you could easily imagine fedora distributing their own build of software whose licensing fails to comply with the debian free software guidelines; bundling proprietary software used to be common in linux distributions in fact
Speaking of large batch files, if anyone has ever softmodded a Wii, there is a good chance you used ModMii, which is by far the largest batch program I've seen. The main script [1] is a batch file that clocks in at over a megabyte. I used to be pretty into the Wii modding scene and remember talking with the author of that script about random batch things a few times. I can't imagine maintaining a file that big.
It's sad that so many projects simply stopped updating a decade or more ago... the first 90% of work is building a USB loader and the second 90% is maintaining it, and neither the author nor I want to figure it out. I read online that SNEEK lets you screenshot games... it doesn't work (wrong filesystem? neek2o and sneek have a different feature set?). Also god all those Exception (DSI) and learning a decade later they were segfaults... yummy memory-unsafe embedded programming.
I found that ModMii leaked some global variables from a (failed) SNEEK install to a system menu mod('s help file), and being written in Batch certainly explains things...
I once knew a (very old) old accounting system that had to work around a 64kB limit and therefor used a programmatically generated set of many hundreds batch files batch files calling each other (not containing the program logic of course).
But each of them was less than 100 lines long.
But 27 kLOC for the WII thing or 3 kLOC for the recovery tool which even looks a bit more convoluted then the WII thing sounds interesting to maintain.
On the other hand, if it works, no dependencies no 200 MB binary blob.
The point of this project is more about squeezing the Wii into the smallest possible footprint rather than making it convenient to use. If you wanted something similar with ports integrated though, check out the GC Nano (which despite looking like a Gamecube has Wii internals), or Short Stack.
I think if you could give the unit power, get a video signal out, and control it somehow, it would feel more complete. It's an amazing little device but if it really can't be used at all without the dock... does it count as the smallest?
As someone who is absolutely not part of that scene, I obviously don't get a say in that.
The "dock" could just be a 7" display, controllers, and a power input. Not fully wireless but certainly handheld. Could even give it a catchy name, like "Wii You".
All that really matters is how much power (watts, i.e. voltage * current) the device draws compared with how much power the laptop was designed to output. Shifting the voltage doesn't really affect anything other than losing some power to conversion inefficiencies.
Interestingly, the author's blog post [1] mentions that this is due to technical limitations and not specifically done by choice, although I do like the effect.
> When we zoom in, we discard the information of the largest meta-metapixel, so it is not always possible to reconstruct the same scene when we zoom out again.
> Since zooming in and out can be continued indefinitely, we also realize that we need infinite information to accurately represent "our current position".
How large are the files you're formatting? I have prettier set to format on save in vscode and even for the largest files in my codebase (>1000 lines) it formats near-instantaneously on my 2019 macbook pro. Definitely well under a second.
The difference is that it is actually valid according to the HTML spec. Browsers will render lots of invalid HTML which is shorter than that, but if you put such HTML in a validator such as [1], it will have errors.
Putting <!DOCTYPE html><title>.</title> in that validator returns no errors (it does have a warning though).
Although in response to OP's question, no, I don't think it is related.
I think you are underestimating how many apps get over 1M downloads. According to [1], the Google Play Store has over 34000 apps with 1M+ installs, I assume the number is similar for the App Store.
So if you have a popular free app, there is a good chance you will hit the 1M install threshold. This change is basically forcing you to monetize your app. Plenty of people can afford losing $99/year for having a free app that isn't monetized. Not many can afford losing several thousand per month.
The Core Technology Fee still only applies if you want to either
a) distribute outside the Apple App Store, or
b) pay the lower 17%/10% commission.
If you're already distributing the app for free, then you're not going to care about (b), so this only applies to apps that meet all three of the following criteria:
1. Free
2. Popular enough to significantly breach that 1M install threshold
3. Distributed through an alternative App Store
Anyone who has a popular free app out there right now doesn't need to change anything; they'll continue to have exactly the same expenses they had yesterday.
Maybe I'm misreading the original article, but it sounds like it would also apply to apps distributed only through the regular App Store:
> Core Technology Fee — iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.
Only if they choose the “new” terms, they can stay on the existing terms if they want to distribute through the App Store, as it’s free so the commission change doesn’t matter.
Basically seems to kill off Facebook forcing people to a Meta App Store for the free FaceBook app (and thus not being subject to App Store review, which has stopped some of the more brutal privacy invasions they’ve tried)
They meant t56 as in "temperature is 56", not as in every random phrase gets assigned a jumble of numbers and letters. Though I suppose error-correction could still apply.
