I legitimately have no idea what "SS" means next to a port, and I've seen it plenty of times. Labeling doesn't solve everything. The message on screen that you get when you plug something into the wrong port on the Neo is, obviously, much better because it assumes nothing about the user's knowledge except for the ability to read.
SuperSpeed, but you’re not supposed to use that as a consumer facing label anymore
> NOTE: USB4® Version 2.0, USB4® Version 1.0, USB 3.2, SuperSpeed Plus, Enhanced SuperSpeed and SuperSpeed+ are defined in the USB specifications however these terms are not intended to be used in product names, messaging, packaging or any other consumer-facing content.
USB-IF’s recommended name for this port is now just “USB 10Gbps”
Not that I would expect an average consumer to understand that as a label, but at least it takes up less space and allows relative comparisons better than USB 3.0 SuperSpeed+ or whatever the old equivalent was.
Use the command palette to pick "agent: toggle" - that'll open the agent pane. Pick "Claude Agent" from the dropdown at the top if you see the Zed agent. Should be all you need.
Their ACP integration with Claude agent is extremely broken to the point of being almost unusable. It desyncs and breaks in other ways constantly requiring frequent IDE relaunch. I get that they want you to use their built-in agent but $200 Codex/CC plans are such a good deal it makes very little sense atm and the broken integration is just embarrassing...
Most of the companies you've listed have been horrible at keeping kids safe - they simply don't care. I'm all for kids communicating and having fun, but we have to actually want to create safe ways to do both.
Crazy thing to say without other contextual information - it obviously depends on a number of factors. Do you have an apples to apples comparison at hand?
I have no issue with new users contributing to thoughtful conversations. People spamming vibe-coded apps are not that. Firm pushback is appropriate, just as with OSS projects rejecting AI submissions.
> It's just sad that whether you are a user or a developer, Apple Fanbois would rather (ignorantly) place Apple's interest over their own consumer rights.
You think notarizing an app is "placing Apple's interest over" our own?
Yes, how notarisation works currently on the Apple platforms is designed more for Apple's benefits than an Apple developer's or user's interest. When notarization can only be done through Apple, they have undue control - for e.g. they can ban any app that you create on their platform. Bad for malwares for sure, but not good when some government or Apple decides they don't like your app. Remember that all App Stores apps are ultimately signed by Apple, not by the developer who creates it (the developer signs and uploads the app, and Apple replaces the signature with its own). Self-signing an app also require you to get a "free" developer certificate through Apple by first signing up to their developer program and agreeing to all their overbearing terms (which they use to force themselves as a middle-man, to exploit both their developers and users). A self-signed notarized apps generates two sets of hashes - one which is stored in the app and one in Apple databases for "verification".
Thus, notarization also acts as a way for Apple to spy on its user and determine what apps they run - both when you install from the App Store or when you install it from outside the App Store. The way the whole process works, open source softwares (which are popular and compete with Apple's own app and other paid apps but often cannot bear the unnecessary burden of jumping through Apple's hoops) are also tarnished with all the popups about security threats, thus discouraging their use amongst non-technical users. This is great for Apple ofcourse because they can't make money of free open source developers (unless of course, they use their code to make their own applications, which they have no qualms about).
Imagine this too - How would you like it if Apple allowed you to view websites in Safari (or other macOS browsers) only if they had an SSL certificate from Apple?
So it is a disingenuous argument that people here are being "stupid" for complaining about Notarization. It's Apple forcing itself as the middle-man here and then exploiting its developers and users that's the issue.
counter-intuitively, the fact that docker on the mac requires a linux-based VM makes it safer than it otherwise would be. But your point stands in general, of course.
reply