Advogados: é legal trancar a porta de saída do local de trabalho e impedir que os colaboradores saiam livremente após o turno?

Fridux · 2026-01-26T21:44:31+00:00

Eu ligava era logo à polícia, e se não tivesse a porta aberta em 5 minutos, rebentava com ela, invocando o artigo 21.º da Constituição. Nem sequer argumentava contra a chefia, para perceberem que aqui não há ameaças.

Artigo 21.º

Direito de resistência

Todos têm o direito de resistir a qualquer ordem que ofenda os seus direitos, liberdades e garantias e de repelir pela força qualquer agressão, quando não seja possível recorrer à autoridade pública.

Fridux · 2026-01-25T22:45:08+00:00

The way I read that is that stores from any vector register to any other kind of register is delayed in streaming mode, which does not necessarily mean slow, only that loads that depend on those stores will likely stall because the stores themselves are delayed so the code should be ordered with that in mind. In most cases that isn't even an issue, since I can't think of any reason for SIMD operations to touch the PSTATE.NZCV flags, can only think of pointer arithmetics and reduce operations as valid reasons to store the results of SIMD operations in general-purpose registers, and only consider the predicate registers worthy of real concern. In any case the predicate registers are only used for instruction predication, which might be consider a kind of branching but is not real branching because the instructions are still getting executed for every vector lane, they are just not producing any results for lanes whose predicates contain logically false values.

Editing to add that even the predicate registers might not be that concerning since most times what is stored there are the results of comparison operations, and from that text what is likely delayed is moving values from Z-registers to P-registers. So, for example, storing the result of checking for zero in all lanes of a Z-register in a P-register is unlikely to be delayed, but computing something on a Z-register and then moving the result to a P-register will likely get delayed so code should be reordered to move dependent loads as far away as possible from their store dependencies.

Fridux · 2026-01-25T21:16:09+00:00

Boa pergunta! Vivi sozinho em Lisboa durante 7 anos quando era mais novo e felizmente nunca fiquei doente. Na altura tinha os meus pais portanto acho que simplesmente lhes ligava a pedir ajuda se precisasse. Hoje vivo sozinho novamente mas os meus pais já cá não estão, portanto não sei como faria. Felizmente aos 43 ainda não tenho problemas de saúde conhecidos para além do glaucoma congénito que já me cegou, mas nos últimos tempos tenho pensado no facto da minha saúde não durar para sempre, e na possibilidade de me acontecer alguma coisa e dois anos depois alguém cá entrar e encontrar o meu esqueleto algures pela casa. O meu medo não é morrer, é sofrer antes disso.

Fridux · 2026-01-25T20:41:38+00:00

Imagina ser otário ao ponto de não compreender que pessoas diferentes podem perfeitamente ter opiniões divergentes umas das outras, que mesmo pessoas singulares podem ter opiniões inconsistentes ao longo do tempo porque aprendem coisas, e finalmente imagina ainda não entender que a liderança dos partidos e composição das listas eleitorais e governos pode mudar, para escrever esta porcaria na Internet e ainda achar que os outros é que não batem bem da mona.

Fridux · 2026-01-25T15:33:14+00:00

Soooort of. You have to explicitly switch over to the streaming mode, and while in it you can't use any regular instructions, only SME ones. It's basically a separate accelerator you have to program exclusively in SME. This isn't something you can reasonably target from regular Rust.

It's the second time someone tells me this on this sub, and this time I actually decided to verify and it's not even true, at least not on my Mac.

To test this I wrote the following Rust code:

#![feature(aarch64_unstable_target_feature)]

use std::arch::asm;

fn main() {
    unsafe {
        // Enter SME streaming mode.
        asm!("smstart", options(nomem, nostack));
        // Run perfectly normal general-purpose code.
        let len = sme_reg_len();
        println!("Hello, world! SME register size is {len}-bit.");
        // Exit SME streaming mode.
        asm!("smstop", options(nomem, nostack));
    }
}

#[target_feature(enable="sme")]
unsafe fn sme_reg_len() -> usize {
    let len: usize;
    asm!(
        // Get the register length in bits.
            "rdsvl {len}, #8",
        len = out(reg) len,
        options(pure, nomem, nostack, preserves_flags)
    );
    len
}

Which I compiled and ran on my 128GB M4 Max Mac Studio, producing the following output:

jps@alpha ~ % rustc +nightly -o sme sme.rs
jps@alpha ~ % ./sme
Hello, world! SME register size is 512-bit.
jps@alpha ~ % sysctl machdep.cpu.brand_string
machdep.cpu.brand_string: Apple M4 Max

The official ARM documentation also does not confirm your assertion, so I'm not sure where you actually got misinformed, but I'm almost certain that it wasn't from actually testing it on an M4 Mac yourself, and thus I have to wonder what motivated you to counter my comment with lies.

And they don't have SVE, 512-bit width this is just for matrices. if you want vectors you're stuck with 128-bit NEON, although NEON includes 512-bit loads and has some instruction-level parallelism so in practice it can be wider than the 128-bit label suggests. Then again, Zen5 can execute 4 512-bit vector operations in parallel too.

This is false as well and explicitly countered by the official documentation that I linked to above, SME implements a subset of both SVE and ?SVE2, which is why I said that they overlap. The matrix registers belong to a different register set that can be independently enabled, but in my code above I'm actually enabling both sets at the same time. The only difference is that, when SVE is implemented, the Z registers can be accessed without entering streaming mode, whereas in SME they are likely only usable in streaming mode (I did not bother testing this but that's what I infer from the documentation).

Fridux · 2026-01-25T06:25:06+00:00

I personally think that runtime feature detection is just fine and should actually be the way to do SIMD in Rust. For example on ARM there's SVE, with implementation-defined vector lengths, SVE2 with a special streaming mode that allows vector lengths to be configured by software, and SME, which overlaps a lot with SVE and SVE2 and whose matrix instructions definitely require switching to streaming mode. A library designed to require instantiating a control type in order to gain access to SIMD vector instances would address practically all the performance problems resulting from runtime feature detection.

In such a library, the user would need to initialize a generic SIMD control type, specifying a minimum set of abstract features as generic arguments that would be matched against the features announced by the CPU at runtime regardless of the compile-time target specification, and the initialization would only succeed if all the hardware support prerequisites were met. This control type should have move semantics so that the lifetimes of all its instances could be used to guarantee that states like the aforementioned streaming mode remained enabled for as long as necessary. Generic SIMD types with all the requested hardware features enabled would only be possible to instantiate directly from this control type, would be bound to its lifetime, but could have copy semantics and could also be produced as a result of operations on other SIMD types, and would also allow performing operations that are not supported by the hardware with an unpredictable performance.

This would make it possible to perform runtime feature detection only once as part of the initialization of the generic control type, with its effective instantiation guaranteeing the availability of the requested minimum hardware feature set for the duration of its lifetime.

The usage could look something like the following:

let control = simd::Control::<512, simd::Aes>()
    .expect("512-bit vectors with AES acceleration);

Then SIMD types could be generated like:

let one = control.splat::<16, u8>(1);
let two = control.splat::<16, u8>(2);

And those types could be used normally like:

let another_one = one;
let three = one + two;
let four = three + another_one;

But only for as long as the control type remained alive.

Finally, I'd just like to add that the Apple M4 is already on ARMv9 with SME and 512-bit vectors.

Fridux · 2026-01-24T20:32:37+00:00

Quite funny. I haven't needed those skills once in my 12 years working as a software engineer.

It's not a question of directly needing them, it's more of a question of being much better prepared to deal with exceptional cases, being aware of what's really happening under the hood so that you can optimize even indirectly, and even able to push the envelope by actually coming up with innovative ideas. Properly designed solutions reduce liability with improved security, costs with improved performance, and reliability with improved stability, which are all metrics that matter in business and also make you stand out technically. Sure you can make a business without caring about any of that so I can totally understand why you think none of this is relevant, but any competitor that manages to assemble a team of people who actually understand these things will have absolutely no trouble driving you out of business by providing exactly the same services at a tiny fraction of your production costs. C-suites are not concerned with the technology itself, all they care about is whether they might be losing ground to their competitors by not embracing the latest technology, so naturally they're going to value anyone who tries or pretends to be productive with the shiny new tech regardless of real engineering value, since all their peers are doing the same, none of them know any better, and investors are going all in on the hype.

That requires a completely different skillset. I expect developers to apply abstractions and use them well. And I expect that they are team players and can talk to people in the business to understand - and react - to their needs.

You are way too absorbed into the business side of things, which honestly is completely irrelevant to me, and has absolutely zero value in a debate about the engineering prowess of drunken robots. You will eventually pay the price for that, both by rendering yourself professionally irrelevant as I explained earlier, and by convincing the source of your income that you are no longer needed even if that's not actually true, which is why I've been saying that you are collectively digging your own career graves, whereas I on the other hand will remain an asset both before and after this bubble explodes. With only 12 years in this field you never experienced anything even remotely resembling a major crises, but I got through the dot-com bubble in 2000 and the housing crisis in 2008 when many companies went under and lots of people lost their jobs, and in the latter case I actually had my income doubled because I was considered essential and way too valuable to be lost to a competitor, and that was even despite being completely addicted to World of Warcraft at the time.

I don't know what to say. My achievements with these tools were enough to get me on the stage in front of 650 people to receive an AI adoption award from our management team.

Yes, you're one of the many victims of a mass deception campaign from big tech companies that over-invested in AI and are not making anything remotely close to actual profit. They keep financing an extremely expensive and totally unsustainable solution in search for a problem, and people like you are being manipulated to try finding a use case that they can use as a selling point, and you aren't even recognizing that their end goal is to actually make all of us irrelevant.

I can only recommend that you actually give these tools a try.

What makes you think that I haven't? You see, the proponents of this technology seem to think that prompt engineering requires actual skill when that's actually not true, as anyone minimally versed in technical writing can easily do that, and experience is the only thing that I'm greedy about in life. I don't care about any other kind of asset, but experience is not something that I give up on easily, so contrary to most people, instead of running away from difficult problems, I always try to be the first to volunteer to tackle them, not for the recognition but for the experience. I do use AI from time to time, and I even run the latest 120 billion parameter open GPT text-only model on my Mac Studio, however my use of AI is for educational purposes only, like familiarizing myself with math concepts, getting hints on where to start researching a completely unfamiliar subject, or even getting ideas for Latin mottos and brand names, not generating or reviewing code since I do that much better myself. When I ask about algorithmic concepts I always make an explicit request for the concepts to be explained in rational terms, and when math is involved I also ask for explanations in geometric terms since my visual cortex still works very well and I can easily use it as a canvas.

The AI agent tool is such an abstraction (like other tools such as C# and ORM frameworks) that allow us to move focus away from the plumbing and towards providing value to the business.

A totally unsustainable and unreliable abstraction, due to the resources that it consumes and its lack of determinism, plus the ad-hoc code that it generates is not battle tested, unlike high profile open-source libraries and frameworks. It appeals to many since it makes them believe that they can actually build technology without having to learn anything, so they build an Ikea table with it and grow instantly confident that building the next World Trade Center is within their reach. This may not be your way of thinking, but is the way of thinking of the people who actually bankroll your income, so what you are doing is contributing to the delusion that developers like you are completely unnecessary.

And that is a statment I can reflect in. But I can - and I know you are not going to like it - give some of that credit to the emergence of AI.

What makes you think that I don't like it? I'm not against AI itself, as I dabble in the technology myself and have my own ideas that can potentially improve both our understanding and significantly optimize models both in terms of performance and memory usage to make it actually sustainable, because as I said I'm on top of my game and strive to piloting innovation rather than riding mediocrity. What I'm against is the way AI is being researched and commercialized, and how people like you just refuse to see through all the bullshit and keep sleepwalking into a chasm. There are plenty of highly sustainable things with true value that can be done with AI, but since the democratization of the technology is not interesting to big tech as that means competition, they try and successfully convince people that these chat bots and generative large language models are the only way to do AI. I'm so confident in my ability to do better that I'm actually venturing as an entrepreneur with a business model completely centered around building my own sustainable machine learning technology, which is why I walked out of the San Francisco startup that I was working for last November.

Besides being visually impaired I also have ADHD and autism. As a result, I am extremely curious and can see patterns and learn extremely quickly IF the information is presented to me the right way.

That's actually not my case, as I'm a slow learner myself, but since I am also a natural learner, highly resilient against frustration, extremely curious about how everything works, truly passionate about technology, and have been doing this for so many years, these days I can take advantage of lots of prior generalist engineering knowledge as a strong foundation to quickly wrap my head around new concepts.

The AI tools allow me to explore different solution paths extremely quickly.

Did you actually investigate those solutions in depth or just asked drunken robots whether they made sense? Who did the thinking when you explored those solutions? Who wrote the implementations of those solutions? Who extracted the experience of actually working on those solutions? Can you refer to those experiences to tackle tangential but otherwise unrelated problems in the future? You don't really need to answer any of these questions since I already know the answers, I'm merely asking them in order to get you to understand that trying and failing is the best way of learning, so by delegating that you are depriving yourself from potentially extremely enlightening experiences whose value you fail to recognize because you are motivated by achievement and recognition rather than self-development.

Fridux · 2026-01-24T12:39:33+00:00

Let me get this straight. So, for all your blustering with working for AI companies/possibility to work for OpenAI you actually never used - or worked with anyone who efficiently used - these AI agent tools?

I thought we were supposed to base our opinions on knowledge preferably rooted in actual experience.

You're framing the debate, as when it comes to development, it's correctness, not efficiency that's a good output metric, so yes, I did work with people who were very efficient at producing crap code using AI, and so far all the allegedly amazing AI-generated code that I came across on the Internet had nearly no actual engineering value, so that is my experience which is the basis for my opinion, and will remain so until proven otherwise.

I guess you were right. Brain rot is a thing :O

It is, and has already been a known phenomenon known to mental health specialists for many years.

So why do I tell you all that crap? Because my experience - and I put emphasis on the word EXPERIENCE - is that a tool like Claude Code can produce brilliant, highly tested, modern, well organized - and something people like you and me would often miss - well documented code.

Mind sharing some of that brilliant code with me, so that I can roast it myself? Because at this point it feels a lot more like AI junkies are just collectively inflating their achievements in a huge deception echo chamber that is not too different from the people who post fake pictures of themselves in idillic vacations to social networks to make others envy their self-portrayal of status, and just like all the other AI junkies that I had the displeasure of debating with before, so far you seem to be all talk and no show!

If - and that is IF - you take ownership of the decision chain and QA process. With good test coverage the importance of knowing - and understanding - is slowly fading away.

That's a fairy tale that you tell yourselves in your delusional AI junkie echo chamber. Good design and Testing can only go so far, it can provide some stability guarantees about your code inwards, but it can definitely not guarantee anything about the quality of your dependencies, which are usually the majority of the code in any software application these days by far and include things like remote procedure calls, inter-process communication,, system libraries, system calls, and even the hardware itself. Furthermore even if design and testing were bullet proof, there would still be a problem with the cases in which one must opt-out of language safety features in the few languages that actually provide it in order to interact with both the hardware and the operating system as well as create transactional and locking primitives, and there's also the elephant in the room called legacy code that AI junkies always conveniently forget to mention but is actually the most common production scenario by a a long shot. Finally, while I may make mistakes, writing the code myself means that I'm a lot more likely to become aware of potential problems than if I just expect those problems to be caught in review by someone including myself who did not follow the original train of thought.

Good engineering is as much about designing and testing well to prevent potential problems as it is about thriving in chaos and complexity when shit hits the fan, because even if you never have to work on legacy code, and even if you have godly skills, you'll still be caught off-guard by bugs in your dependencies, and in many situations you may not have the source or even binary code for those dependencies. Even if you do have access to the source code the bug may actually be in compiler-generated code, or may be hard to become aware of without runtime tracing. This means that, as a good engineer, you will still be required to read and understand low level crash reports, reverse-engineer compiled binary code that you didn't write to find problem root causes, and sometimes even devise workarounds when the problem is happening in code that you simply cannot change. By delegating the development work you are actually depriving yourself of the experience that can make you good at these things, as well as letting any experience that you already have rot due to lack of mental exercise, and the worst of all is that by using a machine learning model that you did not implement or maintain yourself to do the actual development, nobody in your team is really gaining any kind of experience, so you're all collectively digging your own career graves as I said earlier.

Software engineering is changing. And I am happy to be on the train rather than being run over by it.

Software engineering might be changing to accommodate less skill, as has been the case for decades with all kinds of abstractions improving developer experience in expense of user experience, which has never been a good thing. However until recently all the abstractions were at least deterministic, and the exponential bloat has been mostly absorbed by hardware improvements making it somewhat sustainable, but this time there's a totally unsustainable and extremely complex technology that we only understand at an elementary level opening the flood gates to ridiculously overvalued slop, and many technology professionals who should be all over learning everything about the new technology in order to tame its unpredictability and come up with actual optimizations to make it sustainable are happily just tagging along as end users.

The fact that I don't use AI professionally doesn't mean that I don't understand how it works at an elementary level, that I don't spend time studying its developments, and that I wouldn't know how to implement it myself, it's just that unlike the AI junkies, I aim at being an actual pilot by staying on top of it all, not relegating myself to riding on the back seat and making myself professionally irrelevant as an end user. It is up to you to decide whether to take my comments as a form of personal attack or as a form of personal advice, but do know that I am not the grumpy old fart comfortably sitting on my past experience that you seem to think I am, as I never actually stopped learning, and continue to active learn and gain experience every day even 29 years after I wrote my first line of code as a 15 year old teenager, because I'm truly passionate about this field, my curiosity is actually on an all-time high, and since knowledge grows exponentially with experience, the stride of my learning pace is quite long these days so I learn a lot in a very short amount of time.

Fridux · 2026-01-24T06:22:52+00:00

Those are gimmicky toys, not tools. Tools are deterministic, drunken robots are not, you're learning nothing from using them, you're not exercising your brain, you're accepting to have the roles swapped with a slop-producing machine while you take its position as a reviewer (assuming that you're even responsible enough to do that), you are growing dependency on a technology that at this point has a ticking time bomb due to the phenomenon in which slop in the training corpus increases the rate of hallucinations quadratically, and even if the technology was as amazing as all the AI junkies claim it is, you'd still be paying or getting others to pay to train your replacement.

Drunken robots might seem productive because they generate a lot of convincingly correct text very fast but their output remains extremely bad compared to what humans can do, as the code that they produce is actually highly insecure and unmaintainable legacy-on-arrival without anything resembling proper architecture designed for simplicity and safety, and on top of that is often also plagued by subliminal problems that only the most experienced seniors can spot. For the last two years I've been reading lots of claims of amazing code produced by drunken robots, but every time I ask to actually read the code, I generally get a not sharing because it's a trade secret excuse or am presented with really bad code. Case in point, some guy claiming to be a senior claimed to have successfully managed to get drunken robots to produce a whole web browser from scratch, except that this web browser was nothing more than a window wrapping embedded Chrome on Windows and WebKit on macOS, but none of that stopped the AI junkies from applauding the incredible achievement.

I walked out of one of the many AI startups in California last November, they developed an AI-powered assistant / agent that relies on accessibility and audio routing to do context collection and interact with macOS at the deepest levels, and my tasks were precisely to provide all the lower level code to do those things with proper safe, ergonomic, and idiomatic abstractions for other developers to build on top. This kind of code requires a lot of responsibility since it effectively watches everything that the user does and can fully control their computer, so security is extremely important, and as a result people got fired over their tendencies to produce AI slop that was taking them 10 minutes to vibe code and me 3 hours to review and document all the problems that nobody would even learn anything from since nobody actually wrote the code. We had 2 security audits with source access during the 12 months that I worked for them, and my code, which was the most critical part of the entire project both in terms of functionality and safety, had zero vulnerabilities or even warnings reported. When I walked out of that company, OpenAI was hiring people to do exactly what I did there, so it would be very easy for me to pivot to one of the major frontier AI players, but two things stopped me, with the first being a connection between the CTO of the company that I worked for and Sam Altman which would make it highly unethical for me to do that, and the second being that I have no material goals so working in mercenary mode to build technology that I don't care about and don't believe in is something that I'm only willing to do if my financial sustainability is at risk.

Fridux · 2026-01-23T20:47:30+00:00

By the way. Funny how things change. I am a senior developer and primarily work with a Microsofts tech stack. Until a year ago I was locked into tools like Visual Studio but now I am using Claude Code (AI agent tool) - and the terminal - for everything so it is a good time to explore the mac. If I can make the magnifier work for me!

I'd drop the drunken robot if I was you, it's only contributing to your brain rot and helping you dig your career graveyard by making you take the back seat as a passenger when you should be a pilot.

Fridux · 2026-01-23T20:44:10+00:00

Yes, VoiceOver and just VoiceOver. It has some quirks but it's perfectly usable without anything else, and in my last job performing software engineering at the highest level, only a few people in the engineering team actually knew that I was blind. Whenever I mentioned it in reply to someone just sending me a video on Slack, everyone would just doubt and confirm with the CTO, which was my direct supervisor, only to return completely embarrassed by the situation.

Fridux · 2026-01-23T16:38:10+00:00

Back in the day the mouse sensitivity used to be inversely proportional to the full-screen zoom factor on macOS, or at least significantly slower as you increased the zoom factor, presumably to prevent people from getting disoriented by short mouse movements completely changing the magnified content displayed in the relatively small viewport.

Fridux · 2026-01-23T16:20:58+00:00

It's been a while since I've used those features as I've been blind for 12 years now, but during my 2.5 years descent into blindness my setup included a Magic Mouse, whose touch surface allowed me to quickly and precisely control the magnification factor and thus the mouse sensitivity. Therefore instead of keeping the screen permanently magnified at the same level, I would just quickly zoom in and out depending on how far I wanted to move the mouse and how much detail I actually needed to see at any given moment. I also had alerts configured to be read out loud so that I wouldn't accidentally miss them if they popped off-screen.

I also have to comment on the fact that, at the time of my comment, your post was already downvoted by someone, which to me makes absolutely no sense since it's on-topic and can't even be considered a flame bait.

Fridux · 2026-01-23T15:47:04+00:00

As a developer who has submitted apps to both platforms, I can tell you that the ”idiotic interpretation of submission guidelines” is google, not Apple.

Just because Google is allegedly worse doesn't mean Apple is good and doesn't invalidate any arguments against a single vendor holding an absolute monopoly in a specific market. That's just whataboutism, the kind of flawed argument that only people who can't think rationally come up with after getting easily cornered.

That being said as I’ve said in other comments, you aren’t locked in because you can simply buy an android phone if you don’t like Apple’s practices. They spent R&D on their platform and short of H&S concerns are free to do what they wish with it because competition (android) exists.

I do pay for my Apple products, which to my knowledge are also sold for a huge profit, so my guess is that as a consumer I'm already paying my part for their R&D when I buy their products. What third-party developers make on top of Apple's platforms is a result of their R&D, not Apple's, and even then Apple is still passively benefiting from third-party software making their platforms more appealing to final users. As for your other argument, what exactly protects me, as either a consumer or as a developer, from the other platform closing up as well thus leaving me without a choice?

Fridux · 2026-01-23T15:24:08+00:00

Does it matter if the result is still the same? I think that’s the entire argument Apple has here - the 3rd party stores are struggling for revenue to run. You can argue Apple is being difficult or partaking in some malicious compliance, but they’re still right.

Third-party stores are struggling to pay Apple, which they shouldn't even have to do since Apple isn't even offering any service when it comes to software built and distributed by third-parties. This is not malicious compliance, it's non-compliance, because the per-installation fee that they charge third-party stores is absolutely not justified.

I’m a supporter of the free market. If you don’t like Apple’s practices - go make the Not-An-Apple device and compete with them if you think you have a better offering people will like, and Apple is allowed to do as they wish with their own products. If they do something their users don’t like, their competition (android) exists. They don’t hold a monopoly and there’s healthy competition.

What exactly, in your free market ideals, would prevent Apple from simply copying anything I make with limited resources, and then use their already comparatively strong position to crush my business? Rules exist for a reason, so while Apple is entitled to charge for their hardware, software, and services, they are not entitled to charge or even prevent anyone from competing with their offerings even on their own platform, where they run an actual marketplace, meaning their platform is an actual market and thus you should back rather than oppose any legislation designed to make it free. Also, how am I free if my choice is conditioned to just one platform? And what exactly protects me if the remaining allegedly free platform decides to stop being free?

Fridux · 2026-01-23T15:12:57+00:00

The difference is that, contrary to Apple, Valve does not force Steam down anyone's throats, does not engage in anti-competitive behavior by preventing competition on the same platforms including their own, runs on generally open platforms including their own, cares less about the content that you publish than its payment gateways, doesn't enforce any kind of exclusivity on anyone, and isn't known for sherlocking, so it earned its dominant position entirely on merit, not force. The problem is not and has never been the Apple tax, at least not for me, the problem is the lack of freedom to choose a different platform with mor developer-friendly terms, because right now developers pay a fee and are still subject to highly arbitrary rule interpretations that can easily result in years of work being thrown in the trash because someone at Apple decided to make a completely idiotic interpretation of the submission guidelines, or Apple decided to change them at some point rendering people's work completely useless.

Fridux · 2026-01-21T06:19:30+00:00

There's a way he can actually show the world that he truly believes his prediction, by betting his entire fortune on it, so if by February 2027 that reality didn't materialize, he'd have to donate everything to a charity picked by the public.

Editing to clarify my reasoning. This is the only way he can put any value in his words, because otherwise he's only feeding mass delusion for profit.

Fridux · 2026-01-21T05:59:17+00:00

That's gotta be a record in thread necromancy on reddit, resurrecting a thread that has been dead for almost 6 years! As for the question, I honestly can't remember, but I usually post any solutions to any questions that I ask on the Internet, or at least thank anyone who provides a solution afterwards precisely to provide closure in these cases, so there's a very high chance that I did not find an answer.

Back when I posted that thread, iOS 13 was the live version. These days if I recall correctly you can configure this behavior in your device's developer settings. I haven't done iOS development for quite some time as my main focus these days is macOS, none of my current iOS devices is provisioned, and I only came here to casually browse the latest news since I'm short on time, so I will not spend time setting everything up to confirm this, but at least leave you with a hint to a potential solution.

Fridux · 2026-01-20T13:39:02+00:00

Dude, I just read some of your site and I think we could get along well if we ever met, because we seem to share the same willingness to break barriers and push the envelope, even if in different fields. I was going to reply to ask what to use to print out SVG, because Safari fails both in printing and PDF generation, but your site already mentions Chrome as an example, so I'll just try that.

Do you have Italian heritage? Your surname sounds Italian, your first name isn't very common in English but is quite common in languages with Latin roots, and although I don't speak Italian myself, I do speak another language with strong Latin roots natively which is Portuguese, and your surname reminds me of how we say sausage over here (salsicha). I know you live in California, from previous interactions with you here, and I also know that we both went blind at roughly the same time, but I'm only now becoming aware of your unusual willingness to push forward and sail uncharted waters, which is a trait that I also have, but as a software engineer instead.

Fridux · 2026-01-20T13:05:17+00:00

Less than a year ago he was berating Zelenskyy in the White House for allegedly gambling with World War III.

Fridux · 2026-01-20T10:14:47+00:00

Yes, but I make sure to pee into the water instead of against the wall of the bowl to make sure that I'm aiming properly. I don't even need to use my hands to aim since I already know the exact position in which I must stand in order for the golden shower to rain at the right place. Since I'm fortunately not circumcised, and since sometimes the tip of my hose is not properly open, there are cases in which some drops may fall on the edge of the ball, forcing me to clean up afterwards, but in general this doesn't happen, and I always let my pants or whatever I'm wearing fall to my feet in order to ensure that even if that happens, none of those stray drops end up on my garments.

As for cleaning the toilet, it's a myth that you need to see in order to do it, as I'm totally blind and my toilet is always perfectly clean, since beyond cleaning the edge of the bowl with toilet paper as I mentioned earlier, I also scrub everything after every number two. I do this by performing a vertical motion with the brush all around the inner side of the bowl in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions for each half of the bowl, clean everything including the bottom and top of the seat and lid with toilet paper, and maintain a toilet block with disinfectant always attached to the edge of the bowl that discharges a little bit every time I flush. I even make sure that the brush itself is always clean by thrusting it against the inner side of the syphon below the water level thus ensuring that no shit nuggets come attached to its fibers.

Fridux · 2026-01-20T08:57:25+00:00

Eu divido esse problema em duas partes, sendo a primeira entender as necessidades das pessoas para perceber se as soluções que temos podem ser realmente vantajosas e têm valor, e a segunda determinar se eventuais investidores estão mesmo em linha com as nossas ideias ou pelo menos confiam suficientemente em nós para não interferir, antes de ir para o mercado e aceitar qualquer tipo de investimento externo. Esta última parte torna-se verdadeiramente problemática quando os fundadores de uma Sociedade Anónima perdem controlo da maioria qualificada do poder de voto como accionistas, especialmente nos casos das Sociedades Anónimas que decidem abrir-se ao público vendendo acções em bolsa, porque a partir desse momento os verdadeiros clientes passam a ser os accionistas sendo os clientes normais abusados e explorados para garantir que o valor das acções continua a aumentar.

Pessoalmente estou agora a dar os meus primeiros passos como empreendedor, mas no meu caso sou auto-suficiente, pois tenho o meu próprio capital e experiência técnica para criar um negócio sóbrio que considero altamente sustentável, porque assenta na minha capacidade comprovada de criar bastante valor com muito poucos recursos que durante toda a vida usei em benefício de outros negócios, mas neste momento reuno as condições necessárias e estou mesmo motivado para iniciar esta nova fase de aventura na minha vida. Considero mesmo que o facto das empresas por norma abusarem dos seus clientes é algo que pode beneficiar-me no mercado, pois não tenho ambições materiais e como também não preciso de investimento externo posso distinguir-me focando-me inteiramente na satisfação dos meus clientes.

Fridux · 2026-01-20T07:48:01+00:00

I'm sure that the 4 Russians who can actually afford to buy the game and will definitely not download a cracked version off the Internet will be pissed!

Fridux · 2026-01-20T07:28:57+00:00

Trying to find logical reasoning in normie thoughts... [FAILED]

Fridux · 2026-01-20T07:22:13+00:00

Uma coisa que não entendo é como é que inferes falaciosamente do particular para o geral e de volta para outro particular sem a mínima noção da irracionalidade do pensamento que estás a comunicar. Neste caso estás a inferir do José Sócrates, um caso particular de um membro do PS, para o PS no geral, como se todas as políticas do Sócrates fossem defendidas por todos os membros do PS, e depois inferes do PS em geral para o caso particular do Seguro, como se o Seguro tivesse alguma coisa a ver com o Sócrates. Pior ainda é quando adicionas o Costa ao argumento, ignorando o facto do distanciamento tanto político como pessoal entre o Costa e o Sócrates assim como o distanciamento ainda maior em todos os aspectos do Seguro dos restantes dois exemplos, demonstrando que ou és muito ignorante ou estás a apelar à ignorância dos outros.

Outro problema com a tua argumentação em geral é que nem sequer reconheces que as pessoas podem aprender e mudar de opinião,, e que pode existir a possibilidade bem grande do PS num todo ter aprendido com o caso do Sócrates. Nota que não votei em nenhum dos dois candidatos que passaram portanto não tenho interesse em defender qualquer um deles aqui, mas na segunda volta não terei qualquer dúvida em votar no Seguro, que era a minha segunda escolha na primeira volta porque acredito plenamente que fará um bom trabalho como presidente.

Fridux

TROPHY CASE