I agree, but it also interestingly at the same time gives me a conflicting thought - how can we be so confident that we know what's going on in/around our planet if such a huge percentage of the population doesn't have even the most basic knowledge about the topic?
Well both of your complaints were already addressed. Android introduced the scoped storage system to remove and fix abuse of "full" disk access, and they also added the foreground notification system which forces a system notification to be displayed if any app is doing work in the background, so that you know about.
Right, but if the average real-world Android experience lags behind say iOS in terms of security, then the point, even if outdated, still serves to disprove the parent’s premise that AOSP is the most secure.
There's a difference between funding research and funding development and manufacturing. No company would develop and manufacture a drug if they wouldn't make profit of it, no matter how much related research was or wasn't done using public funding.
> There's a difference between funding research and funding development and manufacturing.
The 97% figure from the study is for research and development. As for manufacturing, they would recoup that from selling the vaccine at/slightly above manufacturing cost. As the article I linked states, they didn't like that deal.
And the next time they come out with some drug or vaccine, will we also just assume most of the funds were private, until proven otherwise? Why not assume the opposite, and let them prove they're not fleecing us? Are they so trustworthy and benevolent?
Then the company receiving public finds for R&D should grand licenses royality free for anyone in that country/union to manufacture the vaccine.
You're a Chinese company that wants to produce vaccines? Estabilsh a factory in the country of origin, obtain a license from the original manufacturer and start producing.
Well I give them props for at least having a facade of a "what went wrong" section, which most RN articles leave out, although it doesn't feel like an honest analysis of the negatives of their switch.
I'd like to see some actual data about what percentage of their code is written in native vs RN. In my experience you need to maintain massive amounts of native framework code on both sides to support the RN code, and to implement stuff that RN can't do or does horribly. Adding RN into the mix just basically adds one more platform to be supported, making things more complicated, rather than combining code into fewer platforms. RN teams never bother to mention how much native code is needed to support them, and seemingly never include native work that was done when giving metrics about how long it took to "write" a feature in RN, usually because a separate "native" team does that work, not them, so it's conveniently not mentioned.
Also curious about other metrics such as how many developers they lost that weren't interested in becoming JS developers. Or have they stuck around because there's still so much native work that they need native developers for, to support RN.
Anecdotally we've got a RN app, and we've only got one or two native source files for each platform, which are mostly there to bridge in third-party libraries for things like analytics. Our UI and business logic are almost 100% JS and it works out really nicely for us
Of course this is a mostly standard (but not small) CRUD app. We've got some custom animations/widgets here and there, but mostly it's vanilla forms, controls, views, etc. which translate easily to both platforms
We also started out on RN from the beginning; it's possible that migrating to it from native code is a much bigger challenge
Same for us. Certain dev environments bugs were been a big pain in the ass for us in the past. For the logic side of thing React Native has been a nice experience for us as well!
> [...] and seemingly never include native work that was done when giving metrics about how long it took to "write" a feature in RN, usually because a separate "native" team does that work, not them, so it's conveniently not mentioned.
In this case it seems like they transitioned a mostly native mobile workforce into React Native, so I don't know that the last bit makes much sense here. I agree with you that there is a general absence of information about how they still deal with the native side of everything with React Native becoming more and more important in their apps. Even just the "yet-to-be-transitioned-but-we-need-to-use-it" kind of stuff would've been more interesting to learn about and certainly "What native stuff remained in sections that were ported?" seems reasonable as well.
I’m one of few left in our company of our original mobile team after we switched to qt, and i pretty much soft quit by writing an entirely new native app
My personal opinion, it is the worst, we spent more time working on getting it to build than coding, it’s a platform only a die hard cpp developer could love and only because they’ve never tried anything different.
Even the mobile app we do have in qt has substantial coding in native. It doesn’t have things like faceid for login, light/dark themes, is extremely restrictive in supported devices and orientations.
There’s next to no community, anyone who does mobile just doesn’t use it, and imho, for very good reason, mobile dev moved on and supporters of qt just seem to like making it harder for themselves to support it.
I’d say it works ok on desktop, but i generally find qt apps on my mac look dated and have odd unmac like qualities.
The title claims "behind every self-made millionaire", then the article subtitle claims "behind most self-made millionaires", then the article body just points at a grand total of 4 human beings that are millionaires that had rich fathers, as proof that most/every self-made millionaire had a rich father. The article is nothing but class-warfare propaganda.
You can find a list of billionaires and then just find their associated Wikipedia articles. From a glance at the top 10, only Gautam Adani seemed to have been somewhat middle class instead of upper class starting out. But feel free to continue going down the list, maybe you'll see a trend that's good enough for you.
The children of millionaire lawyers and doctors also make a lot of noise on social media about "millionaires being the new middle class" and why we should only eat Zuckerberg and Bezos but leave out their wealthy parents.
Whether or not any of the post is accurate, it really just comes off as a begrudged ex-employee trying to throw dirt. As a supposedly former "senior software engineer", their entire description of the problem is that their system "went offline due to its outdated software packages and over utilized server resources aka cpu, memory and disk space.". There's zero technical detail, just an incredibly generic statement.
Catastrophic failures are complex and often have many causes. Sure there might be a single root cause, but there’s a ton of other failures along the way.
Each engineer, in their speciality, will point out the problems they are most intimately aware of. This one is possibly doing just that. Unless they’re uniquely positioned and highly perceptive, they’re only aware of a small piece of the whole.
Maybe all the "outdated software packages" just wore out at the same time? Packages are like tires and ya gotta change'em from time to time etc. I agree with your sentiment on this post.
At even colder temps than that EV batteries start having even more problems, for example they become permanently damaged if charged at freezing temps or below, so even more energy has to be used to heat the batteries for the batteries to be able to accept a charge.
Easily mitigated by good charging practices (eg: charge when you finish a drive and the car/battery is still warm, not after leaving it in the cold overnight)
Yes, in very cold conditions, regen braking can be reduced/restricted until the battery warms up sufficiently. The car will warn you about this, so hopefully no surprises!
Not trying to be snarky here, but I'm curious what percentage of the people complaining in this thread also complained about the constant censorship and deplatforming by Twitter pre-Musk? Don't get me wrong, I think it's all bad, both ways, it's just the outcry now is extremely telling.
Do you not believe it was happening before? Or were you not told that it was happening before? Or did you just not care before because it was directed towards people you were told are "bad"?
I wonder how many people in this thread are actual human beings, vs. bots/shills working overdrive to force the narrative through, but that's a topic for another day ..
It’s just a bit funny how “absolutely no censorship” turns into “lol k only censorship that I like”. Somehow quite a lot of people who were “free speech absolutists” playing mental gymnastics to explain why THIS type is acceptable.
Disclaimer: I am not a free speech absolutist, and realize its shortcomings in public forums.
Luckily this forum doesn't have any of those - and if any claim to be, it encourages curious discussion, so I'm willing to chalk it up to playing devil's advocate.
It's oversimplistic, to put it lightly, to just point to "everything after Musk" and "everything before Musk" and assert they're equal and anybody who smells like they've expressed more criticism on one side of that divide than the other is a hypocrite. There are a million variables that any honest person considers. Some bans are high profile, some aren't. Some bans are en masse, some are individual. Some are permanent, some are temporary. Some show bias, some are just for breaking rules while happening to also be apparently right/left-wing. Some are honest mistakes. Some are reversed.
People like Elon are particularly good at generating the image of disproportionate criticism, because he is the highest of high-profile, and he is a classic modern provoker. I.e. he invites rebuke and bitterness by mocking/trolling and generally being petty/childish toward those he disagrees with, which can work in his favor ("look at all the haters"). In this case, it's pushed even further by the fact that he is so aggressively pro-free-speech and critical of those who may take a more measured approach, and yet we keep seeing him apparently falling into the exact same trap of "well OK except for this case - let me modify the rules to be more subtle/pragmatic", except the result is perhaps now even less free than before by his own apparent definition. The irony/hypocrisy is mountainous.
Additionally, "the same people who X are now Y" is an extremely common fallacy. It may be true, but much more often than not, you're assuming that two groups of people are mostly the same people when they are not (i.e. that every person is either left or right, pro-Elon or enti-Elon, etc; and every opinion a person expresses must fall on one side of each line). It's very easy to project one's internal concrete images of enemies onto the enormous, dynamic masses of the internet, or a particular forum, and "discover" hypocrisy.
Well they start by listing out the advantages of stuff like Robux:
"Parental controls implemented in recent years mean out-of-control spending by children is less of a concern than it once was. By topping up virtual wallets with a little cash, parents save money and time compared with a trip to Target and don’t have to take out their wallets for every little purchase."
They proceed to list out different game currencies and what having them allow you to do, which you couldn't do with cash. Followed by providing directions and helpful tips to parents about how to do it, such as "Advocacy groups recommend that parents talk to children about the potential for disappointment when buying blind packs".
