Not to take things too off track but I worked at Egghead Software around that time and the looping recording we had on a TV for that game haunts me to this day.
Yes, this appears to be entirely about raising the price of iPhones without raising the cost of iPhones. Most people don’t buy it out right so they need a way to ease the prices raised by keeping the monthly payments around the same. The difference is you have to return the phone at the end instead of owning it.
I searched for each of the supported eInk devices and they were all tiny. Anyone know if there is a larger reader (maybe Paperwhite size-ish) that might run this?
The "Hardware" link indicates that the BoM specifies a "24-pin SPI e-paper for GoodDisplay panels (3.97″, 4.26″, 7.5″ and up)." A search turns up this: https://www.good-display.com/product/516.html
I've never heard of any of them; I guess it's geared toward build-it-yourself or kit-type devices? I can't imagine a serious aftermarket FW not supporting a single Kindle or Kobo device.
Ask amazon and Kobo to open their system if it's so important for you. The devs have probably more interesting things to do than playing wack-a-mole with a multi-billion organisation
I'm not knocking the devs for the choice to target open hardware, only remarking that that choice signals the project is for hackers, not regular consumers.
I would say that there is no such thing as firmware targeted for regular consumers. Regular consumers do not know what firmware is.
I am still disappointed that there is no kindle sized hardware that this can run on, but I think that has to do with manufacturers rather than firmware developers.
I mean, a) regular consumers are just gonna buy a Kindle, do nothing with its software, and only buy books from Amazon. But also b) the way a lot of these hobby things expand is that if they get some market traction, someone starts making and selling pre-assembled, retail-friendly versions of the thing. Look at wacky keyboards, for instance: Used to be that you had to solder your own weird ergo split, now there are companies like ZSA and Keebio that'll make really nice versions as finished products.
Because if enough idiots do it, stupid managers think it's the standard. The EU Commission is unlikely to know anything about their website, it's made by some department that blindly follows a manager's order that just looked at what others did and copied it.
We could all have used the DNT header as a bypass when the GPDR came out, and you can still use cookies for non tracking purposes without any banner.
So the EU commission put out a rule that you say has been widely misunderstood and implemented via malicious compliance. Where is the EU statement and education on this? Why aren’t they louder in explaining this isn’t what they wanted? And they allow their own websites to do the very thing that they supposedly don’t want?
Do you maybe want to reconsider? Perhaps instead companies are putting in a good faith effort to comply. I have been invoked in discussions around legal compliance of all sorts of regulation and trust me: no one has ever ever expressed “let’s do some terrible thing because we disagree with regulation”. It’s conspiratorial thinking.
The general council (lawyers) at companies are making the decisions around cookies banners and the like, not the folks trying to make money. Regardless of how you might interpret the law and requirements around GDPR, the legal profession as a whole seems to think the crap we live with today is necessary. If it isn’t, it’s on the EU technocrats to clarify in communications, written rules, and on their own damn website what it is supposed to look like.
And clearly, you think billion-dollar companies making dark patterns, ignoring web standards and choosing to track people left and right are less to blame the inconvenience of a banner (that warns you they do) than the people trying to protect your privacy and did it imperfectly.
I have made enought web sites and app that don't have a banner to know it's perfectly possible, even today.
I have implemented DNT support and know it was a great solution before it was taken away.
I have worked with enough clients to know why they chose the banner anyway.
Unlike you I actually read the law, and worked at implementing it. Including with and without a banner.
So I have to conclude you are not an honest actor in this debate, and you are clearly angry as well.
You bet I am angry. I am tired of people defending a law by saying “that’s not what it was meant to do!” As if the intent matters one bit. What matters is the result of the law. And the result of this regulation is to make the web universally crappier than it was before. It did basically nothing to improve things in the real world.
The NRA has a lot of overlap, but Reagan was never particularly pro-gun - he was literally a California Actor, and it was under him that most federal gun laws were passed. (1984 GCA being huge)
In many ways, he was just really good at pretending to be/pushing folks on the rights buttons, while being a smokescreen for all the other laws that people needed to pass. In that way, a lot like Trump is right now.
Notably, Reagan also had dimentia/Alzheimer’s through a large portion of his terms, not that it is related to our current situation at all…
Depending upon whether or not you think the Constitution is a living document, a modern reading of 2A could reasonably include things like explosives, drones, radar, etc., but maybe exclude things like nukes, fighter jets, biochemical weapons, other purely offensive things. I'm very pro-gun regulation, but I think this would be a fine reading as long as we're doing the same thing across the Constitution, i.e. substantive due process.
But while conservatives love modern readings of 2A, they deny modern readings of anything else. So they have to find some way to fit their desired outcomes into originals/textualism, leading to absurd dilemmas like "either the founders meant muskets or they meant nukes", or tortured standards like scanning all firearm or self-defense laws in effect around the late 18th century to discern intent, which predictably do not emerge from consistent foundational principles because their authorship is scattered across space and time and thus really are no help... unless of course you cherry pick shamelessly.
It's an interesting legal question. Around the time that the US Constitution was written there were private citizens who owned artillery pieces and even entire warships.
If you can afford either of those you have enough invested in the system that you probably won't use it lightly and if you don't you should and that's kind of the system's problem.
