as it’s for everyone in the same boat.
- Your statement here is incorrect, or rather out of date. The courts have reaffirmed that they may charge a fee for external payment processors.
> I believe the current situation with the App Store is that Apple has been barred by US courts from attempting to charge a fee similar to this;
- I would suggest reading the ruling and not the headline.
The ruling specifically states that Apple can charge a fee , just not the fee they had previously chosen of standard rates minus 3%.
It may very well be that googles pricing structure fits in the realm of what the courts deem as fair.
- This is only for apps distributed on the Google play store. It has no bearing on fdroid.
- I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Google are the file distributor for content from their store.
These rules aren’t for linking out from the store to a third party site, but rather for installing an app from the store and then linking out to a third party payment.
- I think you’ve misread the Apple ruling. The appeals court has said they may charge some amount, just not the higher amount that was originally set.
The costs provided here may very well fall into the acceptable boundaries for the courts.
That’s not to trivialize what a compiler does, but it’s effectively going from a complex form to its building blocks while maintaining semantics.
Changing high level languages introduces fundamentally different semantics. Both can decompose to the same general building blocks, but you can’t necessarily compose them the same way.
At the simplest example, a compiler backend (the part you’re describing) can’t reason about data access rules. That is the domain of the language’s compiler frontend and a fundamental difference between C++ and Rust that can’t just be directly derived.