dev_null @ dev_null @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

690

Joined

2 yr. ago

I didn't look into it much other than trying it out for 15 min. Good to know lol.

some new upstart closed Source program that is shiny just like how Discord took over from Slack

Guilded already exists. It's a Discord clone with more features, but no one uses it. I assume they are just waiting for Discord to fail one day.

Because when projects do it everyone runs away, forks are made, and everyone hates the developers because it's "not open source anymore".

I remember my school teachers telling us they don't have kids because they have enough of kids in their job, which makes perfect sense for me.

The certs are sold by certificate authority companies, and Microsoft doesn't get a share of that, though I'm not sure.

Yeah, software being signed says nothing about it not being malicious or insecure, but it does prove the author is what it says, and if it is malicious then the responsible party is clearly visible.

For non-commercial hobby/open-source software the certificate price is prohibitive, so the only 2 options are Microsoft Store or accepting that users will see the scary warnings, and of course complain to the developer about it.

You can pay a one time fee if $25 to get Microsoft to sign your app on the Microsoft store, or you can pay $400+ per year to buy your own certificate. So Microsoft Store is sadly the cheap way to release apps on Windows. (Without users getting scary warnings from Windows and AV about installing unsigned aoftware)

Can it run apps as a separate package?

My guess is that their claim is that it now can't.

By making it not install apps at all, even from them, it becomes the same as a toaster or microwave, for which nobody expects to be able to install third party apps because these are not devices that have a concept of "installing apps". Now they can claim these devices also don't have any concept of installing apps.

I'd assume they want to be able to update it and that's why it needs a store listing.

anyone remember the time when google removed(!) their internal "don't be evil" rule?

I remember when media falsely reported clickbait articles that they did and people bring that up to this day. They moved it from the introduction to the closing statement. Which you can argue makes it less prominent or whatever, but it was never removed.

Of course it makes no difference, it wasn't followed either way, and definitely isn't followed now. But no, it was never removed. You can see it yourself right here at the end: https://abc.xyz/investor/google-code-of-conduct/

Or... siblings?

But you could freely rotate in new accounts. Now you have to wait a year.

If you have a Steam family with 4 members each owning a copy of a game, and the 5th member that doesn't gets banned. Which of the 4 accounts gets banned?

Since the game copies are "pooled" in the family, you are not sharing from anyone in particular, you have all games in the family available. So who gets banned?

I don't think it does. It allows 3 members to play if there are 3 copies in the family, but each account can still only have 1 copy. You can't buy 3 copies for your account.

I assume the hard part here is the deployment of thousands of low orbit satellites at a rapid rate, not the imaging. The government surely already has the imaging tech, it's getting a swarm of satellites up there what's no other company has proven able to do.

Obviously new systems are unaffected, the question is how many industrial controllers checking oil pipeline flow levels or whatever were installed before the fix and never updated.

How does it "certainly meet it"? There is no consensus mechanism in git, new blocks are not replicated across the network, there is no network at all, git works offline. You can replicate changes with remotes but there is no "git network" in any similar sense. And conflicts are definitely not resolved automatically. And the git hashes are certainly not cryptographic.

That's 4 ways it doesn't meet the definition. You could maybe stretch the meaning of a network to make it 3.

I don't know much about US politics so no clue who's "they", who are the "leftists" here, and who's the "milquetoast candidate". So not sure if you are agreeing or not. Either way my point is that ranked choice voting makes voting for less popular candidates feasible, and US seems to be a good example where it could help, though certainly not the only example.

They probably could if it was ranked choice, but it isn't.