Agree, this is absurd, I have plenty of websites I use that are productive or mindful or otherwise tick the boxes this company wants ticked, but the idea that I can't view them on my phone just immediately rules it out.

No app store means I can't do any 2FA not approved by the supplier of my phone... I mean come on.

I thought this too. At the end of the day, it's CSS, this isn't a large project needing a ton of resources.

Would that be ideal though? Adding enormous complexity to solve a trivial problem which would work I'm sure 99.999% of the time, but not 100% of the time.

Ideally, in my view, is that the browser asks you if you are sure regardless of content.

I use LLMs, but that browser "are you sure" type of integration is adding a massive amount of work to do something that ultimately isn't useful in any real way.

Swift is probably less than 1% of the what it takes to run iPhone apps, you can get Swift for Windows too, but it is nowhere near able to run iPhone apps. The problem is all the libraries an iPhone app expects to be available on the host OS, all the multimedia stuff and so on, those libraries on iPhone are large and advanced, and not available for porting to any OS outside of Apple.

In loads of projects you can't just pick a language and it's fine.

If I'm making a C#/WPF app, I can't just decide to make part of it C.

I get it's just a generalised criticism of vibe coding, but "why not use a harder language then" doesn't seem to make any sense.

I think it overstates the complexity and difficulty of Rust. It has some hard concepts, but the toolchain/compiler is so good that it practically guides you through using them.

Although I find my brainspace being dedicated to thinking about memory, rather than the problem at hand.

Which can be a worthwhile cost if the benefits of speed and security are needed. But I think it's certainly a cognitive cost.

You can use RC liberally to avoid thinking about memory though. The only memory problem to think about then is circular refs, which GC languages also don't fully avoid.

I've been following this for a while, great looking hardware, but the target market knows how to buy a computer, they don't need custom boxes.

For me this is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. I like the look, but it wouldn't even really suit my desk, I like to have my keyboard push quite far forward, and the back of this C100 would prevent that.

Really nice, might even buy one, but there is no way this succeeds long term.

Agree, I never used Windows 2000, but I used NT4 in the late nineties and it was rock solid, no less reliable than Windows 11, and of course, snappier on vastly lesser hardware, I think I used it on a Pentium III.

Operating Systems are more stable compared to early nineties, but not 2010. I was using NT4 in the late nineties, and it was rock solid. I had a Sun Ultra 1 at home at the time, and that was rock solid too.

Stability got good in the mid-late nineties for most Operating Systems, it's mostly plateaued since then, because it's not like you can be more than 100% reliable. My Sun Ultra 1 never once crashed in the time I owned it, same for my NT4 machine at work.

For me it's not about the percentage, it's that it is a monopoly. If I make an iPad app, my only route to market is Apple.

That is before I get into my personal objection to having to ask permission to put software on a computer I bought. I own an iPad but I can't just install anything I want on it, Apple needs to approve the software first. For me that's just anti-creative and anti-everying-I-love-about-computers.

All I really want as a software developer is to be able to write software and have people use it if they choose to. I don't want Apple or any other company inserted as a middle-man.