How are the carrier locks implemented today? I assume it must be implemented on the client (phone). Do the carriers work with all the phone manufacturers to have them add this capability?

Yes.

When a carrier orders lots of phones, the manufacturer would customize the built in software to some extent (how much depends on the manufacturer and the order size)

Yes, manufacturers do this to get them on the shelf at retailers.

There's an entry in the FAQ for alt key on mac: https://zellij.dev/documentation/faq#i-am-a-macos-user-how-c... Fixed it for me in Alacritty

I recently discovered How We Feel so I just wanted to thank you for your work. I really enjoy using the app!

I found a small bug in the analyze tab though. If you look at e.g. weekly and select a tab that is not the left most one, then scroll down, then tap the top of the display (the universal scroll to the top feature of iOS), the content disappears.

Thanks for finding this bug. We'll get it fixed soon.

You are in the credits though!

I think the point is that after 3 to 4 years, a new version of the perpetual license version would be released and you would spend that amount to upgrade anyway. Of course you could choose no to upgrade, but that’s not always an option when support for new macOS versions are not available in the older version.

That business-centric and artificial way of "shedding skin" is sometimes the case. In my experience the move to a new software piece just to get a reason to drop previous licenses - e.g. "BigApp 2" - is thankfully still not the common rule.

That’s more or less what just eat did/does. Though it combines both delivery and pickup

Unreal engine is open source but in a private GitHub repo. Anyone can link their GitHub account with their epic games account which adds them to the team.

Unreal engine is source-available with a royalty based license for commercial use. Just to avoid any confusion with "open source" and "Open Source"

Wait what? I never knew "open source" was different from "Open Source"

“open source” (capitalized or not) means that Open Source initiative agrees with the license. There are some conditions that I don’t remember.

It’s different from “source available” - open source should let you fork and reuse it.

For example there is microsoft shared code license, that’s “here is the code, but copyright is still ours, you can’t do anything with it but look”.

I have no idea what kind of license (if any) is unreal engine.

That's a misleading, obfuscating way to make the difference. I guess the OP means an OSI-approved licence.

If you write your own licence (not recommended, but some developers and especially corporations do) it could be even fully compliant, but not approved.

"open source" and "free software" are two words for the exact same thing.

Both of them are pretty poor descriptors. "open source" doesn't convey the legal freedom you are granted (as you have just found out), and "free software" makes it sound like it's just about price.

If someone lets you see source code but doesn't allow you to do anything with that code it's not what people would call "open source", you could probably call it source-available or something. "open source" has a specific legal definition that means code released with a permissive license.

if it's open source but in a private repo, couldn't somebody just make a public mirror?

open source implies the right to redistribute source code.

Open source has no formal definition. There are tons of different licenses. They can be OSI-approved or not.

Edit: I doubt the license for this code is an OSI-approved one with this registration business. But I have not checked and I won't check.

There is a trademark for "Open Source", and if you want to use it without written approval from OSI, you have to use it for something under an OSI-approved license: https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines#Usage_That_Does_...

I think this is the closest you can come to a "formal definition", short of a law defining the term.

If you read the page you linked more carefully, you will see that OSI does not own a valid trademark for "Open Source", only for "Open Source Initiative".

OSI in fact tried to file for a trademark on 'Open Source' in 1999 [1], but failed because the term is 'too descriptive'.

[1] https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

It's under EULA.

Original headline is “Arizona House approves ban on close-up videotaping of police officers”. Not sure why OP changed it

My dog is blind and does the head tilt when she hears certain noises (e.g. dogs barking). She was not born blind though, in case that could make a difference.

I wrote a similar tool to mess with my friends at the computer lab at school (since back orifice, netbus, etc. would all be detected by antivirus at this point).

Years later, I was shocked when whatever antivirus I was running detected it as a trojan through heuristics. I realize this is pretty normal these days, but back then it felt like magic.