Not anymore, as long as you make sure that any RGB antialiasing is turned off. Linux defaluts to disabling this and doing only grayscale antialiasing, so it looks great on an OLED out of the box. Windows can be configured to do this.
I have no idea what you mean by "Linux defaults to" ... what possible Linux-wide global could there be for antialiasing? Apps are free to turn on different kinds of antialiasing for text rendering all by themselves.
Contactless payments already work on GrapheneOS via Curve Pay, PayPal and the apps of many European banks. Solving the duopoly between Apple and Google for smartphone tap-to-pay in the US isn't something GrapheneOS can do.
Regulators / legislators can force Google to let GrapheneOS pass the Play Integrity API checks and Google Pay will start working.
>Contactless payments already work on GrapheneOS via Curve Pay
Are you sure about this? It was my understanding that NFC passes for gyms and stuff worked, but that if you want to pay for something with Google or Curve, you're shit outta luck
It depends on how the payment app works. Android provides a native Contactless Payments API which can be used by any wallet app. This is local to the device and works flawlessly on GrapheneOS as well. You can set your preferred wallet app for this feature under NFC settings.
Google Pay/Wallet is one of the wallet apps using this API. If you use Google Pay, you set it as your preferred wallet app, and Google will act as an intermediary between you and whatever payment method you've configured in Google Wallet. It's this Google Pay app that's broken.
Banking, payment and wallet apps that implement the Contactless Payments API work normally as they should. But, some banks have lazy developers, and just hyperlink you to add your card to Google Wallet instead.
The issue is banks being lazy and using google wallet instead of their own app. My bank used to allow me to use NFC to pay directly, then after merger with another bank the only option that was left was using google wallet.
> Are you sure about this? It was my understanding that NFC passes for gyms and stuff worked
This is only true for Google Wallet. It can be used as a normal wallet app for stuff like plane tickets, etc., but Google Pay requires the OS to be specifically whitelisted by Google. This is an incredibly anti-competitive move aimed at supporting Google's monopoly by deliberately disabling functionality on alternative (including much more secure) operating systems like GrapheneOS under the guise of security.
Definitely wouldn't be unheard of in the Fintech industry. But I don't know, because I don't use the service. My bank thankfully offers their own implementation of NFC payments within their own app, so I don't need to rely on any third-party services. Many banks in Europe actually do this. Here's a German article about Google-free mobile payments on GrapheneOS: https://www.kuketz-blog.de/nfc-datenschutzfreundlich-bezahle...
Google isn't letting anyone else get on their platform, because it's the exact reason why they got ruled a monopoly and Apple wasn't.
If you let competitors on your platform, you must also let them compete on your platform. If you don't let them on your platform, well then they can kick rocks.
People have been saying that because it's such an outrageous dichotomy, but it's also not really what happened in those cases.
To begin with Epic picked a disadvantageous test case because mobile is only ~6% of Fortnite with the large majority on PCs and consoles. So when Apple banned it on iOS, most of the iOS users just bought their Fortnite stuff on their PCs and consoles instead and Apple could say "see? not a monopoly" which got them a market definition that included Google Play. The market definition is about the single most important thing in antitrust cases.
But it wasn't really Google Play that people were switching to after Apple banned them and that could turn out a lot different for apps primarily used on mobile rather than trying to go after a mobile company over an app primarily used on consoles. That was the main reason Epic lost against Apple -- Epic had an app where people would actually switch to something other than iOS and Apple had enough evidence of that to convince the judge.
In principle that could have been the case for Google too, but they got a different judge, a jury trial instead of having the judge decide the facts, a correspondingly different market definition, and then it went the other way.
What confuses people is that Google partially got in trouble for things like forcing third party OEMs to install Google Play on the home screen of their Android devices, which is not a good look, whereas Apple isn't forcing third party OEMs to do anything because they don't have any third party OEMs. But the thing they got in trouble for wasn't having third party OEMs, it was strongarming them, which is obviously not the same thing.
And -- this is probably the most important part -- locking down the device isn't what gets you out of a market definition of "aftermarket for customers of that OS". It was more that Apple presented evidence that customers would actually switch to alternatives specifically in the case of Fortnite and their judge bought that but a jury in a different case didn't.
If anything the lesson for Google here should be to not strongarm third parties, because that's plausibly what pissed off the jury. And I'd be interested to see a case against Apple where the plaintiff is doing >50% of their business with iOS users instead of a single digit percentage, i.e. the ones where they actually have market power, though of course you then have the irony that those are the ones most afraid to bring the case.
tailwind is very much not a problem for accessibility? if your content is semantic and you add the appropriate aria tags, whether or not you have 300 classes or 1 will make no difference for screen readers
Seems like you are part of the first group then, not the second. The fact that you are interested in learning and are using it as a tool disqualifies you from someone who has little clue and just wants to get something out (i.e. just spit out code)
As I reread the original post, I'm not actually not sure which group I fall into. I think there's a bunch of overlap depending on perspective/how you read it:
> Group 1: intern/boring task executor
Yup, that makes sense I'm in group 1.
> Group 2: "outsourcing thinking and entire skillset to it - they usually have very little clue in the topic, are interested only in results"
Also me (in this case), as I'm outsourcing the software development part and just want the final app.
Soo... I probably have thought too much about the original proposed groups. I'm not sure they are as clear as the original suggests.
False dichotomy is one of the original sins. The two groups as advertised aren't all that's out there. Most people are interested in results. How we get those results is part of the journey of getting results, and sometimes it's about the journey not the destination. I care very much about the results of my biopsy or my flight, I don't know much about how we get there, I want to know if I have cancer, and that my plane didn't crash. I hope that doesn't put me on the B ark that gets sent into the sun.
I'd say you're still in the group 1. Your main goal is not the app but learning German. Therefore creating the app using AI is only a means to an end, a tool, and spending time coding it yourself is not important in this context.
The AI usage was not about learning German, but for creating an app. This would be group 2. He may use the tool he made to learn German, but using that tool isn't using AI
They could admittedly be more defined, but I think the original commenter missed a key word. It really boils down to whether or not you are offloading your critical thinking.
The word "thinking" can be a bit nebulous in these conversations, and critical thinking perhaps even more ambiguously defined, so before we discuss that, we need to define it. I go with the Merriam-Webster definition: the act or practice of thinking critically (as by applying reason and questioning assumptions) in order to solve problems, evaluate information, discern biases, etc.
LLMs seem to be able to mimic this, particularly to those who have no clue what it means when we call an LLM a "stochastic parrot" or some equally esoteric term. At first I was baffled that anyone really thought that LLMs could somehow apply reason or discern its own biases but I had to take a step back and look at how that public perception was shaped to see what these people were seeing. LLMs, generative AI, ML, etc are all extremely complex things. Couple that with the pervasive notion that thinking is hard and you have a massive pool of consumers who are only too happy to offload some of that thinking on to something they may not fully understand but were promised that it would do what they wanted, which is make their daily lives a bit easier.
We always get snagged by things that promise us convenience or offer to help us do less work. It's pretty human to desire both of those things, but proving to be an Achilles Heel for many. How we characterize AI determines our expectations of it; so do you think of it as a bag of tools you can use to complete tasks? Or is it the whole factory assembly line where you can push a few buttons and an pseudo-finished product comes out the other side?
This app IS made in under 1mb. The entire app, including all the assets minus all the actual Wikipedia data, is 21kB (no minification or compression). And all of it is in a single html file with human-readable code.
Vehicle tax in the Netherlands is already weight-based. This is why the tax rate for EVs is higher than gas cars. The thing is that if you live in Hilversum and are able to import a car from the US, you don't mind the higher tax to begin with
No tax I've seen is anywhere remotely close to following "fourth power law" on axle weight[]. And especially so for gas taxes, as the gas/diesel cost tends to be closer to linear with weight.
Usually what happens is smaller cars subsidize everyone else due to paying a disproportionate tax vs axle weight^~(2-4 depending on fatigue pathway). Depending on tax structure possibly pedestrians/cyclists too but they are usually parasitic on tax basis.
Agreed, tax based on damage to road, and then tax fuel the amount it costs to clean up the pollution the fuel causes, and then use the money to clean up the pollution it causes. Then who cares if you fly your private jet, or giant car, you just pay for it.
Side effects include: reduced pollution, and cheaper ways to clean up pollution
44 tonnes is not that big. Sweden allows for the insane limit of 64 or 74 tonnes, depending on the road. American trucks are typically smaller than European.
The US limit is typically 80,000 lbs, so 36.29 megagrams (aka "metric" tons).
The EU countries have limits of 40 Mg or higher (except Albania). Netherlands allows vehicles up to 50 Mg.
Of course this is all for 5+ axle vehicles. A 5-axle 40 Mg big rig is putting a 8 Mg of load on each axle (if it was perfectly distributed).
A Dodge RAM 1500 loaded up has a gross vehicle weight of about 3.27 Mg - about 1.64 Mg/axle. Fourth power law means about 566 loaded RAMs would equal one about 40 Mg 5-axle big rig in terms of road damage.
I find Neovim to be surprisingly sluggish. That's of course after installing extensions, but I don't find it particularly performant. Zed feels way snappier.
