You obviously didn’t read the article, but that’s OK it’s a trash article anyway. Which is already indicated by the headline, since Notepad was never free, it’s just included with Windows.
But your comment is disconnected from what this is really about, which essentially boils down to nothing.
Since what you are supposed to pay for is new AI features. Otherwise you can use Notepad as usual.
The US is only such a powerhouse, because they generally have the support of their allies. That makes it the unparalleled biggest economic block in the world.
But without their allies, USA isn’t that much stronger than China economically. And USA wouldn’t be nearly the powerhouse they’ve gotten used to be.
So China just has to look on and do nothing, while USA is losing their world dominance quickly.
Maybe I’m wrong, but as I read the article, Linus isn’t convinced this is a good idea either.
I’m not saying things can never change, but opening for a mixed code base is a recipe for disaster.
That does NOT sound like a good idea.
We’ve turned our development model into a well-oiled engineering marvel,
Exactly, and I’m pretty sure one of the reasons is that it’s remained on C, and NOT switched to C++, as has been often suggested.
The second they make it a mixed code base, that’s the same second quality will deteriorate. Mixed code base is a recipe for disaster.
Edit:
Torvalds eventually responded by defending the Linux kernel development process and scolding Martin for grandstanding on social media about the issue. Martin later quit as a Linux maintainer and resigned from the Asahi Linux project.
Seems like Linus isn’t onboard with this.
But I guess all the downvoters know better?
opening for a mixed code base is a recipe for disaster.
Greg Kroah-Hartman:
Yes, mixed language codebases are rough, and hard to maintain, but we are kernel developers, dammit.
That’s special pleading, that lacks basis in reality. Still he admits it’s rough to mix codebases.
I’m not claiming Rust wouldn’t be brilliant in some situations, but the detraction of a mixed codebase is worse than the benefit.
Although dubbed a trifold, the phone has three mini-panels and folds only twice.
It’s three elements that can fold together.
It’s probably called tri- because it rolls better on the tongue than dual or double fold.
But goddam €3.499m,- is a steep price, especially considering there were initial reports of quite serious problems with it.
If this is true, why then couldn’t Arm prevent Qualcomm from using a license agreement they had with a company Qualcomm bought?
The Arm Qualcomm case is bullshit, if you make a license agreement with a company that is later bought by a bigger company, it’s no longer the same “legal person”. And should absolutely void the license.
This label part about plastics is what’s called green-washing here, and is illegal unless what they are doing is a very signifikant part of the price of the product.
The labeling of what’s NOT in the drink is also under similar regulation, but I don’t recall what it’s called. But the fact that a “sugar” drink doesn’t contain fat is irrelevant and misleading.
Whatever country this is from has bullshit regulation.
The thing that is ABSOLUTELY NOT a problem is the Stevia which is clearly labeled!
So the “mildly infuriating” part is completely misguided compared to the real problems of that product.
Edit:
Just noticed, Carbs 3%, sugar 6% incl. added sugar 12%.
That’s impossible! You can’t have less carbs than sugar, since sugar is a carb. So these labels are probably illegal in EU on no less than 3 counts!!
This is not entirely fair, Kodak invested a lot in digital photography, I personally bought a $1500 Kodak digital camera around 2002.
But Kodak could not compete with Canon and other Japanese makers.
To claim Kodak could have made more successful cameras earlier, is ignoring the fact that the technology to make the sensors simply wasn’t good enough early on, and would never have been an instant hit for whoever came first to market. Early cameras lacked badly in light sensitivity dynamics and sharpness/resolution. This was due to limitations in even world leading CMOS production capabilities back then, it simply wasn’t good enough, and to claim Kodak should have had the capability to leapfrog everybody doesn’t make it true.
To claim Kodak could have beat for instance Canon and Sony, is ignoring the fact that those were companies with way more experience in the technologies required to refine digital photography.
Even with the advantage of hindsight, I don’t really see a path that would have rescued Kodak. Just like typesetting is dead, and there is no obvious path how a typesetting company could have survived.
Yeah maybe not so much backbone like bread, as it’s a brain like bread.