Windows already has a built in updater for MSIX packages.

The Store uses that behind the scenes. You don't have to use the store to use the system update system.

It's particularly good because updates can happen in the background, without having to launch your app to trigger them.

Where does this end? Turtles all the way down.

If VPNs require age verification, then people will shift to running a VPN on a cheap VPS. Probably via a popular single-click setup script.

Or people will just get drawn to more seedy providers that do no KYC or have ulterior motives. If I was Russia, I'd consider operating a free VPN or VPS service that MITMs the traffic.

There will always be a way out if you are dedicated enough. They "just" want to make it unviable for most of the population.

That, and then the dedicated stick out like sore thumb.

I guess my point here is that the user experience of doing this "DIY" will improve as more people want to do it!

Then they will simply advocate for state-wide DPI.

Love the attention to detail here.

Getting drag and drop right is hard, it's so much more complex than you might think.

Symnetric gigabit connections can be hard to come by in London.

If you're served by a niche fibre provider (e.g. Hyperoptic, Community Fibre) then you're golden.

There's Virgin (think Comcast) with paltry upload speeds due to the cable tech. Understandable though not ideal.

Then there's the OpenReach full fibre network with paltry upload speeds due to... ??? there appears to no good reason, other than not wanting to cannibalise their leased line business. Does anyone actually know why they don't offer a symmetric product like the niche fibre ISPs?

Virgin actually have upgraded a huge swath of their footprint from cable to XGS-PON (probably coming up to 10million homes now, with the full program due to finish in a couple of years).

However, due to their comically bad billing systems (i believe they licensed a billing system off the cable modem headend provider) they do not allow their existing users to switch from DOCSIS cable to FTTH. This has been a problem for a couple of years now. They've spent billions on civil engineering work to blow fibre everywhere but existing customers can't order it because their billing system is tightly coupled to their cable modem system. They offer up to 2gig symmetrical over XGSPON FTTH.

Re openreach I think it's a bit of protecting leased line revenue, a bit of faster upload speeds actually being quite niche - the market is driven by headline download speeds - but most importantly they rolled out GPON not XGSPON.

GPON "only" has 2.5gbit/1.2gbit available to the entire network slice it's on, which can be up to 32 homes (theoretically many more but openreach have that as the maximum I've seen).

This means one gigabit uplink can nearly saturate the entire link for the network slice of 32 homes.

They do have plans to upgrade to XGSPON (though I suspect they may skip that and move to 50GPON instead). XGSPON has 10git/10gbit and 50GPON 50/50 available to the same 32 homes.

They are just about to start a pilot of XGSPON in Guildford which has up to 8gig symmetrical available.

It's not a huge amount of work to upgrade PON versions, it just requires new line cards, and new ONT boxes for each house and can run side by side with existing GPON.

Hyperoptic is niche? I thought they were available all over London.

Even if they are available on your street, each building and individual flat has to be connected. For blocks of flats that's not always straightforward.

Not where I am. It's street by street. A lot of areas have no fibre at all, not even OpenReach.

It's cable from Virgin or DSL

> Does anyone actually know why they don't offer a symmetric product like the niche fibre ISPs?

Short version: The UK regulator OFCOM defines ultrafast internet as 30 Mbps download speed. That's why UK internet providers (openreach and related) have deals starting as low as 30 Mbps and they can't be arsed to provide a faster speed (unless you pay £££).

Designer here: there's a trade-off between visual harmony (all icons look the same) and ease of differentiation.

A standardized container adds regularity to irregular shapes.

Recently, Apple has been heavily opting for visual harmony, so their icons look consistent when seen as a set. Google too. It's an industry trend that is fairly annoying.

Similar "let's remove the differentiation" decision made for menu icons in macOS: https://tonsky.me/blog/tahoe-icons/

Non-designer here: The bounding container being consistent signalizes "this is an App," which is helpful in the broader context of an operating system. For example, if I saw this on my file browser, I'd have to think if it's an App or a document: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Li...

That first level of signalization builds on top of familiarity with iOS. The squircle signifying app shows up a lot, even in marketing materials for iPhones and iPads.

Once you're past that first level, you can use the shape inside the container. The Phone and Messages icons are just green squircles, right? Yet they're very distinctive, because the interior shape (phone handset, bubble) is what registers. https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/17/71/51/32/240_F_1771513287_ATNuUv...

It used to be the other way round. Sheet of paper indicates document/file, arbitrary shapes for applications.

I'd argue that differentiating apps from each other is more important than file types apart. Probably

Mac OS and iOS thumbnails documents/files for icons on the file browser and search, so shapes are irregular. E.g. Landscape thumb for a .pptx, square album art for an .mp3, portrait for a .pdf, arbitrary shape for a .xlsx. 3rd party apps can participate in that through Quicklook plugins.

It's a great feature because I can scan several files named export (n).xlsx on my downloads folder stack, and know which one I want from the thumbnail alone. OS feature improvements change the design context.

But is it simply trading actual concrete functionality and usability in exchange for the concept of "superficially looks nicer to certain people in a marketing image" ?

I'd argue it's trading legibility for aesthetics.

My personal take is that aesthetics play an important function, but legibility is more important. Good design will achieve both.

A great example of the pains it takes to achieve both:

https://admindagency.com/road-sign-design/

Road sign design had to achieve both and more and yet they still managed to pull it off.

Yep, quite literally form-over-function.

>A standardized container adds regularity to irregular shapes.

Does putting differently shaped icons in a standardized container make them harder to distinguish? When I look at an object its boundaries register first. If all icons are enclosed in the same square container, then they all look like squares at first glance.

Yes, it does for the reasons you outline

Unlike the US, the UK's planning system doesn't have exclusive zoning as the default. This is the big difference.

It's totally normal to have shops, restaurants and houses in the same area, and often on the same street.

It is totally possible to get a $4 lunch in the UK.

Basic pre-packaged sandwiches can be had for under $2.

For about $4.75 you can get a sandwich, pastry, and a latte from just about any of the chain corner shops (Tesco Express etc)

It's not gourmet, but it's a solid affordable option that millions of people eat every day. There's no real equivalent of this in the US sadly.

You can get pre-packaged sandwiches in the US (and a bunch of other stuff too, including hot food). I don't buy them and don't know the exact price, but they aren't expensive, definitely under $5. Eating from corner stores and gas stations is just usually looked down on.

Pre-packaged sandwiches in the US are typically more in the $8-10 range, and that's just for the (sad) sandwich. It also tends to be much more depressing than what you'd get in the UK. Barely edible.

Today, the US can defend Greenland as part of NATO, and would have the support of the other NATO nations.

  > the accusations of biases come from the left and from the right
  > of the political spectrum so this is a problem for everyone.

It's impossible for any media outlet to be considered truly neutral. Reporting that doesn't align with your own (biased) partisan viewpoint is, to you, biased.

It's often said that when both sides accuse a media outlet of being biased towards the other side, they're probably being pretty objective. It shows they're reporting accurately rather than pandering to one side over the other.

By contrast, nobody is accusing the Daily Mail of left-wing bias, nor The Guardian of being right-wing.

It's not an either-or.

Price and energy independence are both important. Renewables are an important way to both (1) drive long-term cost down and (2) reduce reliance on foreign states.

I wouldn't say Labour have failed here. In fact, efforts like this are steps towards lowering prices. Let's see what the long-term trend is. Prices aren't going to plummet overnight.

> It's not an either-or.

I understand but I am telling you that this argument is basically useless when people see their bill at the end of each month.

> I wouldn't say Labour have failed here. In fact, efforts like this are steps towards lowering prices.

I don't mind splitting hairs when necessary but you are clearly not arguing in good faith. Labour pledge repeatedly that it would lower the prices by hundreds of pounds each year for good and this has not happened and Labour is running out of time.

If the promise could not be delivered on, why make it? That is just giving ammunition to the other parties who will use it against them not to mention make them look like liars.