addicted44
Companies that raise prices by doing that will be beaten by companies that don't very quickly. Alternatively, combined with the much weaker law enforcement, "illegal" (I'm not sure about the legality of cracking copy protections here) copies will flourish if it's close to being feasible, which it could be.
So there is a benefit in converting fixed upfront capital costs into rolling operational costs.
In most developed countries consumers can convert those upfront costs easily and cheaply through loans. In a country like India, loans are much more expensive.
Think of it like using cloud services instead of buying an upfront machine.
Would you if some random person, who for all you know could be an Uber/Lyft employee, and even if not, is someone who uses Uber/Lyft and therefore is likely happy with it, asks you a question about it?
He's obviously talking about the person in different contexts.
The person is a friend to them, but they are also a someone, and for Apple they are a customer.
That sounds strange.
So the Geniuses at the Genius bar can basically openly tell people that they can go to the other shop they work at across the door and they will do the repair at half the price? And Apple will have no policy against that?
Considering their main revenue sources will likely be decimated, it makes sense to focus resources on the primary browser engine, and allow the open source community to build out the experimental features, moving temporary resources there as needed.
The thing with Open Source is that even if Mozilla Corp goes under, all of us can continue building out Firefox like a regular open source project. Or the Linux foundation could pick it up, etc.
That's literally how Firefox was created in the first place, as an open source continuation of the Netscape browser.
Using Firefox will lead to improvements that will persist even beyond Mozilla Corp. In the meanwhile, Mozilla Corp can be looked at as an experiment to commercially and profitably develop Firefox, which, if it fails, will require us to switch to the non commercial models that are driving several other open source projects.
The Vim author was against adding :term but their hand was forced by the success of neovim from what I understand.
The issue is with HNers who have promoted it and highlighted it.
There arent many hash map methods that will actually modify the data.
Standard OOP, on the other hand, seems to encourage such behavior. So, for example, a Company object could contain a bunch of Department objects, each of which contained a bunch of Employee objects.
These people objects could also be referenced in areas outside of the company object.
If I called a company.giveFinanceDepartmentARaiseInDollars(10000) function on the Company object, it would have an unpredictable impact on the Department/Employee objects. It may also have cascading effects in other parts of the application that may not be clear.
On the other hand, if you represented this as a company hashmap, with the keys the department structs, you would have to do something like the following instead:
company["finance"].employees.forEach(x => x.salary = x.salary + 10000); company["finance"].base_salary = company["finance"].base_salary 10000
This contrived example shows some of the pros/cons. OOP allows us to hide a lot of behavior/changes, which may mean less repetitive code. OTOH, it hides a lot of behavior/changes.
The engineering question is what layer is it appropriate to do so. Under traditional OOP (your pre functional forward Java/C#/OOP C++), the answer was that code is almost always bound to data.
Haskell style functional programming binds code to data at the last moment possible.
The best answer is likely somewhere in the middle, depending on your application and usage. I find, for example, that UI controls work well with OOP, but most other stuff I tend to default to functional style programming.
So our folks were comfortable once the MS EOL statement came out and the company started moving everyone over. Everyone else had quite a bit of a struggle for a week or so though.
On the plus side, I think there were very few complaints after a couple of weeks. Which probably had a lot more to do with how bad Skype for Business was (much worse than Lync) than how good Teams was (it was still fairly unpolished at the time...it's much better now...MS has been adding features and fixing issues rapidly).
Not even reaching out (again, assuming they are internal...if they are external then there are many other considerations) is just not smart IMO.
The author's approach is good for external bug reports, but they don't clarify that's indeed the case here.
I have to strongly appreciate the author for finding the root cause and tackling that instead of the symptom.
So often, especially in front end coding, you will see an exception being thrown because of a null value being passed in, and the "fix" checked in by the developer basically returns the default value if null is passed in, when they should be investigating and fixing why a null was passed into the function in the first place.
If your function has a contract that forbids nulls from You resolve the immediate bug, but this almost certainly leads to multiple bugs being created in the future (or worse, something that is quietly wrong, because 1 row in a 100 row table is missing and no one noticed) until the root issue is resolved.
The point is that any functional government would have accounted for the fact that there is a global pandemic, which if nothing else, might actually make it impossible for some students to even leave the US, before publishing this guidance.
Edit: Also, this is a deliberate undoing of a temporary allowance they had already made. From the first sentence of the linked document:
> Temporary procedural adaptations related to online courses permitted by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) during the height of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)crisis will be modified for the fall 2020 semester.
There are a few companies that abuse (abused?) the H1B program but that was always a small but visible percentage, but more importantly, actions taken under the Obama administration had drastically reduced the abuse.
The much greater percentage are employees who studied in the US, or worked with companies in India and then had them transfer to the US. Eliminating the H1B visa simply means that they will now do the same work from India or Canada instead, further reducing the number of jobs in the US.
So, almost every one of them?
These don't replace their US operations, but add to them and grow them in ways they couldnt in the US itself.
And you can find far more 80k level developers in individual cities in India than you would in a small mid level city in the US.
The informal stuff doesn't work well. I'm guessing they went to buy their furniture off the informal buses during off peak hours. So they didn't have to deal with the crowds the majority of people have to deal with during regular rush hours, where you will find people hanging off the buses, and others struggling to get in. Sure, the bus may come every 5 minutes, but you may have to wait a few buses to get in.
Further, these are private buses. In the US you can get a cab exactly where you want that takes you exactly where you want. You could also "rideshare". The reason you dont have buses to do that in the US is because people can afford single occupancy cabs. What the person is really complaining about is the fact that the US is richer and things are more expensive.
A cab is a proper analogy to the private transport that is being compared to. And the real complaint is that earning dollars and then paying in dollars in the US is more expensive than earning dollars and then paying in local currency in the 3rd world.
Otherwise, if I am ever rejected by a company in an interview it would be a clear violation of my free speech rights.
It wasn't violent. And I shouldnt be afraid to disclose my opinion that bubble sort is indeed the fastest sort algorithm under all conditions and scenarios.
Free speech doesn't mean that you get to do opeds (otherwise clearly I'm being repressed because this comment of mine wasn't included in the NYT on their oped page), or that they shouldnt affect your admissions, which are significantly based on like 10 essays you write anyways.
Anyways, the NYT Cotton op-ed example is highly disingenuous. Tom Cotton suffered no negative consequences, and no one was unhappy with him. The NY Times also defended the op-ed and never once said they regretted publishing it or wouldn't in the future.
The NYT only took responsibility for egregious factual errors, that should have been caught during an editorial process, and the opinion editor was fired because he spent days defending the article, including in an all hands on deck internal meeting, without having read it!
That's literally the first job of an editor. To read an article so they can "edit" it.
A perfect presentation, which has been extremely well practiced and rehearsed, comes off as natural. Because they havent practiced it enough (and probably because many of them are simply not very good presenters, unlike say Jobs) it falls into the uncanny valley and appears unnatural.
I have the Pocket app installed on my iPhone, because I want to be able to share stuff to Pocket, but I don't ever actually use the Pocket app to read stuff.
Then there are utility apps, such as the app that I used to setup my wifi, that I rarely open but still want to keep around in case something goes wrong.
There's all sorts of reasons to have apps installed but not showing in the most prime real estate in the world.
With the latest iphones being as fast as they are it's not a game changer to not have widgets, but I definitely found them extremely convenient.
A lot of people developing apps that run on Linux servers use Macs, and have had MS targeting them for a couple of years as well.
Additionally, Google actually competes and wins on content. It's rare that Google offers a worse search result than any of its competitors. However, my food tastes just as good if ordered through Uber Eats or Grubhub or through the restaurant's own website, and my taxi service is likely gonna be the same whether I use Lyft or Uber.
Finally, unlike Google, Uber is actually renting its location from its competitors. Apple and Google could sign deals with Lyft/Seamless to make them the default provider in Maps, Google search, Apple Search or an Apple Restaurants app.
Why wouldnt another well capitalized business that hasn't lost tens of billions of dollars not be able to do better, since for $EPOCH + x years, that other business can actually afford to lose dollars while Uber needs to maintain its profit margin to recover the billions it lost in the pre $EPOCH era.
So when you have a cheap solution that works, why would you want to do something expensive that does not even work any better than the cheap solution?
Other than making a nonsensical ideological statement, that is.
Because the former is unacceptable, but the latter is not as big a deal at all.