vbezhenar

If custom ROMs will be more popular, it probably will push some vendors to unlock their devices. In the end, I don't think most of them really care.

Why not limit these restrictions to these specific locations? Surely there's already lots of location-specific and carrier-specific customizations like shutter sound in Japan, different radio frequencies and many more. It still sucks for those who live in these countries, but at least they know who to point their finger at.

The whole software world is shit now. The foundations were stable decades ago. Like Windows kernel, WinAPI, .NET, WPF, Linux kernel. But end user software is so terrible. Windows 11 with ads and unhelpful AI. macOS which is a bit less terrible, but still too bloated. Linux with its eternal changes between X, Wayland, Alsa, Pipewire, Pulseaudio, sysvinit, systemd, and endless choices. Both iOS and Android are terrible. iOS was perfect 10 years ago, it's absolute clownfest now. I would blame AI vibe coders, but it started before. I don't know who to blame. Why can't we just build solid minimal non-bloated OS that will last for decades without major rewrites. We've got so good foundations but so terrible end product.

When I do those exact keypresses I also get "-4".

I don't understand every single layer of the stack below me, but I consider it a weakness, not a strength.

You don't need "OS" to play some music, drive display and talk via USB/BLE. It's trivial task and could be done with a few event loops. A lot of firmwares is being written without OS. May be FreeRTOS/Zephyr to somewhat simplify the programming, but that's definitely not "OS" in a commonly accepted sense. You don't need team of engineers, one hobbyist could easily do that. I wrote firmware for a device of similar complexity (work with ADC, implements USB, BLE, some UI with buttons and leds) and I'm not even a professional.

In recent years I had to write some firmware code with C and that was exactly the approach I took. So far I never had need for any dynamic memory and I was surprised how far I can get without it.

This whole API vs plan looks weird to me. Why not force everyone to use API? You pay for what you use, it's very simple. API should be the most honest way to monetize, right?

This fixed subscription plan with some hardly specified quotas looks like they want to extract extra money from these users who pay $200 and don't use that value, at the same time preventing other users from going over $200. Like I understand that it might work at scale, but just feels a bit not fair to everyone?

For me vscode is super-lightweight and at the same time has enough functionality. I didn't use Eclipse for many years, but from my memory it was super-heavyweight. And it didn't really support anything except Java.

Interestingly Java is the only language that I've found vscode support poor, so I keep buying Idea license exclusively for Java projects. For rest of languages that I use (JS/TS, Go, Python, Shell, YAML, XML) I'm using vscode and happy about it.

In recent years vscode starting to get bloated, mostly with AI stuff. But so far I can disable everything AI with a single setting and it works good afterwards. I'd prefer for all AI features to be contained in a separate plugin that I can just not install, but I guess managers these days want to shove AI in everyone's throat.

Another good thing about vscode is that its written with JavaScript and can be launched in browser, so in the future I want to put my development environment in the browser, but so far I didn't do that.

Spaces around dash. Human detected.

If IPv6 is behind firewall, apps can't use it for P2P connections, so the major point of IPv6 network becomes moot.

And IPv4 NAT is actually possible to penetrate sometimes. So for some networks, IPv4 provides better P2P connectivity, than IPv6.

Does it really matter if NT kernel is good or not? I don't think so. What matters if it's cheaper to use Linux kernel instead of Windows kernel in terms of expenses.

Just an example. Microsoft developed several browser engines: first Trident, then EdgeHTML. Edge wasn't bad, it was on par with Chrome, may be slightly behind, but nothing that couldn't be fixed with time. But Microsoft decided to abandon it and use Blink, because that was cheaper.

I absolutely could see the same scenario in the future, when they would need to cut expenses. Just get Linux, wine, fix enough bugs to make explorer.exe and OneDrive.exe to run smoothly enough and ship it.

I neglected soft skills and I survived so far. I'm bad at soft skills and I probably have some sort of mental disorder like autism or something. I don't really care, I don't enjoy interacting with people and I prefer interacting with machines as much as possible. I've found a place that pays me for my technical skills and does not bother me with human interactions, I think there are more places like that in the world.

Kubernetes enabled qualities small companies didn't dream before.

I can implement zero downtime upgrades easily with Kubernetes. No more late-day upgrades and late-night debug sessions because something went wrong, I can commit any time of the day and I can be sure that upgrade will work.

My infrastructure is self-healing. No more crashed app server.

Some engineering tasks are standardized and outsourced to the professional hoster by using managed serviced. I don't need to manage operating system updates and some component updates (including Kubernetes).

My infrastructure can be easily scaled horizontally. Both up and down.

I can commit changes to git to apply them or I can easily revert them. I know the whole history perfectly well.

I would need to reinvent half of Kubernetes before, to enable all of that. I guess big companies just did that. I never had resources for that. So my deployments were not good. They didn't scale, they crashed, they required frequent manual interventions, downtimes were frequent. Kubernetes and other modern approaches allowed small companies to enjoy things they couldn't do before. At the expense of slightly higher devops learning curve.

I'm not sure it is about security. For security, CRLs and OCSP were a thing from the beginning. Short-lived certificates allow to cancel CRLs or at least reduce their size, so CA can save some expenses (I guess it's quite a bit of traffic for every client to download CRLs for entire letsencrypt).

Operating systems should prevent privilege escalations, antiviruses should detect viruses, police should catch criminals, claude should detect prompt injections, ponies should vomit rainbows.

> I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’d need more than that to be convinced. Sorry.

So basically my point is:

1. You can avoid closing some tags, letting browser to close tags for you. It won't do any harm.

2. You can choose to explicitly close all tags. It won't do anything for valid HTML, but it'll introduce subtle and hard to find DOM bugs by adding empty elements.

So you're trying to improve HTML source readability by risking to introduce subtle bugs.

If you want to do that, I'd recommend to implement HTML validation for build or test pipeline at least.

Another alternative is to use HTML comments to close tags, as this closing tag is supposed to be documentation-only and won't be used by browser in a proper code.

> why would you ever want to not close tags?

Because browsers close some tags automatically. And if your closing tag is wrong, it'll generate empty element instead of being ignored. Without even emitting warning in developer console. So by closing tags you're risking introducing very subtle DOM bugs.

If you want to close tags, make sure that your building or testing pipeline ensures strict validation of produced HTML.

Putting an explicit end tag is more error-prone. It won't do anything for valid HTML but it'll add empty tag for invalid HTML. If you want to improve human readability, put end tag enclosed in HTML comment. At least it won't add empty elements.

> Why?

I don't know why. Try it out. That's the way browsers are coded.

> It isn’t an opinion, it literally is invalid HTML.

It matters not. You're writing HTML for browser to consume, not for validator to accept. And most of webpages are invalid HTML. This very HN page contains 412 errors and warnings according to W3C validator, so the whole point of HTML validness is moot.

My point is that by closing optional tags you can introduce subtle bugs into your layout that might take some time to find and browser won't be of any help. You write closing tag, browser will implicitly add starting tag. It's better to memorise which tags are optional and do not close them at all.

Browser will parse that as three HTMLParagraphElements. You may think that's invalid HTML, but browser will parse it and won't indicate any kind of error.

Closing optional HTML tags just adds more ambiguity. How many HTMLParagraphElements here, what do you think?

    <p>
      text1
      <p>
        text2
      </p>
    </p>

I've spent few days and got some basic zsh settings adjust for me. Since then I'm mostly using zsh with very little configuration and I like it a lot. Yes, it's a steep curve, but I'm spending all my life in zsh, so I think that was good time investment for me. In my experience default zsh settings are good enough and require very little customization.

You can compile any language to JavaScript. jslinux compiled x86 machine code to JavaScript.

So basically wasm is some optimisation. That's fine but it's not something groundbreaking.

And if we remove web from the platform list, there were many portables bytecodes. P-code from Pascal era, JVM bytecode from modern era and plenty of others.

You can use javascript as a single cross platform compile target. What's the difference?

You can't estimate a country with a single number. It makes no sense and actually hurts when someone decides to optimise for that number.

I can play World of Warcraft indefinitely.

You don't need BEAM languages. I'm using Java and I always write my code in "let it crash" style, to spend time on happy paths and avoid spending time on error handling. I think that's the only sane way to write code and it hurts me to see all the useless error handling code people write.

I'm using AI tools to find issues in my code. 9/10 of their suggestions are utter nonsense and fixing them would make my code worse. That said, there are real issues they're finding, so it's worth it.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they will find issues infinitely, if looped with fixes.