Well, you can already do extreme tinkering to the point that RPi can no longer guarantee it functioning properly :)

IIRC it's just that the bootcode.bin file is provided by Broadcom, and not the RPi foundation, so they can't open source it because they don't have the license to do so (this isn't the only proprietary blob in the default Pi distribution, but most of the other ones have open source alternatives/aren't that necessary/are open source now that they use the RP1 chip instead of broadcom peripherals).

There's similar, slightly more open arrangements, with the Pi Pico W, where they can't provide the firmware for the Wifi chip, but they can provide a library to interface with it, with the caveat that the license _only_ allows for that library to be used with the RP* family of microcontrollers [1]

[1]: https://github.com/georgerobotics/cyw43-driver/blob/faf36381...

Other than broadcom licensing, I can guess that there's a warranty issue because the firmware controls the voltage.

You can kill Pi with a thousand ways. I don’t really understand how could a warranty work outside of obvious cases…

The firmware is in control of the clocks, and in case too high of a clock is specified in config.txt it burns a 'warranty void' fuse.

Short answer for the type ordering and `fn`: because C/C++/Java tried that type of syntax and the result was an ambiguous grammar that is way too hard to parse, not to mention C's overly complicated pointer syntax.

This website is completely unreadable on an ultrawide monitor, it seems to make the font size dependent on the window's width, which makes it absolutely massive (I can maybe fit half a paragraph on the screen?), and the browser zoom does not seem to change the font size because of it...

> the browser zoom does not seem to change the font size because of it

This is one of the worst cases of this I have seen. It is literally unreadable for me. Normally I can use browser zoom to sort it out, but this beauty even defeats that workaround.

The irony of this happening on an article talking about bad design...

It's not ironic; it just demonstrates that design is hard to get right.

It's not hard to design a web page that's 95% text and which lets the user adjust the font size via the browser's zoom controls.

Yup, but while making the window smaller to write this I noticed I can make it a small window, about the size of my phone, to get text that is reasonable.

The site, giving UI advice, is written assuming your display is always ~7" ?

I thought that the site must be designed for mainly mobile, so I switched mobile mode on in the dev tools in firefox. However then there is some menu header text overlapping the main body.

It seems the design of this site is very much style over function.

Text on safari mobile is too small for my bad eyes and increasing font size does… not increase font size.

Someone while designing for the mobile, forgot about desktops.

  ```
  :root {
    font-size: calc(1vw + 1vh + .5vmin);
  }

  html {
    max-width: 100%;
  }

  body {
    color: #444;
    font-family: "Vollkorn", georgia, serif;
    margin: 0 auto;
    max-width: 100%;
  }
  ```

They can remove the width on the HTML and replace the body's `max-width: 100%` with something like;

  ```
  width: 100%;
  max-width: 1200px;
  ```

One solution you could use to get around this weird design decision, is to use the reader mode in Firefox (I'm not sure what is the alternative for other browsers).

"Reader mode" is the ultimate weapon against designer unreadability. It feels like it should have ADA-mandate level importance.

This worked for me, thanks :)

All they have to do is remove "p {max-width: 28rem;}" and the website becomes beautiful. The text fills the entire width of the screen, and the font scales with the screen size (though they should dial it back a bit, or have a different scaling ramp). It's like reading an actual document, and how the web should be. Bonus points, it's ridiculously "responsive" for small screen sizes.

Yes, I know they got it kinda "wrong", but they're arguably going in the right direction here. I'd give the author points for trying something out of the box, and also for "sticking it" to the monstrosity that Bootstrap started many years ago.

> the font scales with the screen size

The font somehow re-scales if you zoom the web page, at least with mousewheel zoom on a desktop browser. Instant accessibility failure. I've also never seen this before and couldn't work out how it had been achieved?

Ironic

I think for better or for worse it makes sense that this is delegated to a separate package. For me it always seemed like a weird tangential thing that Zig did that is not really related to Zig The Language, and more to Zig The Build System. It made more sense when they were depending on LLVM either way, but now that they're closer to getting rid of it, it does not make sense to keep the dependency just for something that always seemed more like a 'neat thing' than a core language feature.

Ironically, in this specific instance (Android), it actually _isn't_ GNU/Linux. Distros like Alpine also aren't GNU/Linux.

True, but it was still worth the meme (:

I think it solves a different issues. This is aiming to solve a depth issue (e.g. a deeper coat rack would make a door hit it, as shown in the video) while a multi layer hanger seems to be more a "I don't have enough space for all the hangers" (but importantly, you have space for at least one!)

This is false. While you can set a lot of things through yaml, some like setting the MQTT broker have to be done via the UI.

Ah interesting, I didn't realise that! I often drop into the YAML to configure Automations, etc. I'm not using MQTT at the moment.

Yes, automations and UI can still be done using yaml (and I don't think they plan on dropping that - it's very useful to be able to put that on version control). It's mostly for configuring integrations that they've dropped the yaml (annoying if you're trying to set it up with NixOS or something, but the home assistant maintainers are unusually aggressive against distro packages anyway, especially for nix...)

I'd guess that if iMessage had a market share even remotely close to that of the US, it'd be a much bigger issue and would definitely qualify. Still, here it really isn't, no one actively uses it (if they do, it's probably because what they really wanted to do was send an SMS because they were unsure if the person had WhatsApp or something, and iMessage converted it)

Can you think of any that actually would have applied under these rules? These markets are basically entirely dominated by American companies.

Spotify arguably would have qualified if they had included an "online music service" category alongside "online video service" (where YouTube was designated). The fact that this was left out is interesting.

Spotify is _way_ below the minimum market cap (75bn, I think).

True. Including market cap in the definition is another oddity in this - why not just look at the size of the active user base?

Specifically so that EU companies like Spotify wouldn't be included.

(I am guessing there is a specific carve-out in the law that exempts Deutsche Telekom, which is bigger than $75b, and Vodafone, which is close.)

DT is primarily a telecom, so already subject to a lot of regulation about carriage and so on. Not sure it would do anything if they were included; it’s not like they’re saying (or could say) “yeah, you can’t phone people who use O2 with this phone”.

IMO the most surprising omission is Telegram (presumably due to the market cap thing). I would have thought they’d be quite keen to bring _that_ into the net.

Looks like Telegram is private (so harder for observers to accurately value) and likely still would be well under the size cap (support for the notion that the size cap is there to exclude EU companies).

Dubai isn't exactly in the EU...

Huh, I thought they were based in Europe, but they now say that is dated: "The Telegram team had to leave Russia due to local IT regulations and has tried a number of locations as its base, including Berlin, London and Singapore."

Not for the Digital Markets Act, but the German clothing company Zalando is iirc large enough to qualify under the stipulations of the Digital Services Act (which is more focused on digital moderation if I'm not mistaken, rather than anti-monopolist behavior).

Last I checked, Zalando sued the CJEU because they were unhappy with the designation.

Zalando objects that for everybody else users were counted, while for them it was visitors (a much looser association, they argue). The decision will sharpen DSA's profile, one way or the other.

That's basically what I'm saying. We have nothing. It's shameful.

No, it is shameful that US allows such huge monopolies in the first place. These should not exist at all and should be broken up before becoming so huge.

Umm none of these companies are monopolies. For everyone in the list there is another option

Europe just doesn't have any companies at all

10 of the world's largest 50 companies by revenue are European.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r...

Interesting list. The only European companies I recognize are car companies; Volkswagen, Fiat Chrysler, and Mercedes-Benz. The rest are all energy or mining companies, with the exception of Schwarz Gruppe which is apparently a retail chain? It's also surprising how many of the American companies are healthcare-related, and how the relative ordering changes to favor tech and oil companies when you sort by profit instead of revenue.

This list actually surprised me. The European companies on the list fall into 3 categories: commodities (e.g. petroleum or mining), utilities, and automakers.

> For everyone in the list there is another option

Yep. WhatsApp and FB Messenger. Two options. Except that they seem to be owned by the same company.

Signal, iMessage, Telegram, Line, WeChat, Element, SMS ...the list goes on n on

Yeah and if you put it that way Brave or Opera are viable browser alternatives that should be regulated :)

Only ubiquitous thing in that list is SMS. Which is crap and that's why no one uses it any more, and no one ever liked to use it.

They are viable options. I dont know about regulated, but them not being used is their problem. IE6 was king and then phoenix unseated them, followed by firefox. So people have options, them not using the other option is their issue

none of these are options when the only way to talk to my landlord or my customer is whatsapp.

Europe's definition of monopoly is one that actually makes sense, unlike the US's bafflingly stupid version. You do not need over 50% to be a monopoly.

More like, no other financial and investment markets are as liquid and stable as America’s, which attracts the world’s innovators and investors. The US should not replicate the failure and incompetence at the helm of the EU and other major bureaucracies.

> The US should not replicate the failure and incompetence at the helm of the EU and other major bureaucracies.

Yeah, protecting consumers and allowing fair competition, what a shame.

You missed the point. It doesn't matter where competition comes from, this whole campaign is about loosening the grip a handful of companies ("gatekeepers") have over de facto monopolies.

In short, this would benefit smaller players everywhere.

Mercedes and BMW with their car software?

If anything, YouTube is even more of a monopoly than Google, because while other search engines can index the same internet and show similar results, YouTube competitors don't have the creators behind them to create content for them, and the creators don't want to create content for these platforms since they don't have the users.