How does this handle runtime updates if the source cpak Containerfile doesn't get rebuilt?

Right now on Flatpak, if I target org.freedesktop.Platform, when that gets security updates to libraries, my application will use them without needing to be rebuilt. I assume for cpak because OCI images are layered based on a fixed content commit, it won't get library updates unless rebuilt.

I do think Dockerfiles are a better mechanism than flatpak-builder specs, the ecosystem is huge.

4G is becoming the "baseline" and replacing 2G in many of those services, especially the "low energy" IoT implementations of LTE.

Yep. Swap + zswap + earlyoom is a great safety need incase things get hairy.

Couldn't the camera encode information from the depth sensor and prevent this.

I will make miniature dioramas and photograph them.

At that point you've earned the fruits of your deception, just like the tricksters who spent time doing physical photo editing.

Miniature dioramas wouldn't be size appropriate. Apple could detect faces/cars/other common objects of ~known size and verify -- or even just dump depth map for anyone to check.

It seems to be what Apple is doing, this feature is only available on the 18 Pro's (which have depth sensor on the back), but not Duo.

> the bummer is that all this "work" is just wasted cycles

There's probably an overlap with people who think anubis is a good idea and those who think we should be doing more to battle climate change.

The two views are not compatible though.

The sad part is that it's known that Apple internally maintains Linux ports to their SoCs

> https://talents.vaia.com/companies/apple-inc/software-engine...

Hmm, odd listing. Looks like an embedded linux job working on a BSP, but they don't have any hardware I know of which ships with Linux. Even their constrained environments use things like their own L4 variant or RTKit.

I think there's been a mistake in the thinking that restricting the licensing on open source projects will make the companies that use them as a service would make them contribute.

They don't, the companies just replace the software in question.

We also live in a world where site owners purposely put anime cat girls on their websites that serve no purpose then to waste cpu cycles.

Using personal websites read by a handful of programmer nerds that work fine if you turn off javascript to justify literally everyone else being forced to navigate bloated, broken company websites isn't particularly convincing as an argument against memory-safe C imo.

Perhaps you do.

Those responses are disgusting. I bet you every one of these individuals criticised X for being toxic.

The irony is as well, I would almost be willing to bet almost every single one neither uses paint.net nor linux, and that these changes would have literally zero impact on them whatsoever.

Paint.net is just one of those freeware apps that became a sorta figment of retro identity for some people, akin to winamp. Even if they havent touched it in over a decade, they feel entitled to become vengeful for their nostalgia being "tainted".

X and bluesky can both be toxic

So an app that uses an unofficial API broke when that API changed?

Not news nor "blocking".

No API changed. They just, almost for sure, decreased their rate limits.

It affects using Aurora Store "anonymously" because that means using shared accounts, so far higher activity per account.

It's possible they're also detecting contemporary usage of the same account.

But there's a slight chance that it's just due to someone abusing the accounts outside Aurora Store.

If it's rate limits, I wonder if Aurora Store could just download and mirror the apk for the top 40 most popular apps (probably >50% of their downloads) and serve that mirror to most Aurora Store users who click the "download" button? Then for less popular apps they can use the old system.

Things along that line could indeed be a way to lessen the problems

What is an "official API"?

Honest question, because AFAIK there's no guarantee or (legal) requirement to support any API. Whether that's fully documented, has SDKs or whether it's something reversed-engineered doesn't matter WRT the support the company owning the API is supposed or required to give.

Or am I wrong there?

An official API is an API described in official documentation and explicitly open to the public, an unofficial one is one not documented publicly and only meant for the company's products.