scurry

MonoGame/XNA used to be more relevant 10 years ago, but not so much any more (funnily enough, in large part because Unity ate their lunch).

That’s true, but macs also do have more security controls, configured more sensibly by default. BitLocker, the system’s full disc encryption feature for example, is still considered a premium product reserved for more expensive editions, whereas macs, android, and iOS have had it standard and default enabled (the latter two with no option to disabled it) in current versions for years. Windows still does not require (or last I checked even offer) things like application sandboxing or runtime hardening by default (this may well have changed in the past couple of years, but I’ve heard nothing of it). While the Universal Windows Platform does have a functional permissions system, that whole platform is (as I understand it) limited to the Microsoft store (which as I understand is ignored by vendors), and the last time I looked at it, it was a mess. There are other such things. Which isn’t to say macs can’t get malware, they can, and they’ll get more malware as time goes on. There are other measures set up on Windows but not macOS, but they don’t appear to be as effective to me, and they seem to be mainly focused on reacting to specific incidents. Security-wise, the two really are not the same.

Anyone can build an implementation of the Signal client, but few do already because Signal actively works to prevent them from working with the Signal infrastructure, and likely will continue to do so. It’s one of the more common complaints about Signal, but it was built on the assumption that centralized services would be easier to use and to make private if the platform holder wanted, as well as more robust against attacks. They could well be wrong, and people just haven’t thought of and deployed the right tech, but it’s neither here nor there; I’m doubtful they can be convinced on this, and I’d doubt they’d be made to open up anyway by this regulation, meaning they’re not obligated to.

I’ve never used Edge — is it really that bad?

Most likely, it would look like Asahi Linux, which has managed to reverse engineer and re-implement many parts of the Mac environment relatively quickly in Linux. If it works like the Mac does, we may see a project to make a custom ROM for iPhone (probably a fork of either a Linux phone project or of AOSP) soon after the responsive update, and within about a year of that, we might see it be fairly usable.

At one point it was both. At one point they internally added support for longer file names in DOS, and then a later version of the filesystem also started supporting it. I think that on DOS and Windows (iirc even today), they never actually solved it, and paths on Windows and NTFS can only be 256 characters long in total or something (I don’t remember what the exact limit was/is).

I agree, and these conventions are being followed less over time. Since the 1990s, Windows world, Objective-C, and C++ have been migrating away (to mixed results), and even most embedded projects have been too. The main problem is that the standard library is already like that, and one of C’s biggest selling point is that you can still use source written >40 years ago, and interact with that. So just changing that, at that point just use Go or something. I also want to say, shoutout to GNU for being just so obstinate about changing nothing except for what they make evil about style. Gotta be one of my top 5 ‘why can’t you just be good leaders, GNU?’ moments.

Yes. Memory and storage were at a very high premium until the 1990s, and when C was first being developed, it wasn’t uncommon for computers to output to printers (that’s why print() and co are named what they are), so every character was at a premium. In the latter case, you were literally paying in ink and paper by the character. These contributed to this convention that we’re still stuck with today in C.

A bit over a year ago, I tried writing on Medium, and what I found was no, not really anyway. Medium was putting the soft paywall on all of my posts, without me asking or benefiting from it other than hosting, though I could choose to make them hard paywalled. It was my impression at the time that they would only let you unpaywall your articles on there if you paid them that ransom, instead of every reader (by being a member). You could argue that the authors choose to post there when there are alternatives anyway, so it’s still on the authors (and I do).

The article indicated that, apparently, Shorts is even more unprofitable than regular YouTube. So they don't even have that going for them

Landed gentry is when someone works for no pay in service of a lord, right?

I’m guessing it’s also not feasible to get her a visa on the other side, meaning nowhere to go. I also wouldn’t be surprised if her family being more closely watched and targeted if they leave isn’t also part of why they feel they can’t.