If a “repairable” laptop is in any way comparable to a high-volume model from the most successful laptop maker in history; one that is currently upending the whole industry and backed by an extra-generous education discount funded by huge cash reserves and a long-term strategy; then Framework has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams.

If the brief was to make an ipad stuck to the dash of a Ferrari not ruin the rest of the car then that is certainly one way to do it.

All backup apps work, no special requirements. Seedvault for my LiniageOS.

They don't work well in my experience.

What I want is to get my home screen back exactly as I left it: I've not found anything able to pull it off on Android though.

Ideally it would be an exact flash image of the phone.

Adb backup exists, though I haven't tried it, and Google cloud backup does this. However, if you trust Google, you probably already trust the US.

Unfortunately, I don't know of any other app that does this on an unrooted phone.

Nothing works on Android. Not even for basic app data. The biggest problem is keystore keys and e.g. bank authenticator apps tied to them.

AFAIK iPhone backups, if restored on the exact same device (i.e. a CPU with the correct decryption key embedded in it) will restore almost everything, including authenticator apps.

The only realistic option for Android is a separate "burner" device.

>Adb backup exists, though I haven't tried it,

It's very patchy, and many (most?) apps opt out, so it's functionally useless.

Google cloud backup has never done this for me. It seems like it'll restore a whole lot of stuff, but details like getting my Nova Launcher screen back (version pinned to before it was sold - alternatives just aren't good enough yet) or a bunch of the little logins and details has never done it for me.

NANDroid dose the exact flash image, but with modern hardware rooted encryption it stopped being useful.

I agree they could be better; though I do get my home screen restored.

Seedvault doesn't work half of the time.

Really worried about the pricing, will make or break.

Much prefer a sub-$100 optimisation of the Zero; tbh you probably wouldn't need change much.

I really don't see how they can. The business and usage details of their clients are confidential. We have their word that ToS where violated, I don't really think they should say more. This needs to go to arbitration.

Is there a statement somewhere from Google saying the ToS was violated? I hadn't seen that and can't find one right now.

There's a reason we used to have courts with public records. Public records and transparency are a good thing. Binding arbitration has destroyed all of that.

Yes, court would be better, and totally justified here, but that also seems extremely unlikely given the contracts.

There is something fundmentally undemocratic and unlawful about contracts that basically preclude the ability of the parties to resolve disputes in open courts.

Arbitration is an inefficient and unproductive process. I suppose that may be what the parties chose, but the public will likely never know what happened and the problem will be allowed to reoccur again and again. Things like these are better resolved in courts, with res judicata, precedent, and visibility so that legislators can fix statutes where necessary.

> and the problem will be allowed to reoccur again and again

You're already placing blame here.

We don't know the details other than what Railway has said.

I think that's true regardless of what happened.

If Railway did something wrong, then letting that be known may help other customers avoid the same ~mistake.

If the ToS was actually violated and the suspension was legitimate, they wouldn't have reinstated Railway's account after five hours or whatever it was. Their behaviour is already a mea culpa.

I disagree. They could have done this to themselves and instead of fessing up, are placing the blame on an entity as a scapegoat.

Is that possible? Absolutely.

Has Google also done similar things before? Absolutely.

I certainly wouldn't bet my house on either possiblity.

Given that Railway publicly boasted about running their own infra, revealing that they were completely and totally dependent on GCP is massively damaging to their PR, far more damaging than admitting they had a problem in their own infra. Their customers are using them under the pretense of not using GCP, so if they're just a proxy for GCP, they have no reason to exist. I seriously doubt they concocted such a self-damaging lie.

If you generate work enough above average to be awarded major international prizes they you are. If everyone produces the same quality from the same AI it will simply move the bar.

You're assuming a level playing field, but what if better trained AIs are only usable by a select group of people wealthy enough to pay for it?

It's certainly going to exacerbate the advantage that wealthy kids going to elite universities have at becoming geniuses.

It required imported wood come what may, which opened up regulations and economies of scale that would have made importing wood expensive.

A better way of looking at it is you only need to introduce a .5 bit error.

It is your development machine's AWS keys they want. The server's keys should be too finly scooped anyway.

Not likely to be a major risk if you update every few months, to some major version that's already over a month old.

I would imagine it's the opposite. Most dev's machines can't query the prod database, for example, whereas a prod server can.

Nope, they've been targeting credentials so they can deploy whatever they like into prod. They prefer the build machine with it's broader rights than the individual dev boxes.