why cant i use an external DC power supply to replace the one in the chargers? no reason they cant be USB-c given proper supply but there seems to be some kind of special signaling.
The highest-current M12 battery (XC 4.0 Extended Capacity and XC 5.0 High Output) can deliver 600W peak; the highest-current standard M18 battery (High Output HD 12.0) can deliver 1620W; the highest-current M18 Forge battery (Forge HD 12.0) can deliver 3240W.[0]
There are vanishingly few AC-DC power supplies that can push 600W (that’s 50 amps at 12V), let alone 1620W (90 amps at 18V) or 3240W (180 amps!!) and definitely none with a USB-C plug on them. You’d realistically be limited to ~1500W on standard household receptacles, and you’d need some hefty cables on the output side of your power supply, especially if you want them to be jobsite-safe. For reference, 180 amps is in the same ballpark as EV fast charging stations; that’s a rough estimate on the size your cord would have to be plugged in to the bottom of the tool.
For the super light duty stuff like an M12 dremel, sure it’s doable. But for any tools that need high burst or sustained power, either a battery or just running the tool on 120V AC directly (or compressed air) is easier, cheaper, and probably safer.
if by "vanishingly few" you mean absolutely standard then you are correct. The small PSU I have in my home PC is 1000 watts. I have multiple kilowatt class AC-DC power supplies sitting around for other purposes. There is nothing special about that power level.
For perspective my DC welder is rated at 10000 watts of input. The efficiency is really poor however so I'd only see something like 4000 watts out in the best conditions.
124 duct tape patches over 10,000’ of rusted pipes ain't fixing anything. windows is an easy target and wont be fixed until there is real regulatory requirements that devs be responsible engineers. along with proper investigations and heavy civil penalties just like any other kind of engineering.
its different this time. the work isnt coming back because the market is now saturated by an oligopoly. IP law and anti competitive practices have effectively stopped upstarts. thats why old tech corps like IBM, Oracle gave trump money and align with their politics.
There are as many startups now as ever before. It's probably pointless to compete directly against an established company in a mature market like relational databases but there is unlimited opportunity for new stuff.
devs dont understand IP law or business. it doesnt matter if youre “innovative”. the concept of your techn was already R&D by someone else. you are beholden to them and they may license it but you will never own it. innovation is over.
ladybird does not have the resources to be a contender to current browsers. its well marketed but has no benefits or reason to exist over chromium. its also a major security risk as it is designed yet again in demonstrably unsafe c++.
i would not get an email for a domain that will be up for sale in 10 years. mozilla is not a sustainable org and has lost its core principles. Mozilla best serves people by shutting down and letting younger and better orgs replace it.
They are using stalwart, another open source product, for the backend stack. So you should be able to host your own server instance with custom domain when it gets built out. Stalwart itself just received a European funding grant to build out the features needed. From Thunderbird announcement:
> Thundermail is an email service. We want to provide email accounts to those that love Thunderbird, and we believe that we are capable of providing a better service than the other providers out there, that aligns with our values. We have been experimenting with this for a while now and are using Stalwart as the software stack we are building upon. We have been working with the Stalwart maintainer to improve its capabilities (for instance, we have pushed hard on calendar and contacts being a core piece of the stack).
> we have pushed hard on calendar and contacts being a core piece of the stack
Imagine maintaining a useful piece of FOSS and then Mozilla shows up and "pushes hard" for some feature they want for a service that's missed the boat by a decade and doesn't even elicit much hope from loyal users (including myself).
Stalwart is unique I think. The whole thing was built by essentially one developer in rust, and it's quite amazing how he has done it in just a few years. He's expressed interest in expanding the software beyond email in the past, and contacts/calendar/files shouldn't be too hard of a challenge for him.
That's a bit negative. There are plenty of people that want a full OSS alternative to Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo and others. That includes calendar and contacts.
I think you and GP are saying the same(-ish) thing. A non-profit which has no money cannot continue, and so if it spends more than it takes in then eventually it will have to stop. This may be ok if it's part of the mission, or if they're hoping that a big donation randomly shows up. A normal business whose mission is to make money hasn't got those options.
Sure, but this sort of thing (email, plus likely mostly shitty calendaring and contacts) is a very ok business. The fastmail people make a fine living at it (their product is as good as anything outside gmail. If you haven't, you should try it! I'm a happy decade-long customer). But it's not the sort of business that supports the massive employee count that Mozilla has.
I might be misunderstanding the org chart but Thunderbird is operated by MZLA Technologies Corporation, which is for-profit (although I guess it's owned by the non profit Mozilla, similar to how openai was?)
It matters because on your own domain you control the MX records (Mail eXchange) servers.
So, if Mozilla Thundermail were to disappear, you can switch servers on the MX record to another email provider with little downtime if done correctly.
You also become the sovereign of your email. Should your Google account get banned (a news like these hit HN once a month), you are left to start over changing email address in every service you use.
Not to mention dead accesses to SSO, because the Google account would be inaccesible by then.
I don't understand. You don't control any Mx records. You have an account with some company. You might lose it just like you might lose your Gmail account.
Also... You can use Gmail with your own domain. I don't get the meme with mx records.
> I don't understand. You don't control any Mx records.
Yes, you do (on your own domain).
> You have an account with some company. You might lose it just like you might lose your Gmail account.
Yes, but if you use your own domain, the same account username can exist on another provider. I can still write you an email to "firstname[at]firstnamelastname.com" and reach you.
As for the email messages, if you do email correctly (by downloading emails to a local email client, and then creating backups, or at the very least, using Google Takeout to export your mailbox regularly), you don't have to lose your email messages.
> Also... You can use Gmail with your own domain. I don't get the meme with mx records.
Exactly my point. By then, you use Google Workspace, which is an email provider to your own domain.
If you wanted to switch to Microsoft 365, or Fastmail like I do, I am the sovereign of my email address. Nobody noticed I switched email providers when I changed from Google Workspace to Fastmail, and that's the point.
To be able to dump the provider when you need to. Sovereignty.
> Also... You can use Gmail with your own domain. I don't get the meme with mx records.
Additional reply to this: To use that, you need to fiddle with MX records.
Owning the domain your email address uses gives you a greater degree of ownership over that email address and makes you service provider agnostic.
Using an @gmail.com address for example, if you decide to move to another service provider at some point or especially if your Google account gets banned, you’re stuck manually migrating over however many things you have attached to your address (some of which may not be easy or possible without access to the original address).
In contrast, if your address is on a domain you own, the provider becomes moot. It doesn’t matter if you migrate or get banned, you still have your email address, and after a small blip between providers all is as it was.
Can't speak for op, but for me it's a question of control. If this service ends up closing or otherwise loses me as a customer, I have to update every single contact and account before I can stop using it. That's not practical. If I bring my own domain, I can switch providers much more easily.
Some people might be ok with losing contact with the long tail after an email provider migration, but I'm not one of those people.
> I can't pick my own domain when using Gmail, and still works just fine.
I do. I've used my own domain with GMail for many years. I moved it there from another provider when Google were giving such things away for free to beta users.
Perhaps I should move on again and avoid the big data kleptomania.
I have a feeling that ever since late January 2025 in the U.S., oversight and regulatory overview might be more lax than in the past, and there will less of those "pesky" fines and criminal investigations...which begs the question: will 2025 be the year of increased negligent and/or nefarious behavior - both from corporate entities as well as hackers?
...I gotta go take a walk near some nature and flowers, because i just depressed myself with my comment. :-(
* New York Mayor Eric Adams's corruption case was dismissed in an apparent quid-pro-quo. White House official Thomas Howan asserted that he had an agreement with Adams on the morning news show Fox and Friends. Evidence indicated Adams accepted a hundred thousand dollars in benefits and bribes in exchange for helping the Turkish government certify a building permit. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trumps-b...
when things are new they get work done. then they hand it to others who squander it because they never had to build it.
what youre describing was 45 years ago. since that time tax funded research has become a “cushy job” where the politics matters far more than the output. the real work is done in private R&D where you actually have to get things done. no stealing money from people en mass to fund it.
similiar to the iron law of orgs / oligarchy. all orgs that live long enough eventually exist to just perpetuate the org. the “reasons” become marketing and politics but are no longer seriously considered in their effectiveness.
reply