enragedcacti

Taking better advantage of a display is nice but imo the really exciting part of desktop mode is the planned integration with Google's Linux Terminal app (i.e. 1st party linux VM support). I have a Samsung DeX device and while you can get a basic dev environment working easily it can be really cumbersome to make it comfortable to use and integrate with your normal tablet workflow. Being able to install full-fat linux apps and run them in a window would be a complete game changer.

source for planned integration: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/392521081?utm_source=...

The principle is the same, the distinction has more to do with suspension (or lack thereof) and the solid rear axle. The same strategy of lifting the inside rear tire is used in competitive go-kart racing: https://youtu.be/cMAtgPX6st8?t=312 . If the carts had a differential then it would be a different story (and they would be cars and not karts according to the SuperFastMatt taxonomy)

Any marginal safety benefit you're getting from riding a scooter is being completely erased by the disregard for basic road safety principles shown in the footage.

There's a great FortNine video showing the pros and cons. The very short of it is that the perfect rider can stop faster without ABS but ABS + good technique can achieve very similar results while drastically reducing the consequences of panic braking.

This isn't mentioned in the video, but ABS also enables more aggressive use of linked brake systems, which also improve worst-case safety when a rider panics and uses only one brake or the wrong brake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDbWZiaUeDY

You could probably design the latch jaws to have an electronically controlled second catch. It would activate whenever a cyclist is present so if someone tries to slam the door open it would catch with the door slightly open and trigger a warning. A second pull then opens the door no matter what for safety.

In what sense, that we literally didn't know how to do e2e across messaging networks? The Signal protocol existed in 2016 when Schiller argued against cross-platform (also PGP for 30+ years). Even granting that, offering iMessage on Android would satisfy most people and doesn't require operating across networks so any argument about feasibility rings very hollow.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406303/imessage-android...

One way that they are different is that the xbox does let you sideload:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/...

> No revenue at all for providing stable apis and sdks? How’s that sustainable?

They should go down the hall and ask the MacOS developers how they do it.

Steam also reduces their cut down to 25/20% at $10m/$50m in sales, whereas Apple reduces it to 15% only for devs under $1m/yr. A small number of games/apps make the vast majority of revenue so Steam's average cut is likely considerably lower in practice.

> RCS update adds end-to-end encryption, Google and Apple confirm support

https://9to5google.com/2025/03/14/rcs-end-to-end-encryption-...

That's a good point, I was grouping IRV and PR-STV when proportional representation isn't a guaranteed component of a ranked-choice system (though many of the dem implemented RCV systems do use it for things like county board or city council seats). Australia's House does use IRV and is at 12% (or 15% if you subtract two vacancies from the major parties).

Also to note, there's nothing technically stopping the US House from moving to proportional representation along with ranked-choice and dems have proposed it recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Representation_Act_(Unite...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#Unite...

I'm not a huge IRV fan or anything but I don't find rangevoting.org to be all that convincing from a US perspective. Most of their references and stats are two decades old or non-existent (e.g. no reference for 80-95% of AUS voters use the NES strategy). Their primary real world evidence is from Australia and Ireland, where independents and third parties currently make up 17% and 47%(!!!) of their parliaments. In the US that number is 0.3% and effectively 0% given how closely Bernie Sanders and Angus King caucus with dems.

Range voting may well be much better, and there are certainly more mathematically sound versions of ranked-choice than IRV, but I think they utterly fail to convince that IRV is just as bad as plurality. They also seem to only take their game theory as far as necessary to reflect Range Voting in the best possible light. For instance, they argue that voters will almost always rank their less preferred of the front-runners last even if they have greater opposition to other candidates, but they don't explore that candidates can and do chase higher rankings among voters that won't rank them #1. It's an obvious and common strategy (candidates were already doing it in my counties first ever RCV election) so I can only assume the reason its not mentioned is that it improves the soundness of RCV in practice.

Democrats at state and local levels have implemented ranked choice voting in dozens of municipalities despite it being beneficial for intraparty challengers and 3rd party candidates. Republicans have preemptively banned it in 11 states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...

> Prices are always set by supply and demand.

Normally I'd make a joke about econ 101 but I'm pretty sure you'd lose points for answering with this in an econ 101 class

just use this very sane pattern /s:

    >>> match {'b': 45, 'c': None}|{'a': 234, 'xyz': 32456}:
    >>>     case {'a': a, 'b': b, 'c': c, **d}: pass
    >>> print(a, b, c, d)
    234 45 None {'xyz': 32456}

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that even today almost all US dishwashers have some mechanism to heat the water, just maybe not the giant exposed element in the bottom like older ones. Water out of the tap is going to be on the low end of usable dish-washing temps at the very beginning of a cycle, let alone 45+ minutes later.

The reason cold or luke-warm water is a problem is that the programs are extremely simple and just assume the input is 110-120f and won't stall the cycle for waiting for the target temp.

I think you're right that 1µm was meant given the orders of magnitude in other sources e.g. 200µm -> 0.3µm in this white paper:

https://www.cadence.com/en_US/home/resources/white-papers/th...

It's mind-numbingly obvious from context that the plan I was referring to was the rescue plan announced in August, not the starliner mission as a whole.

background execution is a pretty normal one for e.g. smartwatches. Being able to reliably have interactions with accessory devices in both directions is kind of important to a good experience. For instance, the Find My Phone feature on fitbit devices breaks if you close out of the fitbit app on your iPhone.

nfc is more niche and Apple Wallet already covers a lot of use cases so idk what the use case is there.

documentation for private symbols is because the EU is also introducing a process to request access to private APIs.

> The Commission considers that developers may benefit from having access to a high-level description of iOS and iPadOS components to enable a broad understanding of available features and functionalities, which can then be useful and sufficient for clearly identifying the relevant components within a developer’s interoperability request.

I read the "shall implement an interoperability solution that...in a way that is equally effective as the solution available to Apple." a bit differently. Apple must ensure interoperability, but they are allowed to implement a separate solution to Apple's internal one if they feel it is better to do so.

So far it seems like a lot of the requirements could be satisfied by Apple just opening their APIs given that an identical solution would in fact be equally effective. The EU could have mandated that the solutions be identical but that would be more restrictive to Apple despite the requirement seeming like it would be less work.

24% is for Europe which includes many countries that are not in the EU. That said, the 7% is EU App Store revenue so I don't think we know the actual revenue number for the EU. It stands to reason that its not crazy far off from 7% though assuming EU customers buy things in the app store at similar rates to elsewhere.

https://sixcolors.com/post/2024/02/this-is-tim-transcript-of...

> Headphone smart handoff (I don't even think this is possible with any standard technology, so I'm not sure what they're looking for here compliance wise)

Multipoint is part of the bluetooth standard already, Apple just has to provide a means for the headphones to determine which stream to play.

> Proximity pairing (I also don't know that this is possible with any standard technology...)

Fast Pair exists for Android and allows third parties to implement it. It's not a standard but it doesn't have to be, Apple just has to make the proprietary capability available for mfgs to implement if they want. The fact that Google+random OEMs can do it on android using off-the-shelf BT chips should show that its feasible for Apple as well.

That was only true until Crew-9 arrived in September, after that they could have at any point evacuated with the same configuration as the one they just came down in.

Sure, fine. I think "stuck" is more accurate as stranded imo has an implication of there not being a concrete plan in action but thinking about it more my primary issue isn't the word choice but the blatant lies about plan and timelines from trump and musk.

> "The @POTUS has asked @SpaceX to bring home the 2 astronauts stranded on the @Space_Station as soon as possible. We will do so. Terrible that the Biden administration left them there so long." -Musk

> "I have just asked Elon Musk and SpaceX to ‘go get’ the 2 brave astronauts who have been virtually abandoned in space by the Biden Administration" -Trump

To say these things and then continue with the exact plan that has already been in place since September is absurd regardless of the accuracy of the wording.

I don't see why the planned return craft has anything to do with being trapped somewhere. If my yacht runs aground on a deserted island and I choose not to leave on the perfectly functional dinghy to an island town 5 miles away, am I stranded?

They have had a completely normal emergency evacuation plan since 9/24/24, if they were ever "stranded" it was before that when they would have had to use the Crew-8 Dragon in an abnormal configuration.

Is any astronaut who stays longer than planned "stranded"? Did Elon strand Crew-9 when SpaceX missed their deadline on building the Crew-10 Dragon?

Or is it just if you can't go home whenever you want? Are Crew-10 stranded right now?!?! Elon please help!!!!!

The need for reporting on this stems from the massive blatant lies coming from the admin backed up by the media parroting the narrative. From NASA on Aug 7, 2024:

> Wilmore and Williams will continue their work formally as part of the Expedition 71/72 crew through February 2025. They will fly home aboard a Dragon spacecraft with two other crew members assigned to the agency’s SpaceX Crew-9 mission. Starliner is expected to depart from the space station and make a safe, controlled autonomous re-entry and landing in early September.

The only change in plan was that Crew 10 was pushed back by a month because of delays at SpaceX and a swap to an existing dragon rather than the new one as planned.

> There's actually a video of Butch, from the station, saying Musk's description was "entirely factual"

His entire career hinges on keeping musk and trump happy

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-decides-to-bring-star...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Crew-10

> They also don't make the Apple Watch compatible with Android, so they are also giving up their own access to a huge chunk of potential buyers (70% of worldwide smartphone users are on Android). So maybe we're missing something.

If smartwatches were an essential part of everyday life for the majority of people on the planet (or in <insert legal jurisdiction here>) as smartphones are then I would want regulation mandating interoperability there as well. As it is they are a relatively niche product so if Apple wants to limit the watch to their phones then I'm fine with that as I don't see it being a very powerful market distortion in the other direction.

> In your view, what would happen if only one smart phone manufacturer ever offered any watch integration API? Would that make all of the others (who don't offer an API) anti-competitive?

Only if those others have significant market penetration such that their closed API has the effect of harming consumer choice considerably in the smartwatch market.

> Companies are not obligated to deliver privileged access to their products. It's not a right you have to build a product off of someone else's product.

If you mean in principle, then IMO a sane legal system should absolutely confer some limited right to, for instance, build and sell software and hardware that runs on or interfaces with Windows. If you mean in practice, then it is absolutely a subject of debate in both the EU under DMA and the US under antitrust law:

> Connected devices are a varied, large and commercially important group of products, including smartwatches, headphones and virtual reality headsets. Companies offering these products depend on effective interoperability with smartphones and their operating systems, such as iOS. The Commission intends to specify how Apple will provide effective interoperability with functionalities such as notifications, device pairing and connectivity.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...

https://siliconangle.com/2024/03/20/doj-sues-apple-antitrust...

> your complaint is not in Apple's behavior, but your regret that the competition sucks and it's not Apple's fault

Apple uses their dominant position in the smartphone market to exert leverage over the smartwatch market and block other companies' access to a huge chunk of potential smartwatch buyers. Reduced addressable market->reduced potential returns->reduced investment->worse products for everyone.

This same pattern hurts Apple users as well because Apple can reduce their investment, increase prices, or both, without worrying about being beaten on quality or price.

> Most people choose to buy iPhones knowing that only certain watch options work.

This statement would be true if iPhone had 0.1% or 99.9% marketshare and is on its own irrelevant to whether or not it should be regulated. The whole point of regulating companies with dominant market positions is that they have tools to force customers into sub-optimal outcomes regardless of whether or not the customer recognizes it beforehand.

> If Apple did something anticompetitive to keep Android options from being good, then you probably have a winnable legal case. But it seems like Google, Samsung, and the other Android players are losing on their own merits.

This ignores the dozens of Smartwatch companies that don't have a smartphone business to integrate with. In your view, what should Garmin have done if the major Android players blocked 3rd party feature parity from the beginning along with Apple? Would Garmin need to make their own smartphone and OS to compete for watch sales, or would their product just not exist? Would that be good or bad for the industry?

Agreed with respect to size and the touchscreen which I do think is a great addition. I just think something that's more of a continuation of the Time series designs would be better fitting for a $200+ option. The Time 2 body which would have had the exact same screen would be fine by me.