> It's not the "default" view, it's just a screenshot I grabbed from my own development build.

Prooobably best to avoid that in release notes. It is official communication, so people expect that the final release will also look like that. I know the default UI is now the Dark Mode (as it is on my machine), but besides the colors it isn't immediately obvious to a casual reader what else is theming versus UI design.

They targeted the machines because it was the most convenient way to sabotage a factory, not because they hated the machine itself.

Have you tried using a search engine lately, or visiting a social media platform, or buying a computer/smartphone?

The depressing part isn't that we are facing hard challenges and declining as a society. The depressing part is that it is a deliberate action.

Github definitely didn't 100x its paying customers, and Github Copilot doesn't seem to have any serious users. Should we really be calling it growth when revenue is flat but server load is exploding due to everyone and their cat vibecoding dozens of throwaway weekend projects?

If Github didn't have insane margins before, they are definitely hemorrhaging money now. If they want to survive they have to introduce strict rate limits and 10x "Vibecoder" pricing tier sooner rather than later - but I bet Microsoft won't let them because it would hurt their already-bad AI revenue...

You're deliberately avoiding a network effect lock-in by being federated, you make competition trivial by giving away not only the protocol but also making your code available, and you don't even restrict commercial competition by using the MIT license rather than, say, BSL.

To me that sounds like you are deliberately starting a race-to-the-bottom competition on price with, well, everyone capable of hosting a SaaS? Heck, if you don't end up with some solid competition the whole "federated code" USP doesn't play out. To me that doesn't exactly scream "good return on my €3,8M seed round". Am I missing a brilliant plan here, or should we expect a rug pull a few years down the line?

- The icon theming is inconsistent. There's a group of black-and-white icons, a group of blue icons, and a group of colored icons. They are jumbled together and don't seem to indicate any kind of function.

- Tools are not functionally grouped in way which (to me) makes sense. Why is there no separation between "Select", "Adjust", and "Create" tools? Why is the color pipette not part of the color select thingy?

Tool options:

- Why does the Font selector have its label on top and to the right, rather than to the left?

- Why is there no spacing between the "+" of Size and the unit dropdown, like with the labels and the text selector right above?

- Why are window openers in the middle of text properties?

- Why do some options randomly have bold labels?

- Why are Hinting/Color/Style more to the right than the Justify options?

- Why does Color have a weird not-quite-rectangle with grey gaps, rather than reusing the design of the color selector in the toolbox?

- Why are there radio buttons for Justify, but dropdowns for Hinting, Style, and Box - despite them all having about the same number of options?

- Why do the options below Justify have icons rather than labels? Why is the first one using a different look and not visually centered with the other two?

- Why is the label for "Language" above the input field, rather than to the left of it?

Edit dialog on the screen:

- Why is the spacing between "backspace" and "bold" different from that between "bold"/"italic"/"underline"/"strikethrough"?

- Why is the spacing different from that between the font name and size?

- Why is there no spacing between font size and unit? Or, if they are a connected control, why are they not properly connected like -/+?

- Why is "reset to initial"(?) not a proper button?

- Why is the text size number field a different length than the other two? Do we expect people to enter 5-digit font sizes?

- Why does the gap to the right of "strikethrough" not match with anything?

So yes, I would say it is indeed a bit sloppy. There's probably another discussion to be had about its higher-level UX design, but (as a backend designer) this is the kind of stuff a backend developer ends up creating as a quick-and-dirty proof-of-concept before any of the front-end designers get involved.

It is functional, but definitely not enough effort went into making it good.

Most of those are going to either be fake, or a clone with all kinds of weird compatibility issues. You might even get recycled chips, scavenged from e-waste.

I highly doubt it. The RP2xxx lacks the built-in functionality for use in, say, a car, and it isn't cheap and fully-integrated enough for dime-a-dozen gadget application. They are great for hobbyists due to their low barrier to entry, but there really isn't a niche they serve when it comes to mass-produced electronics.

And yeah, it has its PIO modules, but those aren't powerful enough to make up for it. They are fine as an alternative to bitbanging Neopixels, but you can't rely on some hobbyist's vibe-coded weekend PIO project which takes up all the PIO slices and 30% of one core to do application-critical communications.

I would take an RP2000 in a heartbeat for most of my hobbyist products, but for anything professional an STM32 is orders of magnitudes better, and even a CH32v303 looks like a more attractive option at first glance.

Oh, Android has this already! Third-party apps will still be subjected to the Google Play Protect scanning. Making sideloading needlessly difficult is done for business reasons, not device safety.

No, because to install unverified apps the user has to 1) enable developer mode, 2) confirm you aren't being guided, 3) reboot the device, 4) wait 24 hours, 5) enable unverified app installation. You also have to confirm that you are really-really sure with every install. Oh, and that step 5? Google explicitly recommends turning it on for 7 days only.

> It allows installing apps outside a system app store without the user having to enable installing from the app that triggered the install.

... which was already possible, so it is not enabled by app verification.

> You are confusing app verification with a change in how to install unverified apps.

It is two parts of the same thing. App verification exists only to make installing unverified apps difficult. App verification has no reason to exist if installing unverified apps is not restricted.

App verification does not "allow" anything. Its only purpose is to block non-blessed apps through third-party stores and extracting an additional bribe from developers. You cannot view app verification's existence without considering the broader environment it was created for.

It's like a web developer using their own photo as a placeholder for the CEO on an "About Us" page: seems like a fun little in-joke, until it accidentally ships and you get an angry phone call from your boss's boss. It's better to do the boring thing and play it save by using a big red cross with "REPLACE ME" on it so you'll definitely catch it during the final review.

Is it worth the risk, though? AI-generated content has become good enough that it isn't always immediately obvious that it is AI-generated. This means some poorly-paid QA tester isn't guaranteed to flag it, so it might very well end up slipping into the final release - as has already happened multiple times now.

Need a placeholder four-headed dog? Grab a dog model from any random library, cut off its head, add four Blender Cubes on stalks, and you're done. Less than five minutes of work and it will stand out as "obviously a placeholder" during QA.

Some assets, yes. But gamers are already losing their mind over single-digit number of AI assets (allegedly) accidentally left into a game. Even when 99% of assets are indistinguishable, you'll still get crucified by the anti-AI gamer mob for the 1% where they can.

> Anti-AI sentiment is pointless if they can't tell the difference.

The gamer crowd already hates it when you are caught reusing human-made stock assets. They hate any perceived laziness. AI is just another addition to this.

> devs in Countries that care a lot less about the legal stuff are going to be cranking out and studios will want in on it.

The studios have already been trying, hence the aforementioned backlash. The studios might want in on it due to higher productivity, but the publishers are against it because the negative PR isn't worth it.

> Someone is going to figure out a way to leverage this stuff as a first class function of the gameplay. Player directed assets or procedural world creation, dynamic quests like never before seen

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Choose-your-own-adventure did not kill the traditional book, Open-world and sandbox games did not kill linear storytelling. Procedural worlds universally feel empty and repetitive because they are.

People recognize a "kill 15 boars" quest when they see one: killing 10 wolves or collecting 20 unicorn horns doesn't change the fundamental structure of what it is. No matter the window dressing, people will get tired of repetitive quests generated from the same prompt. What makes a game like, say, World of Warcraft worth playing is that the thousands of quests tie together into a coherent overarching plot, where you and your friends work together for hundreds of hours on everything from disrupting supply lines, to smoking out infiltrators, to helping a kid who lost his parents during an attack, to eventually defeating the Big Bad Evil. You simply cannot do this with a one-off personalized storyline which makes up additional things as you play it.

Besides, apps like Infinite Worlds[0] are already a thing: it lets people create their own story world in which other people can experience AI-driven text adventures. Sounds great, right? Turns out a handful of people do indeed like it, but for the most part the communities for both readers and writers are banishing it to special AI sections because most people dislike it and are sick of it flooding the rest of the platform.

There are already enough books and games out there to meet everyone's desires. AI-driven storytelling does not meaningfully tap any market of unexplored narratives, while at the same time sacrificing story quality and any sense of shared experience. AI storytelling won't replace traditional storytelling in the same way that AI waifus aren't going to replace real-world (platonic or romantic) relationships.

[0]: https://infiniteworlds.app/