Companies that were app-first like mobile games probably won’t cut prices much if any. Companies that were web-first like Proton and Patreon probably will.

I’m guessing a tankless water heater involves some electronic controls. It probably could be designed to use low-voltage DC with a battery backup, but that would be fancy.

A gas stove should never need electricity for a burner to work if the user supplies another source of ignition like a match. This is surely a “safety feature” to prevent people from leaving the gas on when the electronic ignition is unavailable, but nobody with half a brain and a sense of smell would do that.

This doesn’t seem to be the mainstream press, but a small tech blog. Mainstream American news outlets have been far more straightforward in their coverage of this case.

Furthermore, this case was a fight between two large corporations; there’s no little guy here. Smaller developers may benefit from the outcome though.

I encountered a gas stove that wouldn’t work during a power outage. It had a valve that shut off the gas if electricity wasn’t present. Way to intentionally sabotage one of your biggest advantages.

I’m disappointed the court didn’t strike down the app store monopoly itself. The iPhone might actually appeal to me with unlimited sideloading.

However, this U.S. court order is inconsistent with the Apple App Store business standards

This is terrible writing. The court order is inconsistent with the Apple App Store business standards? No. The court ruled that Apple’s business practices were illegal.

I’d bet on it being algorithmic from Facebook because leaning into algorithms is part of that company’s culture. A bunch of manual tweaks require maintenance, though it wouldn’t surprise me if someone was thinking about this when deciding that deleted selfie should be a different signal to the algorithm than deleted picture of cat.

No, because I can’t use it on entirely third-party infrastructure and interact with BlueSky users. It should be possible in theory, but if it was practical in reality, somebody would be doing it.

Collision insurance, the kind that pays for damage to the policy holder’s car in the event of a crash caused by the policy holder or an authorized driver of their car often more than doubles the overall cost of insurance. Collision insurance is usually optional when there’s not a loan.

There is no such thing as an unedited RAW file displayed on a screen. Editor/viewer software will do one of three things to render a RAW to the screen:

1. It may have a very close approximation of the camera’s own jpeg profiles. Capture One does have this for Fuji.
2. It may use an embedded jpeg preview from the RAW file. You’ll notice this if you zoom in or edit.
3. It may apply its own default processing. This will look different from the camera’s jpeg.

Thanks. Sometimes it’s hard to know where that stuff comes from or what it does. Now I’m curious as to whether that service is adding affiliate parameters or it’s something else.

That query param ?sca_ref=5534322.jy9pynM20C at the end of the URL looks like an affiliate code that gets you payment or other rewards if people use it to buy lights. Is it?

We don’t have a formal rule about that (yet), but I’d prefer if you say so when using affiliate links.

14500 vs 16340 capacities are pretty close if not equal

Not even close. 16340s top out at 950 mAh while 14500s are up to 1500 advertised and pretty close to that tested.

18350 surely exceeds 14500

Yes, by about 100 mAh.

I don’t know of any 14500 light as thin as some of my CR123A (16340 sized) lights

Here are 30 1x14500 lights under 20mm in diameter. There are no 16340 lights that slim; the search offers the Fenix LD15R, but I think that’s a mistake.

I want an M150-shaped Emisar also. That’s for a different audience though.

14500 or AA is about the same volume as a 16340, so they might as well make a 16340 light

14500 has more capacity and allows a slimmer flashlight. Not enough lights lean in to the diameter advantage.

I’m not sure that’s the right fit for Skilhunt, or at least the M150. It might be good on something like the EC200S.

As I said in the previous comment, state prosecutors would be unsuccessful due to the supremacy clause. State kidnapping laws cannot punish Federal officials for deporting foreigners in accordance with Federal law, or with a good faith belief that they are enforcing Federal law.

Federal court orders can, of course make a deportation illegal, and did in this case. Still, criminal contempt would only apply to officials who knew about the court order, which has not been alleged with regard to the initial decision to deport Abrego Garcia. There was, however a separate order from judge Boasberg to turn the planes around. As yet unnamed officials who knew about that order and had the ability to carry it out discussed it and decided not to obey. They are guilty of criminal contempt.

I don’t believe they read the comments here, but if you post a response about that issue in the BLF thread I linked, that might get their attention.

When? There have been a few times people stopped using Firefox in large numbers.

One of them was when Chrome first came out. Firefox (and every other browser) at the time ran every site in one process. As sites became more reliant on Javascript, which was usually poorly written, that meant any one tab having a problem made other sites and even the browser’s own UI unresponsive, or sometimes crashed the whole browser. Chrome’s multiprocess model was a revelation. Firefox didn’t get its own implementation until 2016.

Recently, there’s been some movement away from Firefox due to Mozilla making decisions people don’t feel align with open source, the open web, and privacy. The one that has me looking at forks is the planned addition of terms of use to the browser. Terms of use are for an ongoing relationship between a service operator and a user; Firefox is local software I’m operating myself on a computer I own. Its fine for optional online services like Sync to have terms of use, but the browser should work without those.

Who’s going to prosecute it? The DOJ certainly isn’t. State prosecutors would be unsuccessful due to the supremacy clause. Congress could appoint a special prosecutor, but then we’re back to political will.

What judges can have prosecuted without the DOJ’s cooperation is contempt of court, and they do have the power to appoint special prosecutors themselves in that case (but not for ordinary crimes like kidnapping).

The trouble is the same Supreme Court gave him criminal immunity for official acts (even corrupt ones), which this certainly is. Impeachment and removal is probably the only remaining legal pathway to enforce compliance, and the political will isn’t there.

It’s probably somewhat intentional that he provoked a conflict of this sort early using an issue few elected Republicans will risk their positions over. The next one will be bigger, and he wants the pattern established.