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.
> 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.
That's been my experience as well and, in fact, it was totally a meme at my former client! See also my comment in another recent thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46296816
You can use it with code you can't modify (decorators are just convenience helpers, you can do same through bindings DSL with bit less type safety).
TSyringe depends on reflect-metadata and, if my understanding is correct, forces you to use its decorators.
The comparison table is completely subjective and made with just several glances at the readmes of the mentioned libraries. The point was to showcase phased DI for Typescript.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
"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?
I don't even want to learn k, I want to learn how to handle such C.
reply