Apple has a long history of working against right to repair and third party repair shops. This includes making it difficult for third parties to source the parts needed and changing the designs to requiring part pairing in the name of security. It got to the point where repair shops were buying broken Apple products so they could hopefully source the parts needed.

Looking through what they provided now, it’s basic stuff any third party repair shop could do if they could source the parts. It’s useful. However good electronic technicians can go beyond that and do board level repairs. But that requires schematics and diagrams. A lot of times they would have to get those through other parties who in turn got them through less than official means or violated NDAs.

Guess what Apple isn’t providing? Board level information. This is just doing the minimum the law requires them to do.

Bonus: Louis Rossmann talks about Apple’s history of right to repair [10 minute video]

And just like Taco Bell when something goes bad you get to deal with all the diarrhea.

But seriously, shouldn’t this be in [email protected] and not technology?

My guess: turn failing big companies into failing little ones.

Looks like someone tried to archive an archived page. You can see https://web.archive.org/... is listed twice in the url. I just trimmed off the first one then it works: https://web.archive.org/web/20240229113710/https://github.com/polyfillpolyfill/polyfill-service/issues/2834

That depends. Are you looking at preserving the music without loss of information? Then you need to use a lossless format like flac. Formats like aac, mp3, opus can throw away information you’re less likely to hear to achieve better compression ratios. Flac can’t, so it needs more storage space to preserve the exact waveform.

You can use a lossy format if you want. On most consumer level equipment, you probably won’t notice a difference. However, if you start to notice artifacting in songs, you’ll need to go back to the originals to re-rip and encode.

There’s talk on the Linux kernel mailing list. The same person made recent contributions there.

Andrew (and anyone else), please do not take this code right now.

Until the backdooring of upstream xz[1] is fully understood, we should not accept any code from Jia Tan, Lasse Collin, or any other folks associated with tukaani.org. It appears the domain, or at least credentials associated with Jia Tan, have been used to create an obfuscated ssh server backdoor via the xz upstream releases since at least 5.6.0. Without extensive analysis, we should not take any associated code. It may be worth doing some retrospective analysis of past contributions as well…

Found the article where the screenshot came from, and wow it’s even more infuriating! The VideoLAN folks tried to work with them for months, and Unity seems to have cranial rectal inversion.

You know what’s free (as in beer and speech) and not being enshittified? Notepad++

Microsoft really needs an antitrust smackdown with their repeated behavior.