lurkerasdfh8
Imagine the use case you want to apply a filter to all your photos.
Either you give service provider access to all your photos, or they give you access to run the code out of their control.
There's no way to compromise this.
For this reason SOLID is pointless too. It is just a fancy way to saying "everyone will pay for their own S3 bucket and give access to random directories to random companies, oh and pay for the entire bandwidth"
it is not. if you have 10 DB hosts with the same brand of nvme, and they fail under a workload, what good is it that you have 10 hot-hot failover hosts? you just bought yourself a few days, or hours if you are specially unlucky and using consumer grade.
really, if you are in a point where you hunt for hidden settings to disable in your browser? why not just use firefox?
i think it is a closed solution that sucks just like all the others.
i think every single one of those lock-in-for-profit platform only attract idiots (in the original greek work meaning of the word) and makes true open solutions that will ultimately help everyone slower to show up. Because eventually they will.
besides being immoral and a literal F-U to your consumers, it can bring anti trust cases when you are as big as Apple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
But other than that, well, just go celebrate your $2 gain on your APPL stocks despite the fact you were prohibited to call 50% of your friends just so someone couldn't save a few bucks when buying a phone for their teenage kid. Go you!
it was literally an email that surface on the Epic store litigation, where one Apple exec says (quote from memory) "We can't have facetime for android because that will remove the barrier for families to buy Android phones for their kids"
So it will be crappy and have TONS of limitations (wouldn't be surprised it it only work with one apple device hosting) because it is only for legal excuse reasons.
infinite troll accounts would ideally be defeated by all the moderation being exposed and distributed. and infinite pseudonyms account would make toe the line efforts too expensive.
every single one of them. Many times over.
I think everyone knows, because, c'mon. But everyone thinks they are the smarter one and will be the ones fooling others and making money. Which makes this article, and yours, pointless, because, everyone already knows that.
it's still untested in the real world if gplv3 "taints" derivative work that broadly.
Would they had to open source the entire solution? or just changes made to the library? nobody knows, and there's a lot of FUD to promote BSD licenses instead of sitting down and properly defining the limits in a practical way.
The seller and buyer both agree that the promise of something else is what was traded, as the price proves.
Their community management tools are awful and the philosophy they and the moderators abide to is that questions/answers must be closed as soon as possible.
For example: take one question such as "how to do X in Y". The answer today is "not possible". it is accepted. done. Tomorrow it is "now you use Y.abc" and that old question will never be updated because the person who asked is not interested anymore, or worse, it might even be locked. This is a very common pattern. There's also thousands of the "A: copy and past this, which i do not understand either" which completely kills any knowledgeable discussion.
What we miss the the middle ground. And that is open for the taking! (hint)
SO is transient and disposable. It is about the error message of the day and by chance hits the language/pattern of the year. Wikipedia is about stablished knowledge already accepted and published. The open spot in the middle is about accepted techniques for the pattern of the recent years. Those are filled currently by random blogs, posts and news aggregators.
all the other pundits miss that if the deal was for existing source of revenue, it would have been priced as modestly as those are.
nothing that helps the product/user base.
Acquisition that improves things are extremely out of the norm.
embedded is a term that means your code is closer to the discrete component analogy as possible, with all the same design and testing expected from the electrical design.
If you want to add modern language niceties to it, fine, But I would say that anything that brings in the "app" concept, and specially installation and fleet management, the better term is microcontrollers.
And there are perfectly fine open source solutions with the same goals, such as https://archive.fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/ioterlang/
Then every time there's advancements in what you have available, people add all the niceties back. And at this point it is not embedded anymore. It's just a low power full device. Just like java for the MSP430 (like anyone would spend $7.99 per chip for a TV remote with 2week batteries, instead of $0.004 and 2+month)
True embedded development usually doesn't even have room for a watchdog timer. let alone virtualization and memory protection.
This is not new. This is not embedded. This is just the usual cycle of hardware generation changing and people in academia ivory tower (or worse, google solid gold tower) having nicer toys than everyone else.
this is important. It is an option they DID IGNORE! for marketing.
The thing that kills pedestrians (both physically and preventing vision) is the high trunk. They could have lowered it since there is no 9L engine or whatever inside. But they decided to keep it for "frunk" marketing.
- can carry X tons / X petaflops and ai engine! - can drive up to Y hours / last Y hours
but never mention how long is Y with X being true.
look anywhere in this thread. there will be a comment 1h ago, and 4+ others further down with the exact same argument both downvoted and with a few dozen replies explaining why the argument is bogus. You might need to enable the option to see dead comments to get the full picture.
you keep using that word...
Also, microsoft did this a couple years ago, without fancy volumetric display, just face tracking on their expensive 8k(?) tv for meeting rooms, and it was a complete flop.
lol. that would have been awesome. domain squatters would be running for the 1000 character names while crying about all the money they paid for three letters one :)
then microsoft release IE4 (or 6?) web spec. It was literally a copy of netscape's but with "up to" replaced with "at least".
and from this day on, nobody knows about limits on the standard and everything was up in the air, just so sites could work on IE4 and be broken on netscape. Thanks microsoft!
I did some experiments to test the actual URL limit of IE. at the time it was around 4MB, but IE would still go over if you got creative with hostnames levels and odd schemas.
-- quick edit:
keep in mind, in 1993, the money from giving out free browsers where on the servers: netscape server vs microsoft IIS (just like today giving free browsers the money is on makig it easier to access YOUR content --e.g. default search, etc).
Making your browser crash the competitor server mean that server was seen as lower quality. (Same thing with google deliberately crashing performance of firefox on their services today[0])
The point of microsoft making this change was to force netscape to update their server as they increase the URL limit arbitrarily to all IE users.
[0] https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...
Did you receive any ads in spanish or chinese recently? did you see any political ad to a party you vehemently oppose? All that is still decided by your profile and history. Just with hocus pocus anonymization on the front end.
So google is not that different from netflix and amazon. they just give you a blanket.