It's a bit of a moot point. Systems that aren't receiving general OS updates wouldn't receive updated bootloaders anyhow. So they wouldn't need the updated certificates that allow for bootloaders signed after June 2026.

It gets a bit tautological, but only systems that are getting updates need updates.

It lacks an appropriate number of ports and doesn't support DisplayPort.

USB DisplayPort alt mode says hello. Every rear USB-C port on the Mac Mini is also a DisplayPort. Just as it is on all of Apple's laptops.

Thunderbolt is a garbage, proprietary Apple standard.

Thunderbolt is an Intel standard. And in the case of Thunderbolt 4, it's just an additional set of feature requirements over base USB4, where those features are optional. In other words, TB4 is a superset of USB4.

Thank you for calling this out.

The fact that these one-liner installers are becoming an increasingly common method of installing software is utterly insane - and even more dangerous.

The solution (probably) isn't to lock down OSes to prevent this. But at a minimum, developers need to be tapped with a pitchfork for trying to officially distribute their software in this fashion. Doing so is normalizing bad habits.

One of many examples: the official installation instructions for the Deno JS runtime are one-liners for all three OSes: Linux, Windows, and macOS. It's equally stupid on all of them.

Does this mean the Martian Council of Elders has finally figured out how to disable our satellites in orbit?

Will our gelsacs be safe?!

If I were going to buy one so that I can play this game, which is the better choice? Which one is newer?

Out of the box, the Xbox Series X is slightly better hardware than the regular PS5. it's not really enough to matter, especially on a mutliplatform game, but since you asked...

That said, Sony offers the PS5 Pro, a higher spec version of the console that Microsoft does not offer an equivalent of. So if price is no object, the PS5 Pro is expected to be the best platform to play it on.

Upcoming? The iPhone 16e was released last year. These are schematics for a phone that has been out for a year.

The problem with this document's release is that it's technical information that was supposed to be kept confidential forever.

I'm assuming this is just an error on the FCC's part, and that they automatically released it after a year. Though with the current administration, Hanlon's razor is getting harder and harder to apply.

Not too long. It's defense in depth; it's not meant to be outright impenetrable, just very (very) hard to get through.

Someone with enough drive, enough time, and enough resources will eventually put together an exploit chain that doesn't require an invalid tagged memory access. But if that raises the manpower requirement by 10-fold (to pull a number out of my ass), then it makes it that much more expensive to attack a phone. At some point, the Apple juice won't be worth the squeeze.

Given these changes, how does developer identification work? Is there even dev identification at this point?

My understanding is that Microsoft followed Apple for the same reason: a financial trail allows the stores to better authenticate that a developer is who they say they are, and conversely, it makes it harder for bad actors to get into the store. If Microsoft is no longer charging, do they still have an effective means to ID devs and to screen out fakes?

I've always loathed the term "Nintendo Tax" because it implies some kind of penalty, like a wealth tax or a vice tax. Though I can't argue that it's not a real thing - Nintendo's best games hold their market value far better than rival games, even from other top-tier Japanese developers.

Still, I would approach this phenomena from the other direction. Nintendo is not able to maintain high prices because they're somehow fleecing people (as a tax would imply), but because they work to make games that stand the test of time. And then back it up with a sales strategy to match.

So much of the industry treats video games as ephemeral entertainment - something to consume, and then throw away as you move on to the next game. It's the traditional media model for TV and movies extended to interactive media. And for most of the industry it's an accurate observation: game sales are ridiculously front-loaded, and few games (especially single-player games) have a long tail. After the initial hype subsides, you need to lower your price quickly in order to keep unit sales (and thus revenue) from cratering. All the while you're already hard at work on next year's game.

But Nintendo has been able to channel the lifecycle of board games and card games. In their eyes they aren't creating media, they're creating a digital plaything. They're creating something that you'll play now, but you'll also want to play next month, next year, next decade. Case in point: Mario Kart 8 is 11 years old and the only thing that has really diminished its value (and sales) after all of this time is that it finally has a successor in Mario Kart World.

When is the last time you saw a permanent price cut on Monopoly? Uno? Settlers of Catan. The occasional sale, sure. But a copy of Catan is still going to sell for $40+, even today. That's the business strategy Nintendo is tapping into. If a game is good - like really, really good - and it's repeatedly replayable, then why does the price need to be cut soon after launch? Why can't people come along and discover it years later? Why does it need to be priced like it's a quickly depreciating asset - like a movie instead of a board game?

And that is the ultimately where the Nintendo Tax as we know it comes from. Make a game good enough, make a game gamey-enough, and don't devalue it by replacing it 3 years down the line - and it's something people will want to buy even years later.

Though this is a relatively recent phenomena. It's only after we hit the PS360U generation of hardware that systems had enough processing power and memory for games to not be constrained and do whatever they want. And that games stopped being obviously dated in terms of visual when compared to the previous generation. It's no coincidence that this was the last generation where Nintendo offered their Nintendo Selects line of discounted games.

Still wondering about those upload speeds, though.

It's kind of a complex question. It depends on where you are and what plan you currently have.

If you're in a mid-split area (where Comcast is using a larger range of frequencies for upload traffic) and had a plan to take advantage of it - which it sounds like you are - then the new plans actually regress on upload speeds. The old ~1Gbps and ~2Gbps plans had 300Mbps nominal uploads (closer to 360Mbps due to overprovisioning), while all other plans were 150Mbps nominal. The new plans drop this down to 100Mbps nominal for everything except the new ~2Gbps plan, which gets 250Mbps nominal.

Unfortunately, you're facing an either/or proposition. Comcast won't remove the data cap for existing plans, you have to transition to a new plan. But if you do that, then you'll get the new, lower upload speeds. With that said, Comcast isn't forcing anyone to upgrade, so current customers can stay on their legacy plans indefinitely.

I've generally preferred to pay people a salary, when reasonable to do so.

I hire(d) people (I still employ some people directly) to do a job. So long as the job was done properly, I'm not a big stickler when it comes to spending time at work. If the job can be done in 4 days, so be it. My concern is that the work is done on time and properly. It's also not important to me how they did the work, so long as it was done right.

I'm all for a 4 hour work week, so long as their wages match what they'd make for a 40 hour work week. Yes, minimum wage is too low. Then again, I'd never consider paying someone the least amount I could pay them by law. That's just a kick in the proverbial nuts and pretty damned degrading. "I'd pay you less, but the law won't allow it."

My house was built before CAT6 came out. It should be easy to upgrade as everything runs through in-wall conduit. I figured I'd do that for future-proofing.

I've not really seen a need to upgrade. It works well enough and there are jacks in most rooms. I also don't have the bandwidth to make it matter much, though fiber will be here before too long. Upgrading then may matter. (Fiber wasn't going to come up my road, but I contacted the company and a couple of neighbors and I will pay for the fiber to be run.)

Cat5e should still be fine. I'm not going to bother paying for full GB service, as I don't need that much bandwidth. I'll be fine with half of that and CAT5e should be viable.

This is about the 'inadequate' comment you made.

I could see it being inadequate for some people. As for me, it's still holding up and still fit for purpose. I've lived in a bandwidth-impoverished area for going on two decades. So, my needs, perhaps better said expectations, are different. I don't even see a reason to go full boar on the GB speeds. As I am technically a business, they say I can request even higher speeds. I'm simply not interested in that.

Then again... We'll see how I feel after a few months. I may end up wanting to splurge and increase my speeds. It could happen.

You'd think so, but you won't feel a thing. You won't have to adjust your diet because you'll naturally lose weight. Then, well, you won't even suffer a headache, a toothache, a stubbed toe, or any of those other painful things.

Hmm... This needs a pithy statement that can be summed up enough to fit on a bumper sticker.

I dunno... I'm a doctor and if you're dead then you're in perfect health. You no longer have any ailments of any kind. You're not going to catch any diseases.

Just to be clear, I'm not a medical doctor. I don't even play a medical doctor on TV. But, I am a doctor - though I don't tend to use the honorary, for a variety of reasons.

As mentioned elsewhere, per 100,000 cars, ICE powered vehicles catch fire more often than EVs.