> If syncing is enabled, the data is synced to any Chrome browser that the user is logged into. If disabled, it behaves like storage.local. Chrome stores the data locally when the browser is offline and resumes syncing when it's back online. The quota limitation is approximately 100 KB, 8 KB per item.
They added custom instructions to Apple silicon to more easily emulate x86 behavior (e.g., https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization/acc...). They may have now removed them because their analytics say that Rosetta2 use on new devices is minimal.
Virtualizing older macOS on M4 hardware has nothing to do with Rosetta 2. And it would be ridiculous for Apple to remove hardware features that Rosetta 2 relies upon before they're actually ready to retire Rosetta 2—that would force Apple to invest more software engineering effort in updating Rosetta 2 to work without those features.
i guess there will be always a previous processor supporting something which the most recent doesn't.
but when the bug report is regarding supporting a software version which they don't support themselves anymore, personally i don't think they will give it any priority
I don't think this is true. If you watch the videos, dosdude1 specifically says he had to order blank NANDs for this process. Then you DFU restore the system from another mac. I have no proof, but I assume part of this DFU restore process is the new NAND chips being hardware paired in some way.
Again I have no proof, but there must be reasons he claims they have to be blank NANDs
It looks really cool, but i'll make an argument to how faithful it is. I opened the page, and clicked on a square. Immediate bomb loss. This does go against the rules of Windows Minesweeper.
Chrome can supposedly support 32779 characters in the address bar[0], and a legal chess game should not exceed more than ~5900 moves, due to the 50 move rule. That will be enough to encode any valid game if you don't need to support IE.
Interesting. According to that stackoverflow, Chrome is one of the shortest URL lengths of the modern browsers (firefox/safari/chrome). However, it also notes you have to take CDNs and web servers and search engines into consideration, so the ginormous length limits of safari and firefox probably won't be useful any time soon.
Interesting, thanks for the info. I must have missed this. It doesn't seem completely unfair to not pass your main Google password, and I imagine you still might be able to use generated application passwords if you really need the functionality (maybe).
The thing that is confusing here is you used to have to turn on less secure apps to use app passwords, and the article says that's getting removed for personal accounts. So while they don't say that they're removing IMAP via app passwords for personal accounts, there's a concern they might be effectively removing them it
> you have to pick your approach and commit to it.
I somewhat agree with this, especially when we are talking about higher brand companies appeasing cheaper consumables.
However, the other way around, it can be done effectively. Take for IKEA instance. They made inroads into Europe and American homes, and did it by offering cheaper, well-designed and modern alternatives made of particle board. After seeing some customers wanted higher-quality products with the same design aesthetic, they introduced a sliding scale of products from cheap-and-cheerful, to better constructed, yet still flatpacked materials.
Customers could then choose the desired range and quality on a sliding scale for each product. This model seems to have worked well for them.
That's sort of what Mercedes does, with their C-class cars. I understand that European cabs are yet another class, that is not available, on this side of the pond.
The other day, I was stopped behind a brand new Tesla Model S. Looked like about a $90,000 USD trim package.
The trunk was out of square.
Not that much, but noticeable.
I don't think the cheapest Mercedes would ever go out the door, with that kind of flaw. It's a matter of a couple of tweaks with an Allen wrench, to fix.
Yeah good call. My statement was definitely not nuanced enough. I think it's more like: The base case is that it works best to pick an approach and stick with it. But sometimes there is a strategic opportunity to change approaches, which can be high reward, but also carries high risk.
I think it's also rare to successfully go the opposite direction, taking a high value brand mass market. I mean, I think it's a common "successful" cash grab strategy, but not a success in the sense of improving the long term fundamentals of the business.
