How can you even install the update without access to the Internet?
For years, I can not do the automatic updates, because it always fails with an error message along the lines of "Failed to personalise software, check your internet!", even though I have a perfectly working Internet connection. The only way to update is with a live USB and an ethernet connection. Everything else fails.
You can manually download the updates from here - https://support.apple.com/en-us/docs for the older versions of mac (or check and download it manually through Software Update). Once the installation starts, the installer does some verification and / or data collection for which it requires the internet, and then starts the installation - at this point, just switch off the router.
This is way better than I thought. A follow-up question would be for the times that it is wrong, how wrong is it. In other words, is the wrong answer complete rubbish or it can be a starting point towards the actual correct answer?
Speaking from my own experience, which may be different from the grandparent comment: I’ll ask ChatGPT (on GPT4) for some analysis or factual type lookup, and I’ll get back a kinda generic answer that doesn’t answer the question. If I then prompt it again, aka a “please look it up” type message, the next reply will have the results I would have initially expected.
It makes me wonder if OpenAI has been tuning it to not do web queries below some certain threshold of “likely to help improve reply.”
I’d say ChatGPT’s replies have also gotten slowly worse with each passing month. I suspect as they try to tune it for bad outcomes, they’re inadvertently also chopping out the high points.
Maybe, but it looks your data is stored on their servers. I consider data that's not stored on my machine with my encryption key to be essentially public data since any company, even one I trust, can be bought and the terms changed without warning.
The main difficulty of part 2 is that there are edge cases that are not covered by the examples. I have appended the example list with some edge cases, so use this list instead:
I don't get the amount of effort people out into the replacement-strategy, I did perfectly fine without it and the code is about as complex as the examples I've seen.
Yeah, all the talk of replacement seems like people masively overthinking or abstracting a day one problem. My C++ solution was a simple search using the <algorithm> header. It's a little less neatly abstracted out as yours, and could be cleaned up a fair bit, as I wasn't bothered to deduplicate the code after getting it working (and I will if this turns out to be useful tomorrow), but the essence is the same:
I disagree on it being "overthinking". I just did replacement without really thinking. Saw that it failed on the "eightwo" case since "two" got replaced first, so just replaced "two" with "two2two" instead, then passed it through solver for part1. To me that's simpler and more naive than correctly writing a search or backwards-forwards regex :)
Ahh, people are trying to do a replacement before finding tokens. I wondered why so many people were saying this was difficult.
My head went straight to token parsing, which given the limited set of tokens made it trivial. Thought I was missing something
One of the reasons for this popularity is the permissive license. I would guess that the license is MIT, but seems to be a bit different [1]. Does anybody know (in simple words) what are the main differences with MIT? The copyright webpage does not elaborate.
The following seems to be the major addition compared to the MIT license:
"Except as contained in this notice, the name of a copyright holder shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization of the copyright holder."
There doesn't seem to be a single canonical MIT licence, but rather several co-existing variants of it. The part you quote is a standard part of the X11 variant [1], while the Expat variant does not include it.
The SPDX license identifiers are the best thing we have for defining what the canonical version is (which is used by expat): https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html
There are many MIT-derrived licenses, some of which have identifiers prefixed with MIT- and others like X11 and curl have independent identifiers: https://spdx.org/licenses/
All the more reason to avoid calling any one licence ‘the MIT licence’, in my opinion. While I appreciate that SPDX provides a comprehensive list unambiguous identifiers, I don’t really see why they would be best suited to determine which of the many variants a name has been used for is the best candidate.
That’s not to say they necessarily aren’t; I’d be interested to see if any rationale behind that choice has been published anywhere. But if the choice was made more or less arbitrarily, or based on what seemed more popular to the authors, I’d be inclined not to treat SPDX as an authority on the matter.
The existence of the advertising clause was always the main difference between the traditional BSD license and MIT license. The above is interesting because it's also an an advertising clause, but it does something the opposite of what the BSD advertising clause did. BSD wanted the license and the Regents to be mentioned in advertising.
It appears to be a custom licence, which, as stated on the page, is inspired by the MIT/X11 licence. The only difference from MIT/X11 appears to be the the part before the warranty disclaimer, which has been shortened. SPDX has a separate entry for it [1].
Well, they constantly take tiny steps towards making it an iOS for the desktop. That's down to the name. Mac OS X became macOS (based on iOS).
Their argument for denying users the ability to sideload software on iOS is that said software may include critical security vulnerabilities or even malware. So, why are they leaving their macOS users exposed to vulnerabilities? Why wouldn't they attempt to go in the same direction with macOS?
Their absolute main reason is of course that they take a cut on all software sold via the App Store. Thankfully the EU is doing something[1].
macOS gets iPhone hand-me-downs. Apple’s cross platform endeavors start on the phone, now. Catalyst replacement apps were initially abysmal, and are glacially improving, but have not approached their former Mac greatness, and probably won’t. I’d hoped the Apple Silicon reinvigoration of the Mac would help, but it hasn’t yet. iOS reigns supreme.
For years, I can not do the automatic updates, because it always fails with an error message along the lines of "Failed to personalise software, check your internet!", even though I have a perfectly working Internet connection. The only way to update is with a live USB and an ethernet connection. Everything else fails.
reply