When I run `uv run` it removes `exclude-newer` from pyproject.toml.

I could run `uv run —-frozen` or `uv run --exclude-newer` all the time, but that doesn’t seem quite right. Is there an idiomatic flow that I’m missing out on?

https://mock.readthedocs.io/en/latest/changelog.html#and-ear...

When unsafe=False (the default), accessing an attribute that begins with assert will raise an error.

[1]: https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.mock.html#the-moc...

This has been fixed since Django 1.0, released in 2008. The page links to the commit that fixed the issue.

This page has barely been updated in the last four years. It mentions MIDDLEWARE_CLASSES (deprecated in Django 1.10) and using strings in url() (deprecated in Django 1.8). There may well be other bits which are out of date.

The entries in the faq [1] are more likely to be kept up to date.

[1]: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.0/faq/

https://mbasic.facebook.com/messages

The local certified shop wanted £99 to diagnose the problem. Apple weren't particularly helpful when I asked for help to get the fee waived (their staff in the US don't know about the UK Sale of Goods act, understandable perhaps), so I had to take a 40 minute train journey to my nearest Apple store.

The Apple store diagnosed the problem and immediately offered to repair it for free 'under UK consumer law'. I was pretty happy with the experience, but would have preferred if the local certified shop had been able to diagnose and repair the laptop for free instead.

My understanding is that under the Sale of Goods Act you are entitled to a partial refund [1], which reflects the use that you got out of the product. For example, if a laptop broke after 4 years, and 6 years was a reasonable lifespan, that suggests a 1/3 refund.

I believe that the new EU directive entitles you for a full refund for the 2 years of the warranty. In this regard, it's a stronger protection than the UK Sale of Goods act. In other regards, the Sale of Goods act is stronger (5 years to make a claim in Scotland, 6 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland).

> Unless you'd bought it from another person rather than a business, you should have received the same treatment. This isn't Apple being nice, this is them fulfilling their legal obligations.

Some retailers might be quicker to fulfil their obligations than others, so that's worth considering when choosing where to buy the product. My recent experience at the Apple store after buying from the Apple website was pretty positive.

edit: re-reading your post, I realise that you already pointed out that your rights are against the retailer, not the manufacturer.

[1] http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/sale-of-go...