Is anyone else getting a "“Pragtical.app” is damaged and can’t be opened. You should move it to the Trash" error when attempting to run the arm64 build on macOS? Really wanted to try it out!
I suppose it could just be some security crap Corp IT installed on my laptop preventing it from installing.
It looks like it's only taking up 7.9MB in my Applications folder so it must be corrupt or something.
Haven't tried with Pragtical (hard to say it out loud BTW, lol) but have had success with right-click-opening other apps that give this error. Sometimes I need to do it multiple times to open it as normal. No issues with the apps themselves, has to do with app signing (or lack thereof for many macOS apps that one just downloads from a site).
An error about the app being damaged specifically can stem from the contents of the .app folder being modified after it was signed with the codesign tool. You can use codesign --verify (consult the man page) to get some info about why it's being considered damaged.
I've got this wrong in the past by adding the README too late in the process. Once I'd fixed that, the reason macOS gives for not opening my app became that Apple can't check it for malicious software. Much better... I think? The right click/open workaround does work.
FYI, in macOS v15 Sequoia +, Gatekeeper/quarantine/signing has changed. Right click to open won't allow the bypass. The quickest way, without disabling runtime protection:
Hmm. That worked for me, but when I run the app, everything in it is reeeealy tiny. Like they're trying to work around Retina display scaling but got it wrong somehow.
IIRC Print Master supported lowercase letters whereas Print Shop did not. I didn't see any mention of that in the article link above (admittedly I scanned it pretty quickly). I was also a Print Master person because I had a PC Clone (Tandy 1000EX).
Aware that this comment is wading dangerously into U.S. politics - will the recent Supreme Court decisions w/r/t the powers of executive branch agencies like the FCC make it impossible to enforce this?
Edit - this from the article makes me thing that maybe it'll be OK? Sounds like there was some congressional approval involved?
> The regulations adopted today mark the implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act, which established the FCC’s authority to regulate in-state phone and video calls from correctional facilities, in addition to out-of-state phone calls that it had already regulated. The discussion during today's vote will result in only minor changes to the draft rules released on June 27, and be released in the coming days.
Ultimately I believe it will be enforced, and then potentially challenged in court. This seems to be the path for most regulation in the USA. So the question always is "Who will challenge this?" because as you point out, it has become easier for challenges to regulations to succeed (at least in theory).
> will the recent Supreme Court decisions w/r/t the powers of executive branch agencies like the FCC make it impossible to enforce this?
They will rule exactly how everyone expects them to rule. They might provide the flimsiest of justifications for doing so, or they will just say it's within their absolute authority to do so.
You raise a fair point. Here's the Act [1] and 47 USC 276 [2] in full, (b)(1)(A) (emphasis added):
> (A)establish a compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated, and all rates and charges are just and reasonable, for completed intrastate and interstate communications using their payphone or other calling device, except that emergency calls and telecommunications relay service calls for hearing disabled individuals shall not be subject to such compensation;
What does "just and reasonable" mean? With Chevron deference, courts would have to defer to the FCC on this. Now they don't.
Now Chevron deference is a bigger issue when laws are written more broadly and vaguely like "the EPA should ensure the air is clean". We had 40 years of Congress over multiple administrations deliberately writing laws to defer to Federal agencies.
But a prison telco could still bring suit arguing the rates are not "just and reasonable".
It is important to remember that removing the Chevron defense is not some unknown situation we've never seen before. It is a return to the status quo from before that case, and that was not a situation where every last regulation was instantly tied up in litigation on the theory that when Congress said "set just and reasonable price limits on prisoner comms" they actually meant "do nothing unless every sentence from the regulatory agency has been reviewed by the Supreme Court". The higher courts are all rate-limited by their time and after an initial burst of relitigation on the limits of regulation, we're going to settle into a status quo where federal agencies still have reasonable abilities to implement Congressional dictates, because the higher courts are going to start to refuse to hear cases that are clearly just "industry does not like being regulated in clear compliance with Congressional mandate".
A prison telco can bring any suit they like, but it's not like the removal of the Chevron defense requires the court to accept the case and laboriously work out an exact definition just because the prison telco wants them to. Courts aren't going to want to do this, especially the higher ones.
> It is a return to the status quo from before that case...
No; Chevron was a formalization of the status quo, not a change to it.
> the higher courts are going to start to refuse to hear cases that are clearly just "industry does not like being regulated in clear compliance with Congressional mandate"
The courts themselves have also changed. In particular, the Supreme Court has been overwhelmingly captured by one political party, and a Circuit Court that is extremely disposed towards business interests. There is every reason to think that the courts will hear cases "just because industry does not like being regulated in clear compliance with Congressional mandate".
The suit won't happen instantly, but an injunction can be granted extremely fast. That restores the status quo ante, and gives time to shop for a jurisdiction that will find in their favor. It may take years for that to work its way up to the Supreme Court, but that's to their advantage.
No, it isn't because we've had 40 years of Congress writing laws assuming Chevron deference. If you're a programmer of any kind, think of it like one of our constraints or preconditions that you've built your entire software stack on suddenly changes or is removed.
Imagine your server was built assuming all packets would arrive in order because the networking layer beneath you guaranteed that. Now it doesn't.
> because the higher courts are going to start to refuse to hear cases
So the only court with discretion as to whether they want to hear a case or not is the Supreme Court. Every other court must hear a case brought to them, even if it's just to dismiss it, which they need to issue a ruling for.
> A prison telco can bring any suit they like, but it's not like the removal of the Chevron defense requires the court to accept the case
With Chevron, the courts would simply say "by Supreme Court precedent, we have to defer to Federal agencies on any ambiguous legislative language". That's quite literally what "deference" means.
Now they don't.
So a district court has the authority to rule on matters they previously didn't and we've seen courts do just that for things the judge simply doesn't like.
Worse, there's not even a statute of limitations on challenging Federal regulations anymore, thanks to Corner Post [1]. Previously there was a 6 year period from instituting a rule to challenge it. Now it's 6 years from when the injury began, which means you can challenge a century old rule by simply starting an LLC, knowing that the rule exists, and then saying you've suffered injury. That's not an exaggeration.
You also do that in a favorable jurisdiction to get a favorable judge to block the ruling. This is what happens in Texas. Previously most of the rulings friendly to patent holders came out of one court with one judge from the Eastern District of Texas. Now a lot of issues are coming from one judge in the Northern District of Texas.
Both of these courts are in the Fifth Circuit, which itself tends to be friendly to such causes.
Of course it’s still going to happen. Lawyers will find the most Fox News brain rotted free market conservative judge they can find and get them to take the case, just like what happened with mifepristone, and tie up every single piece of regulation because it’s cheap for them to do.
It’ll just be arbitrary regulation by whoever is least qualified to decide policy. The courts are the new regulators.
Trump installed the major prison phone system's ex-lawyer as the head of the FCC last time he got in, just before the prison call price drop was about to be implemented under an Obama-era decision:
yeah, “chevron deference” was only really an issue with ambiguously written laws IMO, or agencies taking an overly expansive view of their authority. And they still can, but now those decisions can be challenged in court.
Which means a denial of service attack on the system is most certainly coming via that jurisdiction in Texas that has the single judge who loves issuing national injunctions.
Brings me back to a time early in my career where I had to write Cognos QTP, QUIZ, and QUICK programs (blech!) ... their documentation used this format, I didn't know there was a name for it. It was the only nice thing about working with those languages.
> Whatever chefs might claim, this fact is well established: in 1995, Unicef, concerned about the sensitivity of children to odd flavours, commissioned a study in which rice was prepared with salt iodised at ten times the maximum recommended concentration. In double-blind taste tests, the iodine was undetectable.
Hey neat - I once destroyed a $5000 prototype disk drive (I was a Firmware engineer at Quantum in the late 1990s at my first post-college job), also with back-EMF (it flowed from the braking spindle motor into a power chip and melted the circuit board). I felt terrible and that was multiple orders of magnitude cheaper. :)
My first industry job was a co-op on the DEC Multia team. Multia was another attempt to lure people over from the VMS/Unix world by bundling an X Server and system administration software along with Windows NT.
While I was there, we switched over from Alpha to Intel because the performance just wasn't there on Alpha - IIRC the 75MHz Intels blew the 233MHz Alphas out of the water. Most of us chalked it up to the fact that Microsoft wasn't super interested or able to optimize Windows to run on Alpha.
As sort of a "stunt" I got the newer versions of the Multia software that were only available on Intel to run on the old Alpha Multias under a (then internal project) emulator called FX!32
Getting performance out of Alphas usually depended heavily on the compiler, and, really, only the DEC compiler really made it shine. GCC was notoriously bad at generating optimized binaries (circa ~2.95), at least compared to compiling the same code on the DEC compiler suite.
I'm sort of half surprised you're recalling an Intel 75MHz beating a 233MHz Alpha, but, sort of half not. Depends on the type of software you were running I guess. Or do you mean just the general system responsiveness?
I did a lot of work on Alphas w/ Digital UNIX, then Tru64, around the 1999-2002 timeframe, and they were so much fun.
The Multia used the cut-down LCA4 or LCA45 (Low Cost Alpha) CPU, the 21066 or 21066A. These apparently performed worse than the more expensive EV4 or EV45 parts.
Also, the compilers on Windows NT were from DEC, at least to some extent. In the NT 3.50 SDK there is a manual from DEC explaining what the compiler was - a customised Microsoft C/C++ frontend combined with a port of the GEM backend from Unix or VMS.
the 21066 chips were cache and memory bandwidth starved compared to normal EV4 setup, and IIRC many didn't have the larger cache option. Reports seem to indicate that 233MHz models effectively were about Pentium 100MHz speed in integer ops.
I don't know how many EV4 systems shipped with 64bit system bus, but by 1994 AlphaStation 255 models shipped with 128bit system bus and 1MByte L2 cache, and they weren't particularly high end (I found one that was used by Best Buy to run VHS rental shop...)
I worked on a project for Sony Music called "Ariama" a little over ten years ago that addressed this very problem w/ metadata, and organizing classical music differently than the artist/album/track way. I worked on the search piece! We also offered FLAC downloads.
I suppose it could just be some security crap Corp IT installed on my laptop preventing it from installing.
It looks like it's only taking up 7.9MB in my Applications folder so it must be corrupt or something.