I'm curious why I would want to dual boot Windows when there's a perfectly good hypervisor and paravirtualization built into macOS?
Arm-based windows support via Parallels does work, but AFAICT there's no official way to buy a Windows license due to a Microsoft/Qualcomm partnership.
"slop" and "vibe coding" are derogatory terms about the level of effort - e.g. little to no human review of quality or accuracy, or accountability/concern related to the output.
That really depends. A zero knowledge system would show to the verifier that the person is authorized for access _right now_, but thats just the answer to a particular challenge. Outside of the verifier who knows they came up with a random challenge without bias or influence, the response would mean nothing.
I think a lot of age verification systems are the solution to the real core of legislation - to make companies liable for underage viewing of content. To put such legislation in place without providing a feasible way to accomplish age verification would be argued as discriminatory.
In that sense, a zero knowledge system which doesn't give a company non-repudiation so that they can defend themselves in court may very well be insufficient. And that will require tracking identity long-term, although it could be done with a third-party auditor under break-the-glass situations with proper transparency.
My estimate is that your lower count of people who could still be using Time Capsule is off by a factor of 20, but we'll continue with the idea that Apple could justify hiring a single engineer to be assigned full-time on the TimeCapsule, starting today.
This hypothetical employee would:
- update the TimeCapsule firmware from using AFP to using a brand new SMBv3 implementation, including both porting and making it "fit" within the constraints of 2013 hardware.
- be designing and implementing a migration system for both the TimeCapsule and the Mac to move to using the new implementation
- be responsible for all security analysis, QA, and documentation for the firmware and migration system
They also need to get it done by the first macOS version that has AFP removed, which will land in developer preview in six weeks and need to be feature complete in about 17 weeks.
If Apple hires a new developer capable of doing that, I don't want them to relegate them to supporting 13 year old hardware. I want them improving things that the majority of users actually need.
And that is the core problem with this sort of argument. Even with infinite money or the infinite possibilities of open source contributions, the availability of talent is still _always_ finite.
> Linux, which is free software, isn't dropping features because nobody wants to support them, but because nobody's using them.
I disagree. They are dropping support because nobody is maintaining them. There may very well be people still using these features, but they haven't been motivated or aren't properly skilled to offer to maintain them going forward, and haven't motivated some other skilled person via payments.
Rather, the core difference is that Apple does not offer a way to have external people take over providing support.
Apple funds creation of new factories in return for exclusive use of the parts they produce. I believe they also prefer to negotiate pricing down to cost, then pay bonuses for meeting quantity/date goals.
Supposedly, the reason there weren't more iPod competitors back in the day was that Apple already had negotiated exclusive rights at pre-negotiated prices to buy a big chunk of the flash memory that otherwise would have been on the market.
> (I'm not only taking the person's word for it: the device is also IP certified as waterproof 30 mins at 1m depth)
Many expect phones these days to be the more stringent IP 68, this would correspond to a device with the lesser water resistance of IP X7.
That phone only needs to be restored to IP X5 to handle usage in rain.
So it is great they got it (somewhat? completely?) restored, but it was a device with less water resistance than many flagships phone today, tested with a lower level of water resistance than it was originally rated for.
Fwiw, I also use devices with no IP certification or claims whatsoever in mild rain. It's not because there's a drop on the plastic case that it'll seize up, so the 5th ingress protection level being minimum for rain... I mean, technically yes, practically... depends if you really mean exposure to proper rain for more than the distance between bus stop and door step, say
Edit: wait,
> this would correspond to a device with the lesser water resistance of IP X7.
If 7 is already considered lesser...
> That phone only needs to be restored to IP X5 to handle usage in rain.
I looked it up and level 3 is rain actually ("spraying water"). How is 7 not sufficient for anything but perhaps full-on diving sessions
Arm-based windows support via Parallels does work, but AFAICT there's no official way to buy a Windows license due to a Microsoft/Qualcomm partnership.
reply