hn8726

It's hard to tell the difference because they nerfed Pro to oblivion, it used to be much, much better model (even for non-coding/chat)

EU doesn't impose a minimum manufacturer warranty period. What it imposes is a _seller_ guarantee, for which the manufacturer's limited warranty conditions don't really apply directly anyway. Many companies will offer a 2-year warranty because they know that's how long they need to support the buyer anyway, but I've often seen conditions like "2 year warranty for EU, 1yr in US". Anyway, iiuc pebble is not doing anything illegal as long as they don't refuse seller warranty for these 2 years

I'd be surprised if Reddit wasn't selling tools specifically aimed at seting up and managing operations like that

I think the idea is that _regular_ people will use CC client but via a 3rd party reseller, and the reseller intercepts the data for distilling (or anything). Requiring the users to use modified clients, or really do anything more than simply change the service URL, would add much more friction for people just looking to use CC for cheaper

It doesn't, I get that it's _a_ benchmark. It's just not a good or insightful one, and having it posted so often on HN feels like low quality spam at this point

Upvotes are cheap, the fact that something is upvoted doesn't mean it's valuable (see: Reddit). Another thing is how insightful is the discussion under a typical pelican comment are (and how much of it is related to the pelican and how often it's just where the general discussion happens).

Care to share an example of this backrestless chair? Is it like a regular chair just without the backrest, or has some other differences? Does it have armrests for example, and if not - does it bother you?

From my experience, these trucks make much more sense on a road in the US. European roads are fairly small so these trucks look _even bigger_, whereas in the US everything is massive so the cars fit. Still, having to look _up_ to see the windshield is crazy and I hope it won't be normalized in the EU

to fit two motorcycles in the back of the Ranger, you need to adjust the angle of the handlebars awkwardly to fit both on the bed.

can't you position one bike facing forward and one facing back, so the handlebars don't collide? Either way, going with an absurdly big and dangerous car to avoid _awkwardly positioning_ some cargo is pretty American thing to do

Thank you, that makes sense. But in that case it doesn't do much for the op's argument, which seems to be that Europe _prefers massive cars_. US still has much more of obscenely big cars, and Ford F having less % pickup market share shows that there's much bigger market for these cars, if anything

The Ford Ranger actually sells better in Europe than it does in the US. And the larger F series trucks sell more than an order of magnitude more.

Do you have any sources for this? I looked online and found a couple of charts, none of them support this claim. The Ford Ranger sales in Europe vs US are similar (who buys more varies by year) but the F series seems to be mostly bought in US

On Android most apps started bundling androidx/jetpack compat libraries that help deal with various API versions, and generally make the development much, _much_ easier. These days apps will also bundle the entire new Android UI framework (Compose) while in the past all the UI code was using framework classes.

Other than that, some popular and useful libraries will bundle native libs (for example for sql), and some ad/analytics/corporate SDKs will use native libs to share code between platforms and for obfuscation. These corporate SDKs (like Zendesk) will also notoriously break Android minification tools, because why bother

Google Play offers such functionality already, it's called App Bundles. Instead of uploading an entire APK, the developers can upload the app assets that get bundled into device-specific APKs containing only the resources necessary for the end device. So you'd only get native libs for your phone CPU architecture, translations for the device language and image assets matching the device resolution for example. In fact, I think it's mandatory now to use the app bundles format (but you're still free to configure it to some extent)

I now see the article is about iOS app, but it looks like the Android app is anywhere between 50mb and 100mb (depending on the apk download side I look at) which is much more reasonable

Yes but it would be nice to see the targets, so you know how far off from an optimal solution you are. I know I'd spend more time looking for better solves if I knew the current one can be improved

It's automatically granted but the app needs to declare it in order to access internet. Because of that it's not enough that the app _currently_ doesn't request internet permissions, because if it ever starts, it would be mostly transparent to a user

I'd love the same test but with various Mac versions, and with Intel and Arm machines

I assume HSBC are using the "antivirus" use case.

There's an exception for banking apps

Apps that have a verifiable core purpose facilitating financial-transactions involving financially regulated instruments (for example, dedicated banking, dedicated digital wallets) may obtain broad visibility into installed apps solely for security-based purposes.

It's still possible, you just need to declare which other apps you query for. Even then, there are loopholes that still let you query for all apps installed on the device.

But HSBC app declares "<uses-permission android:name="android.permission.QUERY_ALL_PACKAGES"/>" permission, which requires an explicit approval (https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...) but

Apps that have a verifiable core purpose facilitating financial-transactions involving financially regulated instruments (for example, dedicated banking, dedicated digital wallets) may obtain broad visibility into installed apps solely for security-based purposes.

Make sure smart-devices make extremely clear that they can be used to show ads, and include trivial instructions to disable ads

The other way around — make it clear that the devices are capable of showing ads, and provide instructions on how to opt-in to them (and no cookie-like prompts either)

And how often in practice are terms and conditions attempted to be enforced in the first place? No need to challenge them if you can ignore them

It looks like Anrhropic has great visibility into what hackers do. Why would it also see what legitimate users do?

I mean it does make sense though - robo taxis (of one company) are much more homogeneous than any two human drivers could ever be.

I installed this on Android, and unless iOS experience is massively different, this is not a good example:

- there's no touch feedback (ripple) on many of clickable components. Some that do have it look non-native, inconsistent and sometimes gets stuck

- the search bar on top app bar in `search` tab looks very non-native and non-standard (it's elevated on top of elevated app bar already)

- the lists look iOS-y, especially settings

- the settings list item has weird glitch where it loses background after touching (but not clicking)

- collapsing comments is pretty choppy (on a Samsung S25 so a pretty powerful phone)

- can't swipe down a bottom sheet (with post options/actions)

- it's just not android-y — the navigation is weird, the design is all over the place,

It's not unusable and it's a good tradeoff for a small team I guess. But this is nowhere near the experience a native app can provide, and has lots of small papercuts that would make for at least a slightly frustrating experience. It is a decent app don't get me wrong, but it's clearly not native

It stands to reason that Apple wouldn't have developed this feature [liquid glass css property] if they weren't using it. Where? We have no idea. But they must be using it somewhere. The fact that none of us have noticed exactly where suggests that we're interacting with webviews in our daily use of iOS without ever even realising it.

There's some jump from _a property exists_ to _it must be used_, but a massive one from _a property exists_ to _Apple uses it everywhere and we never notice it because they are done well_.

Maybe this https://blog.jim-nielsen.com/2022/inspecting-web-views-in-ma... and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30648424?

On mobile the webview app experience is crap and it's immediately obvious that an app is not native. Simply nobody asks customers how they like it. The management assumes that as long as nobody complains and the users don't leave in droves, the experience must be impeccable.

Otoh if, as a human, you use a known (even leaked on the website) password to "bypass the security" in order to "gain access to content you're not authorized to see", I think you'd get in trouble. I'd like if the same logic aplied to bots - implement basic (albeit weak) security and only allow access to humans. This way bots have to _hack you_ to read the content

I'm sorry but the article seems pretty biased, and doesn't really give any argument for why what happened would be in any way justified. Author keeps adding their own interpretation to Github comments and events, which — just by looking at the contents — are needlessly negative. For example [1] where commit message states

We've been continuing to backport bugfixs to the 1.7.x series just for Heroku, but unless Heroku joins Ruby Together I don't have enough time available to make sure that continues to happen.

but OP claims it

was interpreted as leveraging his control over Bundler as a pay-to-play scheme

I'm sorry but not supporting outdated versions of an open-source tool for a business is perfectly reasonable.

Similarly, [2] was again is described as "was interpreted at the time as indicating the feature would be withheld from Bundler because Heroku had failed to pay Ruby Together.". This is not at all how I read it — the comment just says that the open source project has priorities and not all of them can be implemented given the level of funding it has.

These are just two examples, but the article is riddled with wording like "blatant copying", "brazenly hypocritical", "was interpreted as [a bad thing]" etc.

I just feel like reading a clearly lopsided political piece intended to incite negative emotions towards something/someone. There are just enough facts to make it sound fact-based, but enough of author's own feelings and interpretation that I'm not at all convinced.

In fact, towards the end the author even states that there's been ~6 years where nothing of note happened, before the current drama. That seems like a relatively healthy situation?

[1] https://github.com/heroku/heroku-buildpack-ruby/pull/385/com... [2] https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1811#issuecommen...

Seems like the package has been removed from npm: https://www.npmjs.com/package/postmark-mcp. Which is too bad, because there's no way to verify the claims from the article

The "postmark-mcp" from the article seems like some random guy's package though, postmark has its own official mcp server as well: https://postmarkapp.com/lp/mcp. It's like installing ublock extension but published by a 'coder3012' account

But right now it belongs to the rich people who fund the work on Ruby and Rails. That’s DHH and Lutke (Shopify CEO).

Do you mean "right now" as in _now that they hijacked the Github repositories and locked out the previous owners_, or "right now" as in _for some time now, since they've been funding some Ruby work_?