This is one of the huge wins of Zig. Any Zig host compiler can produce output for any supported target. Cross compiling becomes straightforward.

Perfectly reasonable. However, do know that modern versions of the procedure are way better at identifying the people who are likely to have problems.

However, even if the odds are 1 in 10,000, there is always a "1".

But it backs up the WHOLE package / folder / whatever terminology they use, including cached and redownloadable data. So if you have a game that has 10GB of cached data, it WILL upload that. Edge for me was >3GB.

And then they have the following user-hostile 'features':

    1. They offer a paltry 5GB. Hasn't changed since inception, but app sizes have ... tripped? I have 2GB of health data now. 
    2. They don't tell you that you're backing up data that can be retrieved elsewhere.
    3. The popup when storage is full shows only 'buy more' or ignore (no link/mention to disable individual app like described above)
    4. No way to backup to a NAS
    5. No way to backup to a computer automatically. You have to provide you passcode every time.

As for cached and downloadable data, I have long ago turned off backups for many apps where the data is stored on a server anyways. Backing up these apps never makes any sense.

While it's the app developers that need to make the change, it should be enforced by Apple. After all, that's why there is a walled garden, and that is the premium we pay for when using Apple.

But for Apple to enforce this means less popups on screens telling people that storage is full, which means less sales.

And again, we get to Goodhart's law.

If they're on Office 365, they could be on Linux.

I try to use libreoffice when possible but sometimes the performance takes a nosedive for opaque reasons when excel is ok

In Ms Office it's always the breeze and 2 minute job. In Libre office it's 15 at least, multiple fights with pages suddenly breaking, cells and rows refusing to stick to my dimensions or something perfectly fine in the print preview lose edges of the cells (ie missing letter, etc) when actually on paper/pdf.

Infuriating.

And I didn't even started about printing in Linux. What works in android ootb didn't consistently work for me across two distributions, several years and many versions. Papercut is the worst but cups is close second.

> When I was a kid, Detroit was a symbol of US industry and engineering. All those huge muscle cars.

Which was precisely the problem at the time. Detroit was producing muscle cars (with terrible engineering other than gigantic engines) and huge land yachts "Because profit!" when gas was going nuts and got demolished when Japanese cars showed up. Sound familiar? Detroit is producing Brodozers "Because profit!" when gas is going nuts and is going to get demolished when BYD finally shows up.

> Now it's a symbol of US decline, I think. It's strange to me that the USA let this happen, or that it didn't have the power to stop it happening.

I can't think of any country that managed the transition away from a manufacturing labor dominated economy. All of them wound up with their large employment manufacturing centers completely hollowed out and left to rot.

The echoes of this neglect reflect into the anger of the electorate we see today.

However, these same people also refuse to embrace working in new fields like renewable energy. They have completely forgotten that even in the 1970s when the auto companies were extremely sclerotic their employees still had to retrain constantly (that was one of the duties of the unions).

Windows 11 demands TPM 2.0 which means that your old laptop may not be upgradable and yet support for Windows 10 has dropped. And add in a dash enshittification via AI and no real local login options.

There were a lot of people who were looking for a new laptop just as Apple dropped this.

How could Apple predict Microsoft shooting itself in both feet and the head right before they dropped a really nice cheap laptop?

I'm not convinced for guitar. Some of the fastest and most famous guitarists had shockingly bad technique.

As long as you're not injuring yourself, practice and determination pretty much overcomes everything.

The universe didn't offer a manual on how to play guitar, so how are you determining that their technique was bad? Given what you say about them, maybe they actually had the perfect technique?

Given a certain set of quantifiable measures that is no doubt true, but then that only pushes the question to how are the measures determined to be objectively relevant? If the aforementioned fast/famous guitar players had started with a different technique there is a chance they wouldn't have become fast/famous. In that case, given the criteria of reaching notable speed/fame, it is possible their "bad" methods were actually best of all.

But also, even where everyone agrees there is a better way, that doesn't equate to an alternative being bad. So the original question still stands: How do we determine "shockingly bad" as opposed to "different"?

Piano is also a lot harder to have very bad technique than other instruments since it is mostly a discrete, one-to-one mapping. If you want a chord with some particular notes, a lot of the time there is only a single fingering that will do. If you push the key hard enough, you will get the correct note, and it won't be wrong if you push harder.

By contrast, in guitar, if you push too hard, your note will be off even though you fretted in the correct place. Or, for example, everybody in guitar teaches barre chords up near the nut, when that's extremely difficult and likely to injure a beginner who has neither the strength nor control to get that right, instead of teaching barre chords near the body on fewer strings. etc.

The fact that C++ programming books have entire sections about destructors (see: Effective C++) shows that this is very much not irrelevant minutiae. C++ forces you to deal with this kind of detail all the time.

Now, we can have a much more interesting discussion about whether C++ is a disaster of a language precisely because you are forced to deal with this kind of minutiae by hand. We could also have an interesting discussion about whether RAII is the "object oriented" of our time. We could even have an interesting discussion as to why so many companies ban constructors/destructors in their C++ programming guidelines.

However, irrelevant minutiae C++ destructors are not.

  Chapter 2: Constructors, Destructors, and Assignment Operators
      Item 5: Know what functions C++ silently writes and calls.
      Item 6: Explicitly disallow the use of compiler generated functions you do not want.
      Item 7: Declare destructors virtual in polymorphic base classes.
      Item 8: Prevent exceptions from leaving destructors.
      Item 9: Never call virtual functions during construction or destruction.
      Item 10: Have assignment operators return a reference to *this.
      Item 11: Handle assignment to self in operator=.
      Item 12: Copy all parts of an object.

No C++ "bread and butter" I have seen so far goes into depth on this subject.

Although, I guess if you only statically allocated everything once at startup, you could use constructors without destructors? Presumably using the placement versions would also let you use constructors without destructors.

I'm generally talking about systems that are <64KB. You basically don't get heap and determinism is really important.

Better? In what way? And for whom? Certainly not for this man.

What happens when the Google or Apple system hiccups and locks you out? Now what? What happens when your battery dies? What happens when you drop your phone and bust it? What happens if someone hijacks your number? etc.

And, I don't for one second believe this is anti-scalping. They can identify scalpers from a million miles away at this point. If they wanted to shut them down, they'd be gone tomorrow.

This is about tracking and upselling. These people are "whales" and they want to badger them to spend more money.

It's fine precisely because it provokes emotion that AI stuff doesn't. You may love or hate what the Flying Lizards did, but it's very memorable and you will have an opinion about it (My wife loves it; I think it's stupid--C'est la vie.)

The AI generated music just sounds like every other average artist. I'm definitely not even convinced it's AI. It could very well be somebody claiming "AI" in order to game the system or get people talking about it.

As for occupying iTunes spots, why not? Is there much difference between Max Martin and his ilk shitting out yet more generic glop or AI doing it?

I feel much the same about a lot of the early AI music I've heard, I have a couple of channels on a lesser rank of RSS notifications but more and more there's less and less that's remarkable and it's feeling like the worst kinds of elevator music .. you know, not the Brian Eno stuff . . .

So yeah, we're sitting about like two Yorkshiremen giving a real Thomas Beecham "Shostakovich? I think I stepped in some once" vibe here. Probably deservedly.