The data collection can just as easily be done by the game itself, the launcher doesn't have any special privileges
What's Steve?
~~Probably a bit of a TL:DR of the other answer, but the short answer is:~~ the execute bit has a different meaning for directories - it allows you to keep going down the filesystem tree (open a file or another directory in the directory). The read bit only allows you to see the names of the files in the directory (and maybe some other metadata), but you cannot open them without x bit.
Fun fact, it makes sense to have a directory with --x or -wx permissions - you can access the files inside if you already know their names.
Edit: not a short answer, apparently
Convenience (after you install it, all you have to do is enter the code and you're connected, no other setup required), familiarity (it's the default name people will think of or find if they want remote access - that alone means they can get away with pushing their users slightly more) and - IMHO most importantly - connectivity: if two computers can connect to the TeamViewer servers, they will be able to connect to each other.
That's huge in the world of broken Internet where peer to peer networking feels like rocket science - pretty much every consumer device will be sitting behind a NAT, which means "just connecting" is not possible. You can set up port forwarding (either manually or automatically using UPnP, which is its own bag of problems), or you can use IPv6 (which appears to be currently available to roughly 40% users globally; to use it, both sides need to have functional IPv6), or you can try various NAT traversal techniques (which only work with certain kinds of NAT and always require a coordinating server to pull off - this is one of the functions provided by TeamViewer servers). Oh, and if you're behind CGNAT (a kind of NAT used by internet providers; apparently it's moderately common), then neither port forwarding or NAT traversal are possible. So if both sides are behind CGNAT and at least one doesn't have IPv6, establishing a direct link is impossible.
With a relay server (like TeamViewer provides), you don't have to worry about being unable to connect - it will try to get you a direct link, but if that fails, it will just act as a tunnel and pass the data between both devices.
Sure, you can self host all this, but that takes time and effort to do right. And if your ISP happens to use CGNAT, that means renting a VPS because you can't host it at home. With TeamViewer, you're paying for someone else to worry about all that (and pay for the servers that coordinate NAT traversal and relay data, and their internet bandwidth, neither of which is free).
I don't really see the big problem here? Like sure, it's silly that it's cheaper to make wireless headphones than wired ones (I assume - the manufacturers are clearly not too bothered by trademarks and stuff if they put the Lightning logo on it so they wouldn't avoid wired solution just due to licensing fees), but what business does Apple have in cracking down on this? Other than the obvious issues with trademarks, but those would be present even if it were true wired earphones. It's just a knockoff manufacturer.
Cheapest possible wired earphones won't sound much better than the cheapest possible wireless ones, so sound quality probably isn't a factor. And on the plus side, you don't have multiple batteries to worry about, or you could do something funny, like plugging the earphones into a powerbank in your pocket and have a freak "hybrid" earphones with multi-day battery (they're not wireless, but also not tethered to your phone). On the other side, you do waste some power on the wireless link, which is not good for the environment in the long run (the batteries involved will see marginally more wear)
Honestly the biggest issue in my mind is forcing people to turn on Bluetooth, but I don't think this will change anyone's habits - people who don't know what Bluetooth is will definitely just leave it on anyway (it's the default state), and people technical enough to want to turn it off will recognize that there's something fishy about these earphones.
I mean, it's called "LaTeX by example", so there's a pretty good chance it's written in LaTeX, which you do indeed compile to get the PDF or whatever output you want.
Also, just having access to the source doesn't make it open source - that requires more freedoms. For example, here's GitLab Enterprise Edition source code, fully functional and ready to be used. And also officially described as the proprietary edition of GitLab by the GitLab company itself. Why? Because its license pretty much boils down to "you can use this only for testing and development, unless you have paid for it".
The astrophotography mode on Pixels (the only way to get 4 min exposure in the default camera app) works by taking quite a few photos with shorter exposures and then matching them up in post processing.
You even get a short animation at the end where every captured photo gets processed using the rest, so you can see stars moving around during the capture.
I don't think that's a similar situation - the Linux kernel lost some functionality there, but in this case Ext2 filesystems are still fully supported by the Ext4 driver, so there's no difference in "hardware" support.
The separate Ext2 driver was being kept for embedded devices with extreme memory or storage limitations where saving some kilobytes by not having all the new Ext3/4 features was useful, but when you can afford the extra memory, there's no reason not to just use the Ext4 driver for all Ext2/3/4 filesystems.
So, if I understand this correctly, open source means free beer, just not if you sell the end product.
Yes, once you give the beer to someone, you can't require any further payments no matter what they do with it. Free software philosophy says users are free to use the software however they wish and for whatever purpose they wish without any barriers (like having to pay for commercial use).
its all a scam for free work for corpos then. Very disappointing.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and it's becoming a not-so-rare sentiment lately (or at least I've started noticing it more), but I don't agree. Look at (A)GPL and how many companies are doing their best to avoid such code - like when Google made their own C library for Android and even stated that its main goal was to avoid copyleft licenses. I've also seen plenty of people say that GPL code is pretty much useless for their work due to their company's policies forbidding its use.
I also think that revenue-based loyalties screw over small companies the most - sure, you get the donations from the massive companies that can work with 1% of their revenue gone while also keeping it free for non-commercial users, but in my view you also help those same massive corporations by making the software less viable for their smaller competitors who don't have the economies of scale on their side, and for whom that 1% might legitimately break the bank.
And to be clear, I don't mean any of my arguments as some kind of "gotcha! Look, I'm right and you're wrong", I just thought I might share my reasoning for why I don't think your statement is fair.
Generally yes. The Fn key is usually handled either by the keyboard itself or by the BIOS, and the OS just sees the resulting key presses as if the keyboard had all the buttons. Can you not find such a switch in your BIOS? Saying what vendor it is might also help someone help you.
They would have to sign another contract for another 24 months to get it, nobody was getting an upgrade on the existing contract because it's just a bundle of Google services (One, YT Premium etc.) and financing on the phone. And if you don't care about the services, Google's two year financing is cheaper than this bundle.
Markaos
joined 1 year ago
Keyhole Markup Language