> It'll be interesting to see how many/how quickly apps adopt the UI that lets you make the most of the foldable screen.
For iOS 27, apps are automatically automatically opted in to resizability. Apple was clear at WWDC that apps need to dynamically adjust to any available scene size at runtime, not just for iPhone Duo, but also for iPad windowing and iPhone Mirroring on Mac. There may be a grace period, but Apple hasn't shared one AFAIK.
Same. My side projects are coded almost exclusively with the Deepseek V4 Flash 07/31 in omp, and it recovers beautifully in every case. I'm using OpenCode Zen.
OpenCode but I variously use DeepSeek API/OpenRouter/Vercel AI gateway. I'm sure it's the combo of model + inference provider that is the issue and not the model alone. DeepSeek API also has far better inference speed and reliability than the cheapest providers. That said I never seem to have these issues when using GLM 5.3 flash served by OpenRouter/Vercel.
Network jail isn't a 100% for these -- in their testing, they determined that they could connect to the public Comcast networks that Comcast tries to blanket areas with. So even if you don't let it access your own networks, it will look for other ways to phone home.
No, they did not find this. They speculated that in the future the tvs "could" do that and that there is precedent with other devices. But despite this being repeated over and over as fact, it is in fact not proven to be the case.
Yes, it's extremely troubling, and not constrained to tv manufacturers. We need some sort of legal overhaul to protect people from this sort of thing.
For example, I was looking at Bird scooters/e-bikes while travelling since they were the local provider of rentable bikes. I noticed a particularly aggressive EULA declaration in their app and decide to skim through the EULA. In it, they had language that stated that I gave them unlimited rights to my likeness and voice. So by clicking this EULA this company could then harvest any photos of me, interviews, what have you, clone my voice or likeness with AI, use it for ads or even sell it to others to use! Needles to say I uninstalled instead of agreeing.
But how many other things did I unknowingly sign to in these EULAs? It's genuinely crazy.
I work in the refurb department of an ewaste recycling company. I had a TV on a roller stand come in some months ago. When I turned it on, I realized that it wasn't any ordinary consumer-grade TV, but a commercial grade one. It lacked any sort of smart functionality, had no apps, and reported DCI 4K resolution (4096x2160) when connected to a PC. I found a remote that worked with it (even though it was a 'smart' TV remote). I listed it as a "dumb TV" for $200 and it took a while to sell.
> and reported DCI 4K resolution (4096x2160) when connected to a PC
Was that the actual panel resolution though? Because my 4K Samsung consumer TV also reports 4096x2160 resolutions in its EDID and will accept that input (but the native 3840x2160 is marked as preferred). It would be surprising if there were entirely separate panels used only for commercial displays.
> Alternatively, you can get an Apple TV and keep the TV off networks or in network jail.
The problem is that a lot of TVs won't even let you use it that way without signing in or downloading an app first. My Vizio wouldn't do anything until I acknowledged a terms of service screen. The only way I could do that was by downloading the Vizio app and connecting it to my network.
The cost of returning the thing to the store can be high.
The packaging can be precarious; what was once stapled cardboard is now taped, what was once a neat and rigid rectangle is now kind of floppy and misshapen and getting worse every time it moves.
Besides, they're big things that can be challenging to move around. Doing it solo is mostly a non-starter.
But sure: Eventually, it gets wheeled back in through the same front door of the store that it came out of just a few hours before.
Now the real fun starts: They don't want it back. They hem and haw. Other associates arrive to reinforce the ultimately firm standpoint of "No."
You point at the return policy on the wall. You read the relevant passages aloud, word by word. You tell them, over and over again, that you're here to return merchandise.
Some smart-sounding person shows up, gives everything an appraisal, and explains "Sir, it even says DO NOT RETURN TO STORE right here on the box!"
It's not clear who got loud first, but it's quite obviously the case that things are definitely loud now.
Finally, the store manager appears. He just needs this fucking circus to end. He asks no questions, issues the refund without hesitation, and everyone walks away pissed off.
---
I mean, I guess that's resolution.
But what often happens instead is this: The TV is unpacked. It's mounted on the wall or arranged just-so on whatever furniture is involved, requiring sometimes-tricky bits of assembly the whole way through. There's excited anticipation in the air about the new widget and how much better it is going to be than the old widget.
Finally, you switch it on and discover that it can't proceed without a network login. This raises a series of red flags that you find impossible to ignore.
So you go out back to cool off for a few minutes, think about life's decisions, and Google ways to get this 2026 build of this TV that nobody online ever mentions the specific model number of to work offline without any connection.
And the missus knows how these things can go. So while that's happening, she signs the thing into the network and gets it set up with an account "just to see how it really works."
Now the TV is connected and it's never going back to the store.
Mounting on the wall is just four screws to the TV, with a standard bolt pattern that fits any modern TV. Whatever accomodations were made will work exactly the same with any TV of approximately the same size.
Since the mounting hardware you already have from your previous TV does follow VESA, you would be returning the new one for that reason.
Unless, you know, it was amazing, like completely dumb with no registration step, and offering great picture quality. That might be worth drilling some new holes in the mounting plate, or whatever it takes to make it work.
When I say returning, of course I mean not buying in the first place! "Does it have a standard bolt pattern compatible with my intended mount" is one of the first things you check for in the technical specs, long before you order something or go pick it up. If your mount is strictly 100x100, you can't have a larger TV on it that has a 200x100 or 200x200.
I've been a consumer of electronic goods for several decades, I have returned many things to stores, I've installed televisions professionally, and I've had one or more missuses.
Is there any merit to pinning me down on this matter?
Do you want me to start asking you the questions, instead?
I'm hoping someone can explain why this is interesting.
I get that Herdr wants investors to give them money to own developers' coding sessions, but the value proposition ("Walk away and they keep working. Come back from any machine and they're where you left them.") seems like a miss since it's so easy to do that without them.
Well, they're mainly introducing Herdr Cloud which I take to be similar to Tailscale (and other comments seem to support this too). `herdr login` on any machine, anywhere and suddenly that box joins your Herdr network of boxes you can connect to and deploy agents to. This is totally doable with Tailscale today, but maybe there's other features that can only be realised with some kind of cooperation at or above the network level?
The 9/11 Commission¹ (see page 7) found that the existing FAA/NORAD protocols were "unsuited in every respect" to hijacked airliners being used as weapons.
Additionally, "the NEADS air defenders had nine minutes' notice on the first hijacked plane, no advance notice on the second, no advance notice on the third, and no advance notice on the fourth."²
I assumed that NEADS did not receive appropriate notices, but this it what I do not understand how could it happen, and if it happened, why did not heads fall for this, immediately after the events.
While I was watching the TV, before the following attacks, I was thinking that they must track now where all the other airplanes already in flight are, to determine if everything is OK with those, and if not, to find them.
If I was thinking about this, as an amateur, I cannot believe that there were not many in the US military thinking the same during those moments.
There was a half hour until the second hit. I would have expected that in ten minutes maximum it would have been known if all the other flights are in their normal trajectories, or some are missing.
When 3 more planes were found missing, I would have expected a full scale operation to find them on the radars.
Perhaps another 10 minutes for finding the planes and another 10 minutes to shoot down the one that was going towards the Twin Towers, was short, so perhaps the second hit could have been forgivable, but until the one that hit the Pentagon there has been an enormous amount of time, much more than sufficient to locate and destroy the plane.
In Europe where I live, until the recent Russian wars there was a much lower likelihood of wars or terrorist attacks than in USA, but nonetheless, for as long as I remember, around important targets, like big cities or military objectives, there have always been dense anti-aircraft defenses and radar stations, ready day and night to intervene in the unlikely event of some kind of aircraft attack, and the air space has always been scanned continuously for suspicious or unidentified aircraft.
I expect that the biggest military spender would have more of those than here and better radars, so if properly used they should have been able to find immediately the missing airplanes.
If that did not happen I can only assume that some people with high positions in the military command have made serious mistakes and under pressure they have failed to take the necessary measures.
This is not very surprising, but then I would have expected the guilty people to be exposed and some "lessons learned" to be applied, to prevent for such a situation to ever happen again.
However, after 9/11 I did not hear any word about the obvious mistakes of the US administration and military, but only about the bad terrorists, and instead of hearing about measures to prevent the repetition of such mistakes I heard about things like the "Patriot" Act, which gave inappropriate powers to the US government, which was the great beneficiary of the 9/11 attacks, not the terrorists.
Thanks for the link to the complete report.
EDIT:
Thanks again, I have read the report and it was much worse than I could have imagined. The confusion and lack of coordination of FAA and NORAD were unbelievable.
On the other end of the Earth, people who watched TV were better informed in real time about what was happening, than the people who worked in FAA and NORAD and had to solve the situation.
So much was wrong that indeed it would have impossible to identify directly responsible persons. The main problem was, as you have said, that the protocols to be followed in such a situation were completely inadequate, and even those had not been followed (i.e. for any hijacked airplane a military escort should have been immediately deployed, but due to very bad coordination the hijacked airplanes were not located in time).
In my opinion, it's not worth while giving them the benefit of the doubt and studying their “report” (narrative). They play dumb, and “OMG, we f*cked up so badly, it's simply unbelievable!” Well, it is, verbatim. And nobody should believe it, or them.
Here's an observation from my very brief 48h visit to NYC in mid-September 2000. Walking around lower Manhattan, on my way to Battery Park, I came past the WTC and saw, across an empty plaza, a queue of a few dozen people, probably to enter the building or the tourist elevator. The very fact that the queue “stood out” in the general void felt strange. So few people, on a busy and perfect picture postcard blue sky ~25°C late summer early afternoon. And all the streets down to Battery Park were empty. Zero street life. No cafés, no restaurants, no nothing. No one going for a coffee with a colleague or business partner. A total commercial and tourist wasteland.
And yet we're told there were 40 or 50,000 people working in the towers. To that I say bollocks. Rather, the number of people working in the towers must have been commensurate with the level of street life, which was zero. And from that everything can be explained easily.
Not to forget the money flow. The largest insurance case (and fraud) in human history. Made enough money to make thousands of millionaires.
It's not unusual for Mac users to create custom shortcuts for things like this using built-in and 3rd-party tools like Shortcuts, Automator/AppleScript, Keyboard Maestro, Hammerspoon, etc.
For copying the path of a file specifically, in Finder you can hold Option and then pick Edit → Copy as Pathname.
> Indeed, Pangram has become important to so many of us that I was thrilled when Pangram Labs co-founder and CEO Max Spero joined us recently on Oxide and Friends.
Is obvious AI-assisted writing better or worse than an obvious PR quid pro quo and/or cross-promotion?
This is (obviously?) false, but considering how well-capitalized we are at the moment, you do have me wondering what a quid pro quo would be for; perhaps in this fictional universe Pangram has lucked into some of the PCIe clock buffers that we've been scrambling to secure enough of?
By "quid pro quo" I wasn't suggesting that Pangram's PR people's podcast placement was pay-for-play, just that they traded access for your positioning of their tech and their exec in your content marketing efforts.
That's pretty normal, but the point is that a blog post which is 35% Pangram promotion may not actually be less annoying than the use of AI to help write blog posts.
Yeah, fair -- and definitely not: I am earnestly just a fan of what they built (and I also think it's really important as a way of getting a check against rampant LLM use).
For iOS 27, apps are automatically automatically opted in to resizability. Apple was clear at WWDC that apps need to dynamically adjust to any available scene size at runtime, not just for iPhone Duo, but also for iPad windowing and iPhone Mirroring on Mac. There may be a grace period, but Apple hasn't shared one AFAIK.
reply