_Ender

Timeouts have randomized trials demonstrating efficacy.

Your other points are decent though.

I get that, and the site doesn't imply that it's something new, but I simply found the title of the post to be such.

Fair enough though.

>If it ends up shipping as a replacement for the core OS, with Android running in a virtual machine or on top of a compatibility layer like gVisor, that would just mean that there's a better base to build on than before. All of the work done by the project would still be relevant in a future like that. I'm not so sure that's truly going to happen though.

I see.

Sure, but unfortunately this is what it's become. I generally use the Green/Gold/Diamond split, where my own preferences go along the lines of diamond > green > gold. 'Diamond' journals exist, but they are rare.

Another that I had trouble with was location, since I occasionally need maps. microG's NLP thing really seemed to dislike my phone.

While open access seems great, and the reasoning behind it is inline with my ideals, I still have problems with "gold" OA, which seems to be what is being referred to within this article:

>Put another way: Publishers are still going to get paid. Open access just means the paychecks come at the front end.

Firstly, the fees imposed by journals are thousands of dollars, which is far too much for many researchers to pay. It would seemingly largely prevent the publication of independent research within such journals.

This was mentioned in the article:

>In fact, many academics still don’t publish in open access journals. One big reason: Some feel they’re less prestigious and lower quality, and that they push the publishing costs on the scientists.

However, the article seemingly (and contradictorily) earlier implies that Gold OA is a solution to pushing the cost onto the researchers:

>Academics are not paid for their article contributions to journals. They often have to pay fees to submit articles to journals and to publish.

However, under Gold OA this is only exacerbated, with large fees being everywhere on the publication-end. The readers don't have to pay, but now the authors do.

Additionally, this may create another pro-industry publication bias, as industry-funded studies may be more likely to have the money to publish in pay-to-publish journals, and this apparently has now been dubbed "e-publication bias" (bottom of https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/340/7753/Letters.full.pdf, also see http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1544).

Lastly, the article mentions predatory publishing, however fails to note that this phenomena is caused by Gold OA in the first place. In fact, it is sometimes specifically called "predatory open-access publishing". The idea behind predatory publishers is that Gold OA incentivizes publication (as they now get paid per-paper), leading them to seek out and accept as many papers as possible regardless of quality.

While open science certainly is in-line with my views, I'm not convinced that Gold OA is a good solution here.

Huawei could probably do something similar, however they still can't access the Google Play Store and such, therefore leaving them in a problematic area. For instance, though somewhat substantial, the Amazon store is quite pitiful in comparison to Google Play. Huawei could attempt to make a store but it won't have the world of apps that already exist on the Play Store.

This would work in China though, since they don't have the Play Store in the first place.

"Android compatibility" implies that it's something entirely new. It appears to be an Android fork that simply hasn't done away with compatibility. There are neat ideas and all, but the title implies that it's something that it isn't.

Lastly, I wonder how this will do over time considering Fuschia.