I was hoping this was a unification of the both layouts as well, that would have been really impressive. The mobile version of the article pages is great, but getting both versions from the same frontend would be an amazing case study.
The new one (called vector-2022) is much closer to mobile stylings, but not the same. The mobile skin is called minerva. On top of that the mobile site makes some changes to the content to simplify it, and replaces some elements.
If you're asking about "negotiating mandate" here: it's a step in the EU legislative process, which is initiated by the Commission by proposing legislation. The Council of the European Union (which consists of member state government representatives) discusses the proposal and adopts a "negotiating mandate" (or not), which is the allowed negotiation space the Council's presidency has to negotiate with Parliament about the proposal.
If such a mandate is given, a trilogue between Commission, Council and EU Parliament usually starts.
Basically, the same as before re: invasive searches of your property except now surrounded by weasel wording so it seems voluntary but won't be. But the same mandatory dox'ing yourself for future corporate leaks.
The README.md is 9k of dense text, but does explain it: faster, more efficient, more accurate & more sensible.
Rust port feature: The implementation "passes 93.8% of Mozilla's test suite (122/130 tests)" with full document preprocessing support.
Test interpretation/sensibility: The 8 failing tests "represent editorial judgment differences rather than implementation errors." It notes four cases involving "more sensible choices in our implementation such as avoiding bylines extracted from related article sidebars and preferring author names over timestamps."
This means that the results are 93.8% identical, and the remaining differences are arguably an improvement.
Further improvement, extraction accuracy: Document preprocessing "improves extraction accuracy by 2.3 percentage points compared to parsing raw HTML."
Performance:
* Built in Rust for performance and memory safety
* The port uses "Zero-cost abstractions enable optimizations without runtime overhead."
* It uses "Minimal allocations during parsing through efficient string handling and DOM traversal."
* The library "processes typical news articles in milliseconds on modern hardware."
It's not explicitly written but I think it's a reasonable assumption that its "millisecond" processing time is significantly faster than the original JavaScript implementation based on these 4 points. Perhaps it's also better memory wise.
I would add a comparison benchmark (memory and processing time), perhaps with barcharts to make it more clear with the 8 examples of the differing editorial judgement for people who scan read.
Also includes news about a new Appstore, which can probably be seen as a reaction to the stories from last week:
We’ve created our own Pebble Appstore feed (appstore-api.repebble.com) and new Developer Dashboard. Our feed (fyi powered by 100% new software) is configured to back up an archive of all apps and faces to Archive.org (backup will gradually complete over the next week). Today, our feed only has a subset of all Pebble watchfaces and apps (thank you aveao for creating Pebble Archive!). Developers - you can upload your existing or new apps right now! We hope that this sets a standard for openness and we encourage all feeds to publish a freely and publicly available archive.
I read the drama last week, and after seeing this, I have to side with Rebble. I think they kept the community alive since Eric M cashed out and Fitbit shut it down. As the stars have aligned in recent years, Eric revives Pebble, but if Rebble wouldn't spend all the effort maintaining the app store, his consumer base would be much smaller and it would be much harder to bootstrap again.
With Repebble (Core Devices) and their new appstore (or/and apt-style repository system), Rebble seems obsolete, it's a bit sad. They deserve credit which they won't be able to claim anymore. They should be rewarded somehow for bridging the dark age, otherwise it seems they served purpose all until Eric returned and said "Thank You and fuck off".
Also, to me, Eric talking doesn't sound authentic, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's lying. I don't mean to insult though, mad respect for putting project like Pebble together.
Hope that there's some place and purpose for Rebble in the future.
I'm surprised by this comment; after the drama last week and after seeing this I fully have to side against Rebble.
The nature of driving a healthy open source centered ecosystem is that you don't control it under your iron fist: you make good contributions, users _and_ companies are able to use them in all new ways which comply with the licensing terms. And it seems that RePebble is going way beyond the licensing terms requirements, but bending over backwards to honor Rebble here when they aren't actually required to.
I just can't imagine what people want from RePebble if not this: they are being maximally open, making it so all of everything would be able to continue if they went out of business tomorrow, while also actively enabling people to continue using Rebble's store and paid offerings. Should they be forcing users to use Rebble's offerings (instead of making things even more open) as a reward for doing a good job bridging the dark age?
My impression is that there is a lot more going on than just the facts provided by both sides. Core technologies managed to get Katie Berry to step away from the project[1] and that's extremely significant to me. Her tireless dedication to keeping Pebble alive (and get it open sourced) is how any of this is possible. For her to just up and leave now tells me that Eric and Core are not being as magnanimous and friendly to community as these blogs posts and actions might suggest.
Both of those comments seem to just boil down to "Core probably could be more proactive about comms", which hardly seems like a particularly egregious sin.
"interactions with Core have gone so poorly that they were adversely impacting my mental health"
That seems a little more serious than "could be proactive about comms" especially when this is one of the key people responsible for a lot of the original Pebble tech, rebble tech, and working within Google to get the Pebble OS open sourced.
I think unfortunately this is a normal thing that happens: passionate people get very attached to something and have trouble dealing with dispute even when everyone is relatively good intentioned. I've seen it in the workplace a dozen times.
They also backed down from their ludicrous position that they are acting as protectors of other people's watchfaces being downloaded in bulk by a particular company they don't like, whereas they are totally fine with the watchfaces being publicly available for general use. It clearly reads as them trying to clutch control of the one thing they haven't open sourced.
Rebble contributors did have a legitimate gripe, which is that they were lead to develop some additional software under the idea that there would be an agreement at the end of the day. But the Rebble Foundation's response to this was totally immature and irrational.
I agree with what Eric said in his follow up, which is that it is quite concerning to engage in a partnership with an organization which reacts like this as part of a negotiation process. God knows I wouldn't, and it doesn;t surprise me that an alternative solution was found.
Well said and exactly my thoughts on it as well. Eric has done more than he really had to, and it is unclear to me what rebble really wants/is positioning for.
You are not really factoring in all the work on the hardware, much of the software, and the entirety of the financing, which is being done by Eric and the Core Devices team.
If Rebble wants to take the risk and put out a smartwatch, there is nothing stopping them. Infact all of the open sourcing work Core Devices has done gives them a good starting point.
He gave them a deal that would directly send cash their way, which he didn't have to do at all. The vast majority of founders wouldn't have touched that with a 10 foot pole.
> They deserve credit which they won't be able to claim anymore.
Why won't they be able to claim credit for the work that they did the past because of other people's work in the present?
> Also, to me, Eric talking doesn't sound authentic, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's lying. I don't mean to insult though, mad respect for putting project like Pebble together.
What the heck are you trying to do here if not insult him? It seems wild to say he sounds inauthentic and you think he's potentially lying, and then try to hedge by saying that's not intended as an insult.
reply