I'm confused, because I desperately want pinned tabs to stay on their URL, but that's not what happens, and I end up with random URLs in these tabs because I click links. Is there a config flag I flipped without thinking?
It seems they have listened to users and allow pinned tabs to navigate to any url.
Initially this is how pinning worked, and along the way they changed it so that if you navigated to a different domain from the one you pinned, it opened in a new (unpinned) tab, which was jarring.
Now it seems they have reverted that change. So they seem to vacillate on the implementation.
Yeah, I don't get why I'd want to pin a tab and then change the url (which I do accidentally for a pinned tab every couple of weeks or so). When it's not the site I pinned, it's just...a tab?
From my experience I want to pin tabs because I simply want a set of tab available for use that remain visible when I scroll through a lot of tab headers to the right.
It's very annoying to be on a pinned tab, navigate to even just another server on the same root domain, and suddenly be pushed to another (un-pinned) tab. Even if navigate to a totally different url, I do no want to be pushed to another tab.
The enforcement of the url remaining the same should be done by myself, not the browser trying to second-guess me.
As far as I can tell, it's literally the only way I use pinned tabs (other than when I accidentally do navigate away on them due to the lack of enforcement). I have several pages I always want open (e.g. my email, a couple of messaging platforms, Spotify, the web portal for texting via my Android phone), and then I have some varying number of other tabs open that I use for anything else I'm currently using my browser for. I guess this is one of those things where everyone's preference is different, because to me, having a static set of pages I always want open is pretty much the ideal use case for a pinned tab. I can't really wrap my head around wanting to use them any other way; if they can navigate away, they're just like any other tab but harder to close, and I don't really have a use case for enforcing the minimum number of tabs to be larger than zero unless it's literally to force a specific page to always be open. I find it far more annoying to have to navigate a tab back to the state it was previously than to reopen a page from a tab I accidentally closed, so having an extra layer of protection on closing a tab isn't nearly as useful as if it also had that extra layer of protection on what the tab itself was showing.
edit: I don't see it as the browser second-guessing me as much as following what I'm already trying to do in the first place. I don't pin a tab if I don't actually want to keep that specific page open, and taking an action to preserve a state that I opted into isn't going around my specified intention, but following it.
1. Let's imagine I have pinned a dashboard url in my bank's website. After some time, I go back to it, it sees I've lost my session, redirects me to the login page, and bam, that login page open up in a random, un-pinned tab. How is that a good experience?? You might say I should pin the login url, but no, after login I always want to get to a specific dashboard page.
2. In my view, pinned tabs are not for specific urls; that is what the toolbar is for. Pinned tabs are, for me, simply a way to have the most important tabs you are working easily available. And that makes sense, because the set of tabs that are most important changes a lot from time to time. I frequently have hundreds, probably a thousand, tabs open. If I have to pin every single url I'd like to go back to, I'll quickly run out of room in no time.
So let's say depending on what I'm working in this month, suddenly I find myself using Github a lot, or Notion. Then it is far easier for me to open some of my pinned tab and just navigate to the new urls I want, rather that have to close each of them , then create new pinned tabs, and hope that if I click on something on the page that is minor, I will not be rudely pushed into another tab.
Summary: I think you are using pinned tabs for what the toolbar was designed for.
I'm not sure I understand how the toolbar can solve this problem. Unless I'm misunderstanding, I'd have to reopen the page every time when I click on the icons in the toolbar, in addition to not being able to interact with them in the same way as other tabs (e.g. using the keyboard to jump between them rather than needing to click). It's probable that the developer intent is closer to what you're describing, but I still maintain that what I'm looking for would be more useful for than the toolbar and that I don't personally have any use for what you're describing.
Maybe the difference here is that I don't ever have more than maybe a dozen tabs open total (including the half dozen pinned ones). To me, it seems more that you're using tabs for what browser history was designed for, and that you're using pinned tabs in a way that doesn't make sense unless you are using tabs in that way.
Isn't this all because PCI resizable BAR is not required to run any GPU besides Intel Arc? As in, maybe it's mostly down to Microsoft/Intel mandating reBAR in UEFI so we can start using stuff like bindless textures without thousands of support tickets and negative reviews.
I think this puts a floor on supported hardware though, like Nvidia 30xx and Radeon 5xxx. And of course motherboard support is a crapshoot until 2020 or so.
This is not really directly about resizable BAR. you could do mostly the same api without it. Resizable bar simplifies it a little bit because you skip manual transfer operations, but its not completely required as you can write things to a cpu-writeable buffer and then begin your frame with a transfer command.
Bindless textures never needed any kind of resizable BAR, you have been able to use them since early 2010s on opengl through an extension. Buffer pointers also have never needed it.
The right is that of copyright, one that is granted by the public to incentivize the creative arts. Disney and other rights holders need to hold up their end of the bargain, so it's reasonable for the public to require wider dissemination of their works.
Disney still gets paid if their works are shown on Netflix; they choose exclusivity to build a moat around their streaming service, regardless of the quality of the service, which is a form of consumer abuse (albeit a mild one in the big picture).
Disney still requires you to disclose your age and gender to use the service, last I checked. This is concerning, and would be punished by a competitive streaming market were it not for exclusivity.
There's some precedent for this: Back in the 40s, the movie studios were forced to sell their stake in theaters due to antitrust issues around exclusivity. Streaming services owning studios feels like the essentially the same situation.
> The right is that of copyright, one that is granted by the public to incentivize the creative arts. Disney and other rights holders need to hold up their end of the bargain
Are you contending that Disney isn’t producing new content because they are permitted to control dissemination of their works? That doesn’t square with either reality or incentive.
Besides, there's nothing in the Constitution that says that on top of advancing the "Progress of...useful Arts" that unlimited dissemination is required to promote that goal. On the contrary, the Constitution allows Congress to provide authors the "exclusive Right to their respective Writings" -- which directly contradicts your argument.
Whoever told you that is misinformed, because the power of unions does not stem from forcing all employees to join the union. Even in right-to-work states, unions have the power to negotiate contracts which include protections, and workers who join unions are protected from retaliation under federal law. There is an extreme counterbalance in the form of employers misleading employees that unions do not benefit them, as you helpfully demonstrated with this comment.
There are definitely examples of shops where you cannot be an employee without being in the union. I worked for a company that was going through a union vote which ended in the vote failing. Part of the conversation was if the vote succeeded would becoming a union member be required to maintain employment. The answer was a solid yes. Luckily, I didn't have to find a new job because of it since the vote failed
You've jumped to a conclusion that was not there to be made. I live in a right to work state. That does not mean the places I was talking about requiring union membership to be an employee are in my state.
The nice thing about Apple owning the whole stack is the color management is pretty decent. Really good for testing your stuff to see how it would look if everyone had calibrated displays with the correct settings all the way through the entire software stack.
I keep a janky 10 year old display hooked up so I can drag my content over to it and see how bad it's going to look on everyone else's systems.
The other trick they have is really good ambient lighting compensation. Google just added something similar to the Pixel series, but it's not quite as good as Apple's implementation. AFAIK Apple have custom driver ICs and panels, which probably gives them way more control.
There used to be a service like this, called Car2Go. Not autonomous, but more like how scooter/bike rentals work. It was fantastic, and in no way profitable.
HDMI is patent-encumbered. The original specification has lost patent protection, but VRR and the other bits which form HDMI 2.1 and 2.2 are still protected as part of the Forum's patent pool. You could certainly try and upstream an infringing implementation into the kernel, but no one would be able to distribute it in their products without a license.
> no one would be able to distribute it in their products without a license.
In some jurisdictions, yes; however, some would probably still distribute it anyway, on purpose or not. I doubt all of them would get sued either, since lawsuits are expensive and difficult.
From my perspective, the objective is to make enforcement impractical.
> You could certainly try and upstream an infringing implementation into the kernel, but no one would be able to distribute it in their products without a license.
Isn't that actually a pretty good workaround? Hardware vendor pays for the license, implements the standard, sells the hardware. Linux kernel has a compatible implementation, relying on the first sale doctrine to use the patent license that came with the hardware, and then you could run it on any hardware that has the port (and thereby the license). What's the problem?
> relying on the first sale doctrine to use the patent license that came with the hardware
First-sale doctrine protects against copyright or trademark infringement. You might be thinking of "patent exhaustion"[1], which is a mostly US-specific court doctrine that prevents patent holders from enforcing license terms against eventual purchasers of the patented invention. There is no "transitive law of patent licensing", so-to-speak.
In this case, it would still not protect Valve if they exercise each claim in the relevant patents by including both hardware and an unlicensed implementation of the software process. It would protect end users who purchased the licensed hardware and chose to independently install drivers which are not covered by the license.
It's murky if Valve would infringe by some DeCSS-like scheme whereby they direct users to install a third-party HDMI 2.1 driver implementation on first boot, but I don't think they would risk their existing HDMI license by doing so.
Thanks! Do you have a source for this? Would appreciate a pointer if you have one.
IIRC there is also a limitation on making platform-like super-apps on iOS and it feels like that might be a natural occurrence depending on just how much dynamic functionality you pull in via Wasm (i.e. how powerful your app is).
Apple Developer Program License Agreement § 3.3.1.B, "Executable Code" [1]:
> Except as set forth in the next paragraph, an Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may be downloaded to an Application but only so long as such code: (a) does not change the primary purpose of the Application by providing features or functionality that are inconsistent with the intended and advertised purpose of the Application (b) does not bypass signing, sandbox, or other security features of the OS; and (c) for Applications distributed on the App Store, does not create a store or storefront for other Applications.
> Apps should be self-contained in their bundles, and may not read or write data outside the designated container area, nor may they download, install, or execute code which introduces or changes features or functionality of the app, including other apps. Educational apps designed to teach, develop, or allow students to test executable code may, in limited circumstances, download code provided that such code is not used for other purposes. Such apps must make the source code provided by the app completely viewable and editable by the user.
Problem is, I can easily set up a company and get an EV cert for "FooBar Technologies, LLC" and phish customers looking for "FooBar Incorporated" or "International FooBar Corp.". Approximately zero users know the actual entity name of the real FooBar.
Even if the users knew exactly what the name of the entity whose website they wanted to visit was: that name is not unique, as is shown by the "Stripe, Inc" example in the parents linked blog post.
BIMI, as misguided as it is, does aim to solve this by tying registration to insanely high prices and government-registered trademark verification. You would have a hard time registering the Stripe trademark nowadays in a way that would get you a BIMI certificate for that name/logo.
But I'm glad that it hasn't caught on as strongly-expected by the public (or even commonly used). Big brands shouldn't be able to buy their way into inbox placement in ways that smaller companies can't replicate.
Trademarks are industry-specific. Ordinarily, a painting company called Stripe isn't going to cause confusion with the payment platform Stripe, so there's no reason to deny the trademark.
It's how you end up with both Apple Corps (the Beatles' record label) and Apple Computer (the tech company). They've been involved in quite a few lawsuits over the years, mostly because the tech company decided to expand into the multimedia business.
reply