@ID10T@programming.dev
member since 4 Apr 2026 06:03
comments
- on Internal revolt as 'nuts' Apple execs appease Trump: 'There is not a soul who is for it' in c/technology@lemmy.world · 3 Sep 2026
-
on reason enough to fail the interview in c/programmer_humor@programming.dev · 31 Aug 2026
Every task starts out as a vague idea that, at some point, needs to be narrowed down to something specific and actionable.
If you’re at a sufficiently large organization and you get lucky, that happens before it makes it to a developer. For the rest of us, it’s an important skill to be able to take a task, ask clarifying questions, and narrow it down to something actionable.
-
on Dozens of engineers laid off at Apple headquarters in c/technology@lemmy.world · 27 Aug 2026
That’s true! Though doing anything especially interesting or interactive to actually “augment reality” would be challenging without any camera. I’d be very interested in any type of lightweight AR glasses that don’t use a camera, though. Maybe LIDAR?
-
on Dozens of engineers laid off at Apple headquarters in c/technology@lemmy.world · 27 Aug 2026
In fairness, though, an app on your smartphone is basically the worst form AR. It forces you to try to look at the world around you through a tiny screen, you can only interact with the app by touching that screen while keeping the camera pointed at the right thing, and you absolutely can’t use your phone for any of the other things you’d normally use it for.
Clunky headsets are better, but only good for use in private spaces and IMO if you’re only going to use the headset in one place, that seems like a better candidate for VR anyways.
IMO the best case for AR basically is a pair of glasses or contacts. Something that takes little to no effort to use and has the ability to augment any area of your vision. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen so far, assholes and perverts seem all too happy to take any device with a camera in it and ruin things for the rest of us.
-
on Sony Reminds PS Users They Don't Own Digital Games in c/technology@lemmy.world · 25 Aug 2026
Not that this gives them a pass, but just to clarify the term: “limited” means you’re only allowed to use the software in the specific ways described by the EULA. The whole purpose of the EULA is to define exactly what “limited” means. In contrast, “unlimited use” would indicate that you’re allowed to use the software however you want unless specifically forbidden by the EULA.
“Limited” does not mean that they can just make up whatever they want later and say “well that’s what we meant when we said limited.” The EULA describes the agreement you make, and both parties are bound to exactly what is described in that EULA.
They can decide to change the EULA later and technically you are free to choose whether you want to accept those new terms, but the nasty part is that they can revoke your current license if you decide not to accept their new EULA and you’re just out of luck because you don’t actually own a copy.
TL;DR it’s a shitty deal either way, but I think it’s important to be accurate. They do define what “limited” means or it wouldn’t be a valid license agreement. That does not imply that the EULA is a good one.
Sorry, do you really mean to say that the normal employees at Apple are part of the owning class? Because that’s who the article and the comment you replied to are talking about.