Just my personal perspective, every Apple laptop I've ever owned has lasted 10+ years. Their phones may have some planned obsolescence, but I don't find that to be the case at all with their computers.
I use a 2012 Samsung ultrabook with Arch for light coding, web and limited image editing sometimes while traveling; while fairly beat up, recently I replaced the battery in it for 10 bucks in 20 minutes; it was also probably like a fifth of the price. And with Linux you don't have to worry about a specific kit lasting a long time - it just runs anyway.
Cool. I wasn’t trying to posture. I was just mentioning my own experience.
My experience, for the last 40 years, has been people automatically attacking me, for using Apple kit. I think that Linux folks had the same, for a while, but these days, it’s a lot more accepted.
People just blindly hate Apple, and drop all semblance of reason, when considering the platform (and people who program for it).
I don't think many people blindly hate Apple, but it's fair to point out your Catalina install is obsolete.
If I could install Linux on the Neo, I'd probably buy one. My daily-driver is also from 2012 (XPS L321X). It's not hobbled by the OS like your Air or the Neo, however, and happily runs the latest release from Debian.
In my experience their phones last far longer than Androids. Only in the last few years Samsung and Pixel have switched to at least 7 years (now it's the question of whether the hardware will suffice).
Until it broke, I was still using my 2018 iPad just last year.
My personal perspective: 2 out of 3 MacBook Pro, I worked with, had expanding batteries after about 5 years. Replacement was a big hassle and the new no-name batteries are nowhere near as good as the original ones.
I sure wish it was as easy as a battery replacement on a Framework laptop (with an original part).
I know the Neo has easier battery replacement (not glued in), but still it has an iFixit rating of 6/10 whereas the Framework 12 has a 10/10.
I think this is less true than it used to be? I ran my MBP2013 into the ground after 10+ years, but my circa 2018 imac retina is stuck on pre-Catalina, installing which requires opencore patcher anyway. Hardware is fine, but it's increasingly less useful as a daily driver on account of software.
You're absolutely right; the Apple Silicon transition really lowered the years of support of their later Intel machines. The same thing happened with the G5 machines, and the last Motorola 68000 Macintoshes in the early 90s.
I still use my 2015 macbook air (purchased in 2015) as a secondary computer. I installed linux on it last year as it was not getting software updates anymore.
Other than one of the USB ports being a bit flaky it works perfectly fine.
As someone who keeps apple laptops for 7 or so years but also has encountered numerous macbook pro meltdowns both applecare covered and not, 10+ is a crazy number and you'll probably need to provide some proof for that to be reasonable.
The M1 was sold right up until last year in new devices so it presumably has another decade of support left - that'll be a 15 year span! It certainly wouldn't make sense to declare M1 devices trash while supporting the Neo with almost directly equivalent performance.
The M5 is so much more powerful it may still be useful throughout the 2040s.
Anecdotally, my path was 2010 macbook pro -> 2015 macbook pro -> 2021 M1, with each device lasting about 10 years, and keeping 2 in flight at once. The 2015 one is showing it's age, and is likely to be replaced this year or next. Running linux on it isn't an option due to all the nonsense involved in suspend/sleep and the effect it has on battery life.
I also have a 2007 Intel mac with firewire that I use for some audio stuff that's still going strong with just an SSD swap.
> every Apple laptop I've ever owned has lasted 10+ years
.. as long as you avoided the emoji keyboard era, or never used an emoji keyboard laptop outdoors or even with your windo open :)
I have laptops much older than the ~2018 that work perfectly. But not only the 2018's keyboard broke, but to add insult to the injury they used a display cable that was too short in that generation and that broke too.
This looks exactly like what I've been looking for. I love the idea of using phone proximity as the only way to add friends.
I think it will be very important for the onboarding process to be effortless, so you should focus on that. Until you reach some kind of saturation, most people will be downloading the app because a friend wants to add them. Having a way to generate a QR download code on my phone when I "add" a friend so they can take a photo and then download it, and immediately connect us, would be huge.
Do you have any kind of development plan for new features?
What I was describing is a way to quickly onboard a friend who I want to friend, because chances are zero of my friends will have this app yet.
If the connect with friend interface also had a QR code for app download and could trigger a connection between our accounts upon download, that would remove enough friction that I could start recommending this to my friends on the fly.
Accelerometer, by putting the two phones together and shaking (some app used to do this, but I can't find it with a quick search). Edit: I might have been thinking of Bump, mentioned downthread, though it's a different physical mechanism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_(application)
Camera, and point it at their changing screen (or both at the same scene at the same moment). Not too intrusive.
GPS, but that would require location permission. Intrusive.
Audio, but that would require allowing microphone. Intrusive.
slightly OT but the technology behind Bump was genuinely mindblowing at the time. Phones didn't have NFC or anything like that, and they didn't use much accuracy in the way of location data, so they basically just had a general "city block" location, timestamp, and accelerometer readings and would invert the accelerometer reading and look for identical accel + timestamp.
We tested it one time with like 10 phones and everyone bumping each other / the wall as a control, in the same room and it nailed every actual pairing and ignored the others. The wiki has more, but lacks the subjective experience of how magic it was.
Foreigners are literally being denied entry into the country due to opposing viewpoints expressed on social media. People have to disable FaceID on their phones prior to going through customs in case an agent decides to investigate whether their political views are in opposition to the current administration.
They still hate Classic and can't stand that players prefer it, because it is less profitable per user. This is why they've done almost nothing with Classic+ despite players clamoring for it very loudly.
I'm just over here holding out hope that some aspect of the agreement includes Blizzard taking control of the many assets the Turtle WoW devs created, and that they use those to make lots of new content for the upcoming Classic+, whatever that ends up being.
If you tried that your politicians would get tossed out of office the next election.
Your argument totally ignores that all this infrastructure was built around using cars. Doing things like banning street parking doesn't magically reorganize the way everything was built out over the last 100 years. Took a 100 years to build this will take 100 or more years to undo it.
I'm also suspicious the people pushing stuff like that would in a different time and place would be wearing hair shirts and flagellating themselves. All nice but that's not most people.
> Where I live in Los Angeles, a very large number of people park their cars primarily or exclusively on the street.
> Such a change would have a significant impact.
What would that impact be? Do you see, or experience, a lot of contention for nighttime parking?
There's plenty of contention for street parking in nonresidential areas. But a nighttime parking certificate doesn't do anything about that. Nighttime parking is done in residential areas.
It's not like you have to get waivers to park your cars in front of your house in Japan. Your car MUST have a designated lot, with proofs(more or less a set of simple declaration forms than anything detailed and concrete), to be registered under your name. Otherwise it cannot be registered. A full waiver for parking violations technically exist, but they are reserved for official and/or actually special vehicles only(like actual fire trucks). The vast majority of cars stay in an off-of-road parking lot of some sort, be it a fancy mechanical one or a crude gravel lot next to apartment complex.
I reckon that not many other country do that kind of legal setup. But Japan is among those very few.
But permission to park in front of your own house is trivial to obtain in the US (as the thread has noted, generally not even necessary to obtain, but in some cases it is necessary to get permission) and would satisfy the requirement.
You can imagine a regime where parking in front of your own house is banned as a policy choice, but that's completely different from a regime where you need to document that you have permission to park somewhere at night. The nighttime parking requirement doesn't make it any harder to own a car, because you're "gatekeeping" ownership with a gate that can't bar anyone.
> You can imagine a regime where parking in front of your own house is banned as a policy choice
Yes, I believe that's exactly what's being referred to. A blanket ban on street parking and requiring documentation of a dedicated off street parking space to register a vehicle.
Of course there would be little to no point to such an exercise in a nation where the majority of the streets have wide shoulders specifically intended for parking. What's happening here is that people with a vested interest in a given political outcome aren't making a rational comparison of the differences between the infrastructure in the two places.
My take is that the anti-car movement broadly engages in a disingenuous tactic where they actively attempt to make the experience of using cars worse in order to drive political change while misrepresenting the nature of their actions. It's an underhanded tactic employed by a vocal minority with the intent of fooling the silent majority.
> Yes, I believe that's exactly what's being referred to. A blanket ban on street parking and requiring documentation of a dedicated off street parking space to register a vehicle.
Not at all. I agree with you that that's what they're hoping to express. But it's not what they said. The proposal is just "a reserved nighttime space on private land".
Street parking in front of your house is not necessarily banned by that requirement. The edge of the street can easily be part of the house lot. It can also easily be owned by a private company that owns the whole edge of the street and leases that space to homeowners.
But note that that company wouldn't be worth much, because residential street parking is not in short supply. Which is what I've been pointing out above.
IANAL anywhere, but the actual law[1] is a blanket ban on roadside parking as means of storage. The blurbs around overnight and proofs are just implementation details. Both the spirit and the reality is no one shall leave cars on curbs. I believe this includes privately owned access roads due to technicality combos with building codes that require roads adjoining properties for fire safety reasons(but sort of inexplicably not driveways).
Anyways, the point is, it actually is a nationwide prohibition of curbside parking as a car ownership strategy, and vast majority do comply with it.
Not the person you're replying to, but I see the same thing happen in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle. Dense neighborhood with a lot of nightlife, but many of its residents exclusively use free street parking to park overnight. There is a lot of contention for spots after about 7pm.
Neither LA nor NYC are even vaguely similar to the rest of the nation, so invoking their names when talking about national effects is pretty useless. They're insanely, unbelievably dense locations. The extreme majority of Americans do not live in anything near that dense.
The idea that LA is an unbelievably dense location is puzzling. My Spanish hometown is significantly denser than Los Angeles. Even large parts of NYC are not in any way dense by global urban standards.
As for people parking in the street in the US, you will find them in many smaller cities. Look at random pictures of south St Louis: Plenty of neighborhoods built before every house had a 2 car garage, and therefore with a lot of on-street parking used every day. And that's with single family homes. Hell, you find this in deep suburbs too, where someone decides they want 4 cars, and have the garage full of crap. I could take pictures of at least ten cars parked on the curb, and at least 40 outdoors in driveways if I went for a one mile loop around my 4th ring suburb.
Now, not that this is the main reason Americans still use cars to go anywhere right now, as the rest of the infrastructure around me also makes car mandatory. Suburbs with houses 3 miles from the nearest business, shops inaccessible on foot, streets that, while supposedly crossable, are extremely unsafe to pedestrians... In a world where, say, we limit each household to one car, my entire suburb becomes abandoned, and most businesses collapse, kind of like a place like Madrid collapses if one didn't run any public transit for 4 months.
Over 1/20 Americans live in LA or NYC. Cities in LA county don't show up in a density ranking until 15th with Maywood. WEHO is 20th and its gets less dense from there. Like 80% of Americans live in metro areas.
Right, 19/20 people do not need the same solution as the highly specific ones you would need for some place as dense as Manhattan or LA. You can do things in Seattle that you cannot do in Manhattan - MUCH cheaper things.
I totally agree about LA county. I don't think many people comprehend its size. It is fuckin' enormous, like the size of a small nation (it is one third the size of Belgium)!
If you replaced ONLY existing fields used to grow corn for ethanol, and turned those into solar panels, you would already exceed the entire current US demand for electricity.
Solar energy is a phenomenal use of land, of which we have enormous amounts of in this country.
It was horrific. Revolutions tend to be. Yet our institutions continue consolidating money and power in fewer and fewer hands. If that doesn't stop, we'll be headed there again. It will probably be even worse this time.
I'm not brave enough to try this on my own, but I applaud the effort. I'm pretty sure I'm developing lasting calluses on the underside of my wrists from all the constant rubbing against the sharp edge of my MBP.
That’s the compression, same story in factorio. Before/after compression it’s static, so you can avoid having to update any value.
The main difference from factorio belts I think is actually in the insertion — if there’s no room in the belt, insertion is blocked; whereas I’d expect a car to “slip in”.
But I think you can still say that maintains the property that a compressed belt will always be compressed, excepting insert/removal; and insertion/removal just requires updating a static number of deltas (2, in the middle of the line, 1 at the end of it)
And Factorio belts can have stuff added or removed, also.
The thing is a belt is modeled in terms of deltas rather than positions--there is no need to move each object each cycle. An object has a distance from the object in front. When the belt moves forward this relationship does not change--no need to update every pointer (and there can be a *lot* of belts in the game!) If the head of a belt can't move you only need to update one delta--the gap between the first free item and the stuck item in front of it and that value can already be known, no need to search. If you move the free item up against the stuck item you walk down the belt to find the new first free item.
You only need to modify the belt model if something is either added or removed from the belt. Objects get removed only by inserters, inserters examine only one cell of the belt, grabbing anything in that cell that matches what they are willing to grab (if they are feeding a machine they will only grab what the machine wants, otherwise they'll respect the filter list assigned to them.) When something gets added to a belt you add it to the list and update the delta of the object behind. No general update of the belt is needed in any situation, any more than you need to do anything to the items in a queue as you add and remove items.
Factorio is a game about optimization and the developers did a very good job of applying that idea to the game math. That is, until the masses of asteroids in the Space Age DLC.
