Parts of the EU say that, then at other times other parts act inconsistently with it. I was just at a meeting of an EU body where it was emphasized that, when considering the language of European patents written in English, courts would deliberately interpret the text as having been written by a native English speaker, even when it was clear that the author was a native speaker of a different EU language, for example, in cases where the author was clearly following a grammatical convention of their native language (eg, in comma placement) that might be awkward or ambiguous in English.
While that might make sense from a legal standpoint, it seems like it makes it risky to hire patent lawyers in Europe who are not native English speakers, which in turn, along with many other similar inconsistencies, does in practice create an EU-preferred language.
The headline and summary here feel quite different from the actual article. In my experience, HOAs, whether good or bad, are typically, as the name might suggest, associations of homeowners, with petty drama between them that escalates through the availability of power structures.
Every story here, however, seems to be between tenants on one side and the developer-landlord and their contractors on the other.
That is true in the EU in a number of circumstances. You can do a data access request for CCTV footage of yourself; I’ve successfully done this before, and some organizations give out CCTV footage this way often enough they have websites about their procedures. For organizations I know of, they blur other people in the footage.
For that matter, every device with a Lightning connector except for a limited set of iPad Pro models in a limited set of situations, was USB 2.0, and even those unusual situations were 5 Gb/s USB 3.2 Gen 1. Power seems to have topped out around 18 W. The specs are not comparable with modern USB C, and it isn't clear that the connector itself would have been adaptable to comparable specs without significant changes.
In my experience, amateur radio (both licensed and license-free) and 3d printing both seem to have cultural perspectives on open source that differ considerably from the regular open source software community.
But while in 3d printing, outside of hardware, that difference often feels confused (eg, I've seen the Multiboard creator post compliments online about models that blatantly violate his own license), in radio the difference often feels hostile. You have OpenGD77, for example, with its 'we were never GPL' rug-pull that was likely illegal (they had outside contributions) [1]. You have Meshcore with its 'we are open source, except...', and, as you can see in this thread, a difficulty actually finding parts of the code. You have the heavy cultural push against uSDX (seemingly open hardware+source) toward truSDX (DRM-encumbered), and what seems like the quiet acceptance of things like QMX, where you can solder together a radio with DRM that prevents you from installing your own firmware. You even have digital modes that are legally required to be publicly documented, and actually aren't in any meaningful way: VARA FM is probably the worst offender [2], but even modes that are in-crowd enough to be advertised in FCC license exam questions are often effectively proprietary and legally dubious.
What's particularly foreign to me about the culture is that oftentimes, much of the community seems to support behavior that seems malicious from an open source perspective, and attack the open source proponents.
Q4_K_S Qwen3.5 30B-A3B runs at around 29 t/s for me on the 370 version with 64 GB of RAM, running llama.cpp without any tweaking. I haven't tried Qwen3.6 yet, but could download it tomorrow; since I have a 128GB FW Desktop at home, I tend to use that remotely rather than my laptop directly, which preserves my battery.
>It's so cool that every individual upgrade they did here can be hot-swapped back to the older designs. That's a huge extra lift that they didn't have to do.
Unfortunately, as is usual for them (edit: and it makes sense; I'm not blaming them), the parts and upgrade kits aren't available for ordering (edit: or pre-ordering) yet, and likely won't be for some time, until the actual laptops are shipping. But yes, this is amazing, and the new pieces are not things I was expecting from them. As soon as it's available, I'll be taking my relatively recent AMD mainboard and putting it in a new chassis+battery+keyboard+speakers+touchpad, possibly skipping the display (I don't care much about a touchscreen, but I do care about display quality, so I'll wait for comparisons to the current 2.8k display). My laptop will, at that point, be almost entirely in a Ship of Theseus situation: I think that only the bezel and some of the expansion cards will be from the original, first-generation laptop I bought from them. That mainboard runs a number of services for me, along with an older display. A second, newer one is waiting for RAM to be a reasonable price (since the RAM it was using is now on my current mainboard); I had planned to use it for some of my research, but maybe I'll end up putting it into this older chassis and have a spare laptop again.
That all this is possible is wonderful, and a credit to them in staying true to their stated ideals.
> Unfortunately, as is usual for them, the parts and upgrade kits aren't available for ordering yet, and likely won't be for some time, until the actual laptops are shipping.
Why would you expect otherwise? I fully expect any OEM to place itself at the front of the queue for parts coming from its suppliers. If for some reason they sold parts before the laptops started shipping, I'd fully expect impatient customers would build complete machines from parts ahead of the shipping dates, which would wreak all kinds of havoc on logistics.
Yes, I really should have clarified: it makes sense, and I'm not blaming them. It's more just that, given their business model, and that they do intend to sell upgrade kits, I imagine that along with the people pre-ordering full laptops, there are quite a few of us who would be eager to pre-order upgrade kits or the parts to upgrade our current laptops.
Yes, black upgrade kit please. I have it linked and will be checking daily. For me with a 12th gen Intel, it will be worth it to have a new screen, battery, chassis and haptic touchpad. Hardware is just too expensive to upgrade, but the chassis would provide nice quality of life improvements.
Unfortunately, as is usual for them, the parts and upgrade kits aren't available for ordering yet, and likely won't be for some time, until the actual laptops are shipping.
It's unfortunate that they can't sell you something that hasn't been manufactured? That doesn't yet exist?
HN is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to complain about.
I had meant they aren't available even for pre-ordering, and likely won't be until the laptops are either regularly shipping rather than shipping in numbered batches, or are on a high-numbered batch. This could be months after the actual laptops start shipping. This is a process I've been through a few times at this point. It also wasn't really meant as a substantial complaint about Framework, and more just a mention of an understandable annoyance: it makes sense that they'd prioritize getting full laptops shipped.
On the other hand, nrp, since you're likely to be in this thread: if you had pre-orders and/or batched shipments of parts/upgrade kits, I would likely be paying a deposit or even the full price today, rather than ordering in a few months. Even if that meant ordering a full upgrade kit with a new display, but getting the upgrade sooner, I'd probably still go for it.
But they are available for pre-order though? At least here in NZ. I just ordered the AMD version, but the Intel one is available too (except the Ultra X9 which is already sold out).
The opposite upgrade kit: people with a mainboard they'd like to keep, but who want all the other upgrades. The kit is listed, but isn't available yet.
>Things have changed since, but in my time, if a journal required source code for publication, most of the professors in my department would not have published there.
Even when they do require it, one of the problems for journals that require source code for publication is that there is little support for making sure that code actually works reliably. Reviewers often aren't obligated to look at code packages, and when they are, might not be expected to actually get anything running; they might not even have the resources to do so. I have done reviews where I have tried to get code to run, and oftentimes I feel like the code needs work not because of any malice, but simply because making a one-time code package that works, and continues to work, for others, over time, without updates, can be quite hard, especially when odd dependencies are involved. It's also not necessarily something related to normal reviewing of scientific content, but more things like insufficient dependency pinning, accidentally hard-coded paths, environment assumptions that worked for the authors but not the reviewers, etc.
Dealing with that process might actually be something that a journal could do as part of a publication fee, the way that some journals currently do visual editing of figures.
The sub-review process, when it works well, is arguably a reasonable one. To give the example of how this works from the perspective of the program committee of a conference I'm involved in:
The PC chairs assign papers to members of the PC. Those reviewers are ultimately responsible for the review quality and, a more frequent problem for the conference, ensuring the reviews are in on time. In principle, they can ask anyone to sub-review, but in practice, it usually goes to grad students, postdocs, or graduate alumni (and since we have a relatively light review load per member, we have many people who do all reviews themselves). The reviewers arguably know more about the expertise of their grad students and postdocs than the chairs doing the assignments do. Also unlike a journal, where editors might ask anyone with particular expertise, we both only assign reviews to PC members, and do assign them: PC members only get to state their preferences on what they would like to review. The sub-review process ideally lets reviewers ask people to do reviews who they know would be suited to a particular paper, but who might not be experienced enough to reasonably be on the PC itself with those responsibilities, and the chairs might not know much about. It then lets those reviewers look over the sub-reviewer's work directly, which might include mentoring them. While we do anonymous reviews, identities are visible to chairs, and one thing I've noticed when a chair, for example, is that grad student sub-reviewers often do excellent, thorough reviews, but also often lack the confidence to be sufficiently critical when writing about problems and weaknesses they identify, something that the reviewer can help with.
The review system (we use easychair) directly handles sub-reviewers, and our proceedings list all sub-reviewers (at least, those who actually submitted reviews). Good sub-reviewers can sometimes be reasonable candidates to ask to be on the PC the next year, and give a gentler, safer onramp: we're able to have a wider mix of junior and senior members when there are new postdocs (and I think in one case a grad student) who we already know do reliably good reviews and know our review process.
While that might make sense from a legal standpoint, it seems like it makes it risky to hire patent lawyers in Europe who are not native English speakers, which in turn, along with many other similar inconsistencies, does in practice create an EU-preferred language.
reply