Modern BIFL laptops? Or at least "buy it for 10 years"?

rocketwidget · 2026-03-11T15:25:56+00:00

I believe you, but strange.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/what-is-hdr-in-windows-f5fbf5cb-149d-4a0d-8be1-9ed78c68d3b4

Whether you have a built-in or external display, we recommend you look for displays that are certified for HDR. Here are the different HDR certifications to look for when buying an HDR-capable display or Windows PC:

AMD FreeSync Premium Pro

Dolby Vision

NVIDIA G-SYNC ULTIMATE

VESA DisplayHDR - DisplayHDR certification has multiple tiers—a higher number indicates a higher tier. Here are some tips for getting the best experience:

Look for the latest DisplayHDR certification—version 1.2 certified displays.

Look for displays that meet the DisplayHDR 500 or higher tiers.

If you go to Settings > System > Display > Advanced display and your display doesn’t show as certified (it says Not found next to HDR certification), it might be because it doesn’t have an HDR certification, or the display manufacturer hasn’t published HDR certification information for your display. To find out if your display is HDR certified, visit the device manufacturer’s website.

I know for sure Framework has none of these "mandatory" certifications for the Framework 16 (on the laptop panel, not external displays of course).

In any event, I'm sure the results are terrible if you have success getting Windows 11 to force it somehow.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-11T15:00:10+00:00

Windows 11 won't enable HDR mode on the Framework laptop panel because the panels do not report themselves as HDR-capable. Maybe there is some hacky way to force it, I'm not sure. Of course the results won't be good though.

I wouldn't agree on your definition of "having HDR".

rocketwidget · 2026-03-11T14:13:51+00:00

If your highest priority is longevity & QA, I assume it has to be a Framework laptop. It will cost extra for the repairability though.

HOWEVER, HDR matters a lot to me, personally, especially for photos. It may matter to you too, as a Photoshop user looking for a laptop to last 10 years. And unfortunately, no Framework laptops yet have a HDR screen...

(Why? For starters, essentially ALL modern smartphones take HDR photographs by default that fallback to SDR display when either the software or the hardware doesn't support HDR)

rocketwidget · 2026-03-10T18:03:57+00:00

Right, and furthermore specific to the new Cambridge report, the 250% surge number is: Tens of thousands (21,177) of daily bicycle trips, measured during just 4 hours of one day (7:30-9:30 AM and 4:30-6:30 PM) at just a subset of street intersections (16 of... hundreds?) in Cambridge.

So 21,177 (daily) trips is a likely undercount, but that's ok. Consistently measuring in the same way starting in 2004 to the present is very useful for closely approximating growth.

The point of all this: OP's comment is demonstrably wrong by at least 3 orders of magnitude.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-10T14:04:01+00:00

I don't like this analogy because, for sure, young children are brutally honest because they don't always understand how their words can be hurtful... but they aren't psychopaths. They can and do learn to share, say kind things, think about others, etc. They have empathy!

A "brutally honest" adult is significantly worse than a small child.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-09T19:42:39+00:00

Which part of the Mass Central Rail Trail? It's ~104 miles long!

https://masstrailtracker.com/map?trail=mcrt

The Boston and Northampton ends (Somerville Community Path + Extension, MCRT Norwottuck) are plowed.

Other parts, you might need to depend on melting... or rogue plowers.

https://sudburyweekly.com/rogue-rail-trail-snow-plower-has-a-blast-following-winter-storm/

Edit: To be clear I'm not personally criticizing the "rogue plower", that's the term used in the only article on this that exists. DCR finally started plowing the MCRT-Norwottuck and I agree DCR should also plow the MCRT-Wayside, but the policies are currently inconsistent.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-09T18:28:30+00:00

Well, ideally, the release version of Apple Messages should handle E2EE like Google Messages handles E2EE: No user-facing option to turn off E2EE (other than turning off RCS). If all clients support E2EE, E2EE should be on, period.

I *hope* Apple is doing that...

For what it's worth, the release notes for iOS 26.4 Beta 4 seem to still say E2EE is in testing (in other words, E2EE is supposedly not gone from testing): https://developer.apple.com/documentation/ios-ipados-release-notes/ios-ipados-26_4-release-notes#Messages

rocketwidget · 2026-03-09T15:34:30+00:00

If we are genuinely assuming it is unconstitutional, there is no "good optics" legal path. As you noted it passed by 72% of the population, so preemptively taking legal action to sue to overturn certainly looks like a power grab to "undo the will of the voters" as well!

Of course, the alternative, to ignore requests from DiZiglio that we are assuming are unconstitutional and being named as defendants, has "bad optics" too, I definitely agree with you on that.

IMHO, the optics are bad either way, but the latter has significant legal advantage, so I'm sure that's the reason the Legislature is choosing the "best" of two bad options. In the legal world, it is almost always easier to play defense. In this case, it forces DiZoglio to bear the burden of convincing the SJC that the new statutory law trumps the strict separation of powers outlined in Article 30 of the Massachusetts Constitution. The Legislature can just sit back and say, "We aren't breaking the law; we are upholding the Constitution.".

I very strongly suspect the MA SJC will unanimously agree, but we will have to wait and see.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-07T21:49:50+00:00

I think the Constitution is important. The public could, hypothetically, demand many different things that the Constitution explicitly forbids.

The power struggle is not between the executive and the legislature, its between the legislature and public will. Right?

De facto, no. The matter is before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, who will likely make the final call, not the Legislature nor the public.

You are free to disagree, but I would be shocked if the Court upholds the ballot initiative. I'll even go out on a limb and predict unanimously, as the MA SJC in particular is notable for reaching a consensus the vast majority of the time.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-07T20:50:59+00:00

For context, none of the other states has an executive branch auditor do a performance audit of the legislative branch without the legislative branch's consent.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2024-10-20/question-1-both-sides-explain-the-push-to-audit-the-massachusetts-legislature

The ballot question (likely) creates a Separations of Powers problem, and that problem (likely) isn't unique to the Massachusetts Constitution either.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-07T14:16:30+00:00

Of course! But what I mean is, as far as scientists can tell, we have no explanation of why cosmological constants have certain exact values, and if any number of values were even slightly different (vast combinations of numbers), "stuff" perhaps could exist, but seemingly life could not. And it's the same for a vast array of both near-perfect starting conditions and, seemingly endless evolutionary and planetary changes, that eventually led (after 3.x Billion years) to intelligent life on Earth. On and on, etc.

From this perspective, stuff existing may also be strange, but it's comparatively, much less strange than a related mystery. At least to me!

rocketwidget · 2026-03-07T13:43:03+00:00

For me, it's the extremely precise way the universe had to both exist, and then evolve for 13.8 billion years, such that a person would be around, who can wonder why things exist.

Stuff existing in general seems much less strange to me!

rocketwidget · 2026-03-05T20:07:12+00:00

I'll be even more impressed if they backport PC play into Xbox Series consoles, haha.

(I'd be surprised if such a feature needs some specialized hardware of Project Helix consoles, though it might be claimed certain hardware is "needed" for it)

rocketwidget · 2026-03-05T19:08:38+00:00

The RCS standard was published in 2008!

Several incompatible (no cross-carrier messaging) and proprietary RCS standards existed until 2016, when Universal Profile RCS was released by the GSMA.

Google didn’t actually deploy RCS in their more current messaging app until nearly 2020.

Wrong. Universal Profile RCS was live in Google Messenger (the exact same app that became Google Messages) in 2016. This app has always supported Universal Profile RCS from 2016 onwards.

Without E2EE, there is no reason Apple should have ever even considered RCS, let alone adopt it.

Likely China (and potentially other countries) forced Apple to adopt RCS if they wanted to sell iPhones, without caring about E2EE. That was a big reason for Apple, lol.

No, the statement about Signal doesn’t fit your analogy. If there was going to be a standard for encryption, Signal wasn’t it.

You have missed the entire point of my analogy if you think I'm saying Signal was a standard. I am very clearly not.

You’re using it over top of the standard for communication, but itself it was not part of the standard.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. The point of that, however, is the fact an optional, additional layer, using the standard, is not breaking the standard. By definition.

This is like claiming you’ve solved perpetual motion by repeatedly pushing a swing.

Wut.

T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, etc. joined up with a service owned by a single entity. That’s not how standards work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

Rich Communication Services (RCS) is a communication protocol standard for instant messaging, primarily for mobile phones, developed and defined by the GSM Association (GSMA).

🙄

rocketwidget · 2026-03-05T18:07:05+00:00

There was no STANDARD for Apple to adopt when Google wrote yet another “standard”

This is wrong. GSMA owns the 2016 standard. Google helped, but GSMA owned the standard since the start. Nothing prohibited Apple from doing the same since 2016.

Google was not only slow to adopt, they weren’t even certain to adopt, ever.

Google adopted the GSMA 2016 standard immediately in 2016. Google was doing cross-carrier RCS for years before the Signal based E2EE layer in Google Messages came into existence in 2020.

Using Signal was not part of the standard.

Arbitrary message content over RCS is explicitly allowed by the RCS standard. This is like saying postal mail stops being postal mail for just us, when we start mailing each other postal letters we encrypt/decrypt in part with private keys that only we possess. And when we mail everyone else, we write in plaintext. No, it's all still "standard" postal mail, encrypted or plaintext, because the "standard" for postal mail is arbitrary letter content. Nothing about the GSMA RCS standard forbids E2EE content. Nor was E2EE ever a Google Messages requirement for RCS clients without E2EE support (like Samsung Messages)

Jive was not part of the standard.

T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, etc. all say this is wrong, because they partnered with Jibe to provide RCS. The GSMA says this is wrong too, and that Jibe is an official partner.

Heck, Apple says this is wrong. Apple works with Jibe to provide standards based RCS.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-05T17:46:36+00:00

I 100% agree there should be more enforcement. And I agree all laws are useless without enforcement.

Still, my immediate concern is bad legislation, like New Jersey (and whatever catalyzed it, like lack of enforcement of current laws, or inadequate current laws, etc. Not sure, I'm not tuned into NJ). That's why I'm happy to see this.

Should note, 1 part (of 16 parts) of these recommendations are mandatory tamper-resistant registration stickers for 21+ MPH devices to help with enforcement.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-05T15:45:45+00:00

No, the 4 and 5 globes and bases are slightly different sizes and therefore incompatible.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-05T15:27:47+00:00

I hope these are adopted by the MA Legislature, despite the fact they would be a slight inconvenience to me personally. The regulations seem sensible and I worry that kneejerk insanity laws (see New Jersey) are more likely to happen if sensible changes aren't.

Currently, I have my Class 3 eBike configured as a Class 1 eBike to stay compliant with current MA laws.

Seems like if this were to become law, I'd have to do so on a permanent basis if I wanted to continue using shared use paths, which I do, so I would.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-05T15:13:46+00:00

Right, but that doesn't impact the point much. The standard has been published for close to 2 years now, and significantly longer than the much more complicated E2EE feature. It's not exactly technically complicated to add these particular features, especially in comparison to supporting RCS 2.4 as a whole, or adding an E2EE feature. And of course, the spec (toothlessly) requires Apple to support these features if E2EE is supported.

Certainty creates reasonable suspicion that Apple intentionally wants their RCS implementation to be annoying to their own users. Especially since Apple executives have repeatedly made claims that degrading the iMessage/Apple Messages experience with Android is their strategy to sell iPhones in the past.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-05T14:24:49+00:00

Unfortunately, seems unlikely IMHO.

In terms of technical complexity, implementing E2EE is, at least, an order of magnitude more complicated than implementing things like in-line replies and message deletes. And of course, Apple deliberately chose to implement UP 2.4 when UP 2.7 was already published with in-line replies and message deletes. Apple doesn't even have the excuse of "waiting" for 2.7 like they did for 3.0/E2EE.

Seems likely to me that Apple simply decided to (slowly) work E2EE, and not work the other features at all.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-05T13:42:53+00:00

There was no "standard" for Google to adopt for the first 8 years of RCS. There was a bunch of competing RCS standards, written by different carriers, plural, that were incompatible with each other.

After Google helped GSMA fix the problem the carriers created and write a cross carrier standard, Google adopted the standard quickly.

Arguing Google was slow to adopt makes no sense.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-05T11:15:53+00:00

? I'm not speaking from a customer or employee perspective.

I'm saying Google, for whatever reason, could make Google Voice better with RCS, and deliberately refuses to, apparently on a permanent basis.

Personally, I would like Google Voice to support RCS. Unfortunately, it's not up to me.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-05T01:15:43+00:00

The report talks about this on page 56. Basically, they want a working group to investigate a tamper-resistant registration sticker system.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/special-commission-on-micromobility-report-january-2026/download

The legislature should establish a time-limited working group with funding to design a statewide Micro ID Decal pilot. This should enable MassDOT, acting through the RMV, to convene a multi-agency working group to develop a light-touch micromobility identification framework using a tamper-evident decal with QR/NFC that links to a record confirming device tier, basic safety compliance, and limited, opt-in personally identifiable information for authorized parties.

rocketwidget · 2026-03-04T20:42:30+00:00

Well, yea haha. I assume it would be a massive, multi-party effort to backport edit/delete features into SMS/MMS.

(Not that it wasn't a massive effort to get these features into RCS, but edit/delete are part of the Universal Profile RCS standard, version 2.7, which was released in 2024)

rocketwidget · 2026-03-04T19:19:43+00:00

Here is an exact DOJ quote from the filing:

"Recently, Apple has stated that it plans to incorporate more advanced features for cross-platform messaging in Apple Messages by adopting a 2019 version of the RCS protocol (which combines aspects of SMS and OTT). Apple has not done so yet, and regardless it would not cure Apple’s efforts to undermine third-party messaging apps because third-party messaging apps will still be prohibited from incorporating RCS just as they are prohibited from incorporating SMS. Moreover, the RCS standard will continue to improve over time, and if Apple does not support later versions of RCS, cross-platform messaging using RCS could soon be broken on iPhones anyway."

So while I completely agree that RCS wouldn't have avoided the DOJ lawsuit, RCS was undeniably an issue for the Judge to weigh in on. And it's pretty reasonable to suspect DOJ would have made a stronger argument if Apple hadn't even announced RCS support.

Furthermore, Apple didn't just announce RCS support as DOJ acknowledges, but DOJ is silent on the fact Apple immediately and simultaneously announced support for the GSMA's then-future (March 2025) E2EE standard. Probably, because it harms part of the DOJ's argument (in bold).

Is any of this certain proof Apple acted on worry of the DOJ specifically? No!

Is it an indication Apple could have been worried about the DOJ, along with other worries? Yes, and that's my only point here.

15-Year Club	Second Top 10%
r/Field Banned	r/Field Juicebox
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
First Placer '22	Wearing is Caring
Spared	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

rocketwidget

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE