My money is on 12GB in the second gen since that's what the A19 Pro has, and it would still conveniently differentiate from the other MacBooks with at least 16GB.
The funny thing is that it would do the same for double the price.
You need to spend a ridiculous amount of time on research because the producer itself is selling very different product (very different quality) from a year to another.
I wish a "brand" would be consistant but it's not 99% of the time.
> Unfortunately, because the code that chardet was originally based on was LGPL, we don't really have a way to relicense it. Believe me, if we could, I would. There was talk of chardet being added to the standard library, and that was deemed impossible because of being unable to change the license.
So the person that did the rewrite knew this was a dive into dangerous water.
That's so disrespectful.
> They should just have no DM feature at all, then; make all messages publicly visible.
This makes no sense.
I can discuss something in a bar which is not a very private conversation, I wouldn't care if someone else hear what I'm saying. But I also don't want someone to record it and post it on the internet to be seen by the whole world.
In a bar you're not speaking directly into a microphone that is permanently saving everything you say for later instant access by every government and advertising agency that wants to prosecute you or invade your privacy to sell you something
You didn't mention the fact that my mom cannot access the recording of my microphone.
That's what ThoAppelsin is proposing.
It should be fairly implicit that if you are using a free product from a private company you are the products.
However it's definitely not implicit that every I do on the platform will get publicly known by everyone else. If it does I would probably not use it and find alternatives.
I suppose they mean that apps should brand their non e2ee chat features as private or personal, which is what users take as the default assumption when interacting in one to one chat.
That makes it even worse! If it is not submodules, then it is just copying a file into a repo with no version tracking against upstream, no update path, and no way to even know when there is a security fix.
Package managers already use git where appropriate under the hood. Arch's PKGBUILD sources pull from git repos, FreeBSD's ports can fetch from git, Gentoo ebuilds support git-r3. The fetching is not the hard part. What a package manager gives you on top of that is dependency resolution, version constraints, conflict detection, reproducible builds, and clean removal. "git push" gives you none of that.
And since I did not really address kreco's point properly: if the concern is cross-platform support across many OSes, tools like vcpkg and Conan exist specifically for this: cross-platform C/C++ dependency management with one workflow regardless of target. pkgsrc runs on 20+ platforms with the same build recipes. A header file in a git repo gives you none of that, it just gives you the illusion of portability until you hit a platform where it does not compile or links against the wrong thing.
If your workflow does not need any of those features, then yeah, sure, but then you are not solving C's "package management problem", you are just ignoring it.
In any case, the original comment called C's package management "unfriendly", and the counter-argument has somehow arrived at "just copy files into your repo and push". Comparing that to what a package manager does is absurd.
But nice for Apple. Millions of replacement on the Neo 16GB release next year I guess.
reply