I was told the total cost was about 10k or so including filing fees and lawyers, and so on, and O1 closer to 50k or so. Seems like most of big tech will just try for O1 instead now... I've heard some wild stories over the years of how people "manufactured" eligibility, and/or the kinds of arguments their lawyers made.

They seem to have fixed that, at least for me all the top results are Pinboard clients or other products with Pinboard in the name.

With the ads it really feels like Apple is playing all sides, they almost always show the competitor first. When you search the competitor it's a different competitor at the top. You can keep going until you terminate at some app that presumably pays top dollar to appear as an ad for themselves right above their app in the search results. The only thing I'm surprised by is that they even allow people to put ads over their own first party apps

The ad slot is purely a revenue tool, not a discovery aid. It forces developers to pay just to defend their own branded search terms. App Store Search ads are a hidden increase in commissions that you either accept to pay by bidding on your own app's name, or omit at the expense of having competitors show on top of you all the time, stealing your revenue. It creates a significant drain on resources for indies, to the point that it's often no longer worth it to bother creating apps.

That's why Apple is now doing everything in their power to make app development easier, but that will more likely increase quantity and not necessarily quality, as it only deepens the ecosystem's problems by inviting more noise. The practical reality is, if you are not VC-backed and if you are not playing the heavy ad spend game, the App Store is more of a barrier than anything else.

At least it's always only one ad, but on the other hand it takes up half the screen. Plus the title is the name of the app, not "Firefox". Really, the bar is not very high for ads

The worst thing about it is that it looks exactly like a regular app listing, too. The only indication that it's an ad is a tiny "ad" icon - a pale blue square with slightly paler blue text. And that icon isn't even next to the (large and visible) app name, it's next to the (small and greyed out) tagline.

I've heard lots of people complain during the "exploratory" phase of writing code - maybe you haven't fully figured out how to write the code yet, you're iteratively making changes and restructuring as you go. Most languages make this easy, but with Rust e.g. if you add a lifetime to a reference in a struct it usually becomes a major refactor which can be frustrating to deal with when you're not even sure yet if your approach will work. More experienced devs would probably just use Rc or similar in that case to avoid the lifetime, and then maybe go back and refactor later once the code is "solidified", but for newer devs - they add the &, see the compiler error telling them it's missing a lifetime annotation, spend 30min refactoring, and that's how these stereotypes get reinforced

"You have to backport security fixes for your own tiny platform because your build environment doesn't support our codebase or make your build environment support our codebase" seems like a 100% reasonable stance to me

> your build environment doesn't support our codebase

If that is due to the build environment deviating from the standard, then I agree with you. However, when its due to the codebase deviating from the standard, then why blame the build environment developers for expecting codebases to adhere to standards. That's the whole point of standards.

Is there a standard that all software must be developed in ANSI C that I missed, or something? The git developers are saying - we want to use Rust because we think it will save us development effort. NonStop people are saying we can't run this on our platform. It seems to me someone at git made the calculus: the amount that NonStop is contributing is less than what we save going to Rust. Unless NonStop has a support contract with git developers that they would be violating, it seems to me the NonStop people want to have their cake and eat it too.

According to git docs they seem to try to make a best effort to stick to POSIX but without any strong guarantees, which this change seems to be entirely in line with: https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/CodingG...

An important point of using C is to write software that adheres to a decades old very widespread standard. Of course developers are free to not do that, but any tiny bit of Rust in the core or even in popular optional code amounts to the same as not using C at all, i.e. only using Rust, as far as portability is concerned.

If your codebase used to conform to a standard and the build environment relies on that standard, and now the your codebase doesn't anymore, then its not the build environment that deviates from the standard, its the codebase that brakes it.

Had you been under the impression that any of these niche platforms conform to any common standard other than their own?

Because they don’t. For instance, if they were fully POSIX compliant, they’d probably already have LLVM.

I expect them to conform to the C standard or to deal with the deviation. I don't think POSIX compliance is of much use on an embedded target.

I’m sold.

There is aerospace on macOS, which works very well IME. Some missing features but active development and the author is happy to accept PRs as long as they fit within the project scope

Every person I know that works "back of the house" says the amount of plastic that you don't even see as a consumer is at least 10x of the final consumer packaging

I think whatever companies you were at just didn't have very effective meetings. There's a time for "laptops down" and there's a time for laptops. If we can't prototype, brainstorm, outline ideas... why even have meetings in the first place?

> why even have meetings in the first place

Exactly. I personally have never been in a meeting which I thought was absolutely necessary. Except maybe new fire regs.

It's a dumb argument anyway. Most normies think autopilot means the plane flies itself. At the very least they think it flies itself except for landing or takeoff. By the technical definition of an autopilot perhaps they were correct, but not by the colloquial meaning

It won't happen, but I really wish to see Tesla lawyers telling the court "we know the advert text, video, and the term 'Autopilot' are misleading, but they're just, you know, 'corporate puffery'".