_dmurph

I'm pretty sure that Playa Bike Repair bought a ton of those bikes last year for renting out at Burning Man. Seemed to work pretty well!

FYI I'm quoting the email list, that might not have been clear.

I'm confused about the difference between what people are saying here, and what chromium is working on. Referring to the email discussion of the feature: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-exte...

" It's really unfortunate how many people seem to be commenting here without understanding what the proposed changes even are. To be clear:

1. This change _IS NOT INTENDED TO GIMP AD BLOCKERS_. Rather, it is designed to make them faster and more secure. (Yes, even despite the limitations that might impact uBlock.)

2. The new proposed content blocking API _is not final_ and can/will be changed.

3. Threatening to switching to Firefox is not helpful and _WILL NOT CHANGE GOOLE'S MIND ABOUT THIS_.

If you don't understand this, please refrain from commenting as you'll only be decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio in this thread and thus making it more likely that the entire thread (including those who are expressing actual legitimate concerns about the limitations of the new API) gets ignored.

If you want to help:

1. Explain a specific use case that the new API can't handle (including a technical explanation of _why_ it can't handle that use-case)

2. Suggest constructive changes to manifest V3's API that will improve its capabilities _while still adhering to the stated goals of manifest V3_

3. If you can't do any of the above, please refrain from commenting so you don't just make things worse

Sorry if I sound aggressive. It just really frustrates me when constructive technical discussions get hijacked by large volumes of unconstructive, uniformed comments. It makes it way harder to get real work done. "

I know the anti-google bandwagonning is strong, but seriously, I doubt most people actually tried to understand what is being changed here, and it's sad.

What's the deal here? Aptoide was malware? Or was it serving malware-infected apps? Or none of the above?

lol yeah I know, but it's at least the low bar. I would guess employees are one of the largest expenses for Google.

True. I'm also guessing this number changes a lot with stock grants (that number was just base pay), and that yearly number seems pretty low (NYT has the entry level engineer at 124,000 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/technology/google-salarie...) so glassdoor might not have good data.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was much more than 6%.

This feels pretty vitriolic, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some bias here. A lot of these problems seem pretty minor and there's weird stuff like

"Unlike most companies in the tech space, paying engineers is one of Google's smallest expenses."

According to here https://www.quora.com/How-many-software-engineers-does-Googl... there are ~28,000 engineers in 2014, which paying at 120,00 a year (glassdoor) would be... $3.3 billion a year? And this was 2014, and doesn't include stock compensation

Don't get me wrong - there are definitely problems with protobufs. But this post is citing a lot of stuff to back itself up that doesn't add up.

Also, required vs optional - definitely only optional, there should be nothing required. So I flat out disagree with that one.

Right - this is the same as having the possibility of both required and optional. I'm saying there should not be any possibility of a 'required' field

How is this different than having both required and optional.

Mostly lost me at "Make all fields in a message required. This makes messages product types."

Your constraints on protocols can change over time and context, changing something that is required to something that is optional can cause crashes in prod. Unless somehow the 'optional' design has a way to handle that? You also will have to do custom validation anyways, as your storage format will never be able to enforce all constraints you care about.

Also, it would seem like the 'debate' of optional vs required is harmful was resolved, as proto3 makes everything optional.

You're missing nothing - this is the intended behavior. People are falsely reporting that you are automatically signed in to chrome sync, which isn't true.

This doesn't seem to be turning on Chrome Sync, so users aren't being forced into any privacy policy:

https://twitter.com/__apf__/status/1044109898013765632

What is the service?

This doesn't enable sync.

See thread: https://twitter.com/__apf__/status/1044109217903198210

Why not build more housing. Build enough housing for all new residents - rent doesn't go up