It's certainly not my experience that the M3 is overpowered for browsing. With the proliferation of SPAs for everything from messaging to word processing, my Macbook Air reminds me of a Chromebook in more ways than one.
Absolutely. The argument that screen readers shouldn't gain a heurisric for identifying this kind of text and normalising it down to pronouncable words is just prescribtivism, to my view.
ALL CAPS, SpOnGeBoB cASe, clap emphasis, and others carry specific meanings in colloquial written language, the use of other letterlike symbols can also. These should be presented in an accessible form to the user, rather than demanding that people refrain from using them.
That's true, but at some point, intention and accessibility will start to clash.
Like, there used to be that fad/meme of adding as many diacritics and other Unicode appendages to a text as possible. ("Cursed text" or something I think)
The diacritics will stack and turn the characters into monstrosities that will break the page layout and generally make the text look alien and distorted.
It also makes the text hard to read, which is the entire point.
But a screen reader is kind of at a dilemma here: If it ignores the diacritics and just reads the text normally, then the "weirdness" will be missing and the text will appear out of context. To convey that, the reader would have to intentionally read the text in a distorted voice - but this will make it hard to understand and could lead to unease and confusion if the distortion starts without warning.
There is also the question whether we want unexpected tone shifts at all. Like, it would be semantically correct to read all caps text in a shouting voice, but do we really want screen readers to randomly start shouting?
I bought an XPS 16 recently. 4K screen, 64 GB RAM (+8 GB VRAM), 2 TB storage (4 TB was an option). It cost about 3/4 as much as a similarly specced MBP.
I know many people still love MacOS, but it lost me a few years ago. I've also, frankly, had much better milage out of Dell machines than Apple ones over the last ten years.
The US has a small set of valid bank notes. It's not like other countries that have multiple issuers, each with their own schedules for when to update designs.
On top of that, this isn't just a design that a person hasn't seen often, it's a denomination. Think of the 500 EUR notes, they were unfamiliar to many people.
2048 is a brilliant game, I love it. I understand that it's been used widely (I even saw it on a plane IFE system last month) and that likely didn't generate much ot any income, but the first impression when opening this was a bit dodgy. There are over 700 'partners' you want me to consent to sending data to? Come on, you know that nobody could make an informed decision on that.
> After some internal discussion, we have determined this is a known low risk issue. We may make this functionality more strict in the future, but don't have anything to announce now. As a result, this is not eligible for reward under the Bug Bounty program. Below is a reference to our instructions for users to remove sensitive data from a repository. https://help.github.com/articles/removing-sensitive-data-fro...
I'd say that Apple are directly harmed, by the court order to pay £385 million. I haven't seen any suggestion that there has been a transfer of shares as part of the settlement, so it wouldn't align with a stock buyback. Equally, this seems like the opposite of friendly, and the money involved here is tiny compared to Apple's dividend payments.
Corporations aren't people and apple is flush with cash, so I'm not sure what it means for apple to be harmed. Likewise I'm not sure apple is harmed if shareholders feel owning apple stock is safe. The only harm I sort of kind of buy is that it promotes future litigation against Apple.
From a software security perspective, the courts seem like a different "branch" with different properties, so a bad faith actor could explore the difference between what the legal system intends to do and what the legal system can actually do (much like software security is about what software can actually do rather than what the programmer intends it to do).
There are mechanisms for companies to transfer cash/value to shareholders, so if the input and output are the same, but the "stacktrace" of the transfer is different, I think that's worth a little scrutiny.
