noapologies
I agree with your point about Go enums.
But in defense of Java, modern Java is actually pretty pleasant.
Virtual threads, records and sealed classes, pattern matching, state-of-the-art garbage collectors, a great standard library etc. (and obviously well-behaved enums).
Not to mention the other languages you get for free with the JVM ecosystem.
It might not be as expressive as Rust, but certainly Java/JVM > Go.
I use Android's Bedtime mode a lot, and it has a helpful feature that let's you quickly "Pause for 30 minutes" or "Turn off for now" from a notification [1].
I don't think the app needs notifications as such, but it could have quick access to a pause button.
[1] https://img.gadgethacks.com/img/original/21/75/6372310031848...
> pharmaceutical and biotechnology sales revenue increased from $534 billion to $775 billion between 2006 and 2015
> worldwide company-reported R&D spending, most of which went to drug development (rather than research) ... $89 billion in 2015 dollars
> During the same period, federal spending, which funded a greater amount of basic research relative to industry, remained stable at around $28 billion
So only ~11% of total revenue was being reinvested, mostly into drug development.
And basic research was funded largely by federal spending.
Unlimited Data!! (up to 100GB)
If you believe their steering assist kills more people than Tesla FSD then you're welcome, encouraged even, to file a report with the NHTSA here [1].
20 Rs, 20 Ds in a 20x20 grid.
Example pattern: RRDDDR...D (40 letters)
Basically the number of permutations, with repetition, of 20 Rs and 20 Ds.
Given how widely used ACF is, it wouldn't be surprising to learn that a lot of weekends were ruined by the "fork".
Genuinely asking, what would the solution look like in idiomatic Go?
Let's assume for a second that the premise of the article is valid and exactly the behavior we want - "asynchronous execution but to report the results in order, as each becomes available".
Consider Apple's very own Mac - another general-purpose computing device like the iPhone, only in a different form-factor.
Surely Mac developers must be tripping over themselves to throw 30% of their total revenue at Apple, as reward for their laser focus on privacy and security and for developing a nanny-platform that makes their users feel warm and fuzzy inside?
Surely Mac users must not be allowed to do business with literally any entity in the world without involving Apple as the gatekeeper?
Oh wait.
The main crux of my comment is about being able to "own" your own device. A hackable device is better than a closed device, more choice is better than no choice.
Is it so hard to believe that if Microsoft or Apple had a death grip on Windows and MacOs respectively, restricting completely the kinds of things you could do on these platforms unless individually blessed, that there would be a far less interesting ecosystem of apps / capabilities available than what we have today.
Just an example, one cannot build AWS on an iPad. Like literally cannot - the tools are either not available or are significantly crippled, since you may use them to circumvent Apple's gatekeeper cut.
That's the main idea, make smartphones and tablets, smartwatches, vr headsets etc. more like traditional desktop devices.
That Linux has not only survived for so long, but thrived, is a true testament to the will, technical expertise, and product vision of community developers.
FOSS was founded on the principles of openness and collaboration, something that we need now more than ever, as the largest companies of the world have managed to weaken that resolve through slick marketing and anti-competitive practices.
Think of what truly open VR headsets, smartwatches, tablets and smartphones etc. would be capable of, the rich ecosystem of apps and capabilities that could exist - but greed is literally holding us back by decades.
Think of the kids growing up now, forced to be consumers rather than producers. And compare them to the last century, the sense of wonder and expression that the internet and infinitely hackable devices brought.
It was revolutionary, and many of the giants that exist now were built literally on the backs of that openness.
Fortunately there are other reasons why a business may be forced to do something, and not allowed to be the sole judge/jury/executioner.
One of those is anti-trust action - something that greatly benefits humanity as a whole, even though the alternative may (or may not) be cheaper for the business.
Other examples are employee protections, consumer protections, constitutional amendments etc.
As you may have already read in my comment, I'm asking why it wasn't uninstallable to begin with.
Some may be like Uber, turning the car into a taxi service, or like Turo, allowing it to be rented. Others may be independent mechanics that can work on the car perfectly fine without access to blessed tools.
There is no cost passed on to the customer because the car manufacturer does not enforce a percentage cut of Uber's or Turo's revenue.
That said, there is likely no perfect analogy in cars. We can instead turn to MacOs / Windows / Linux etc., general purpose computing platforms that do not suffer from a gatekeeper's stranglehold.
Similarly, I dream of going to Epic's website to download some Fortnite, maybe charge a thousand vbucks to mom's credit card if I'm feeling adventurous, and that has nothing to do with Apple or iOS.
This is how every single general-purpose computing platform (including Apple's MacOs) and the open internet has worked for multiple decades.
But sure, here's another -
You can run any company's software on a MBP, downloaded from the internet, without paying a dime to Apple. Similar situation applies to Windows / Microsoft.
The iOS model is advocating for rent-seeking in MacOs and Windows binaries.
Using another real estate analogy -
Imagine you bought a house from Fruit Builders company. The house came with a pool.
Now unlike every other pool in existence, this is a very special pool that just really cares about your privacy and security a lot.
It won't let you use any random pool toy (it has lasers), no it must be a well-behaved toy that is rigorously tested and officially notarized by Fruit company themselves (= non-employee contractors taking one look to make sure Fruit's cut is not being circumvented).
So you go to the supermarket, purchase a marked-up toy, the toy company reports its earning to Fruit, and Fruit takes their cut.
All for your safety of course.
Like literally the only participants in that business transaction are the consumer and the company, Apple does not even enter the picture.
It would be like car manufacturers charging you a percentage for going to the grocery store, because they provide a Private and Secure™ transportation platform.
Consumers will soon catch up, and if the EU does not put pressure on Apple about this, they definitely will.
A great example that highlights this absurdity is vehicle ownership - imagine if Tesla announced tomorrow that they are actually a "transportation platform" and started charging Uber drivers a percentage of their revenue, or Mazda found out about the weekend race you did in a Miata and is demanding a cut of the winnings.
Businesses would love perfect price discrimination in every context (because profits!), but is not clear to me how that is a desirable state for humanity.
No, the OS can limit access to local content. E.g. Mac has https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/control-access-to-f..., and ios has its own permissions system.
It also requires installing third-party software on the device. While if Apple's policy regarding local content changes in the future, there is no way to avoid the OS itself (other than jailbreaking I suppose).
> Apple is trying to avoid scanning in the cloud so that the data can be E2EE
Citation needed.
While local, on-device content access has no such guarantees - it's a question of policy rather than technical infeasibility.
And policies change.
> They are scanning files that are being uploaded. So, yes.
Even considering the situation as it is today, the cloud providers (as well as Apple) are scanning just the files that are being uploaded. So I'm still not sure how one is "total invasion of privacy" and the other "preserving privacy".
> other major cloud providers catch CSAM content on their platform by inspecting every file uploaded, i.e. total invasion of privacy.
> Apple found a way to preserve that privacy ...
So scanning for CSAM in a third-party cloud is "total invasion of privacy", while scanning your own personal device is "preserving privacy"?
The third-party clouds can only scan what one explicitly chooses to share with the third-party, while on-device scanning is a short slippery slope away from have its scope significantly expanded (to include non-shared and non-CSAM content).