Indeed, there is some (usually much smaller, but depending on buffer sizes) audio delay even in regular desktop systems so video players and audio APIs mostly already had proper handling for it.
> We will also offer a new ad-free option for an additional $2.99 per month* for U.S. Prime members and will share pricing for other countries at a later date.
> There does not seem to be an exact definition that I could find.
From the regulation, Article 3:
1. An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if:
(a) it has a significant impact on the internal market;
(b) it provides a core platform service which is an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and
(c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position, in its operations, or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.
2. An undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy the respective requirements in paragraph 1:
(a) as regards paragraph 1, point (a), where it achieves an annual Union turnover equal to or above EUR 7,5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or where its average market capitalisation or its equivalent fair market value amounted to at least EUR 75 billion in the last financial year, and it provides the same core platform service in at least three Member States;
(b) as regards paragraph 1, point (b), where it provides a core platform service that in the last financial year has at least 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and at least 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union, identified and calculated in accordance with the methodology and indicators set out in the Annex;
(c) as regards paragraph 1, point (c), where the thresholds in point (b) of this paragraph were met in each of the last three financial years.
Thanks for digging that out. That's a good expansion of what I meant by 'dominant platform' really, it's just to me, in what I see, that's not the way 'gatekeeper' is used (in the popular modern way, nor does it make sense at all in a metaphorical to historical/literal way). People seem to disagree :shrug:.
I don't think so, unless you utilize some not-yet-public vulnerability.
As far as I know, with current public SHA-1 vulnerabilities, you can create two new objects with the same hash (collision attack), but cannot create a second object that has the same hash as some already existing object (preimage attack).
My bad, yep you're right. So you could only either give 2 people different git repos that should be the same or I guess you could submit a collided file into a repo you can submit changes to (eg a public one that accepts PRs) and give someone else the other version.
No, the ABI issue is fundamentally there regardless of what compilers did or didn't do.
If you have an interface that has a function that e.g. takes an intmax_t parameter (and even the C standard has those, e.g. imaxabs()), increasing intmax_t size (ABI change) would break existing callers.
So you can only change intmax_t size if you do not care about ABI stability.
Exactly, and the way "intmax_t" was previously defined in C99 implied that you needed to break that ABI compatibility if you introduced larger integer types.
I'm saying that if you wrote conforming C99 code that made the assumptions C99 guaranteed your code will be subtly broken by C23. Whether that was a worthwhile trade-off is another matter.
This new code is about using different virtualization technology on the host system.