Sure, it's possible to make the battery removable, but why would they do that? It was the manufacturers (e.g. Apple) who decided to make the battery non-removeable in the first place, as it allows for a more compact design and more revenue.
Also the batteries would have to be ordered as a spare part years after the product launched, and most cheap manufacturers are horrible with sustained support.
It's their first iteration and I applaud their effort. It takes at least a year to develop something like this and the sales quantities will be lower compared to the big brands, so the price is understandable.
You seem to belong to group of consumers that wants to compromise lifespan and sustainability in favor of features and price. That's fine, but it simply means you are not their target audience for this product.
Isn't more advanced codecs just software? The hardware support should be there, given its bluetooth 5.3. Is it just a case of them not licensing the advanced codecs?
Think about the device that is performing the decoding.
At its core, It's an ultra-low-power microcontroller, and the low-power requirements to hit the battery life specification while maintaining audio quality may or may not allow the kind of software abstractions that make these codecs "just software". Once you've licensed the codec, you then have to implement it on the micro's architecture, in a way that's actually performant. Which in turn may or may not require actual Assembly work.
You wouldn't be implementing anything in software. The hardware would have decoding built in, so it's really just a question of choosing a bluetooth audio soc with the codecs you want and paying the licensing fees.
I didn't know that codec handling was done at the hardware level. Interesting.
So the underlying idea of my post ("you can't just add new codecs in software") is ultimately correct, but for reasons completely unrelated to what I mentioned. That is, I'm wrong, but sort of stumbled into the right answer. Doubly interesting.
Now I have a ton of questions about how bluetooth audio is produced on the phone side, so that headphones only have to decode one (or a few) codec on the other side.
It is their second wireless earbud model. The first was non-repairable. And a current feature set would be especially important if the product should be used for a prolonged time. No need to be snarky. I just don't want to buy that stuff now and throw it away 2 years later when the next iteration comes out.
I have tried all but pdn is the best software for quick editing. In the time it takes for Krita or GIMP to launch, I'm already halfway in pdn. I really miss it when using Linux.
For Linux there is Pinta, which is a very similar UI to pdn. It works well enough much of the time but I've found it way more unstable than pdn (and without the plugin ecosystem).
I'm not sure what it is on my machine(s), but I've found Pinta to be very unstable. It'll crash to desktop without warning in the middle of random operations. If it would just work reliably it's the paint app I want to use.
There have been issues with the packaging of the app. I can't remember precisely, but I do remember some crashes due to mismatches of some expected library version in Debian family. I'm using the version on Flathub which seems to work, and while I dislike some of the recent UI decisions like the ColorPicker is now worse (apparently enforced on them via GTK changes), I do still like Pinta.
Pinta actually uses an older version of the paint.net image manipulation functionality from when Paint.net was open source, with a rewritten UI (in gtk# if I recall correctly, compared to WPF for Paint.net). However, that new UI is significantly inferior to Paint.net's. One example - last time I tried it, the "marching arts" to highlight selections was sized in terms of pixels in the source image. It was always 1 source image pixel wide, rather than 1 screen pixel. This significantly hurt its usefulness for pixel art type situations.
Ageeed, and the RFC4180 you are referring to also specifies how to escape newlines.
CSV is a simple storage format for data. Its simplicity, readability and portability makes it popular. I think that any attempt to improve it will be a failure.
I must say that CSV generally suffices for table data. The only annoyance is that internationally, there are differences in the use of the column separator, as the comma is often used as decimal separator.
I think CSV should always be implemented with a comma as column separator and a dot as decimal separator, regardless of the country. But applications such as Excel do not accept this format internationally.
Many European countries already banned it in the '90s. That was decades ago and the EU is currently discussing making it obligatory to replace old asbestos materials in existing constructions.
Could you link some source? Do you know, if it's all buildings? I have a hard time imagining Eternit roofing on garages and barns going anywhere soon. I mean, would be really great, but asbestos is still all over the place.
I don't see this as a perfect solution, but CSV is not great either.
A comma is super common in both text and numbers. Here in Europe we often use commas as decimal separator and use a semicolon as value separator.
As a result spreadsheets almost always fail to automatically parse a CSV.
I do like the idea of having a dedicated separator character, that would work right worldwide. And then just standardize the use of a dot as decimal separator in these files.
It's slightly more convenient, but Vue3 is already great. I like to support an ecosystem and I want a framework to keep existing, making sure I can maintain my projects in the future. That is why I don't jump ship.
Yea the main problem in my opinion is they are DRM-laden and there is no real competition. I'd be happy for these premium batteries to exist if I could also choose a cheaper alternative e.g. from Decathlon. It's almost like the printer cartridge situation.
And of course, it is clever marketing. Even here we are talking about it.