420 karma · joined November 23, 2019
In a perfect world the defaults would look great, making sans-serif a viable choice and allowing the few users who really care (beyond 'it looks good') to do whatever they want.
The kernel is famously backward compatible, upgrading during a distro cycle shouldn't be a problem. Yet fedora doing so is somehow exceptional.
Looking at the misnamed "Privacy Sandbox", Chrome is not just there to improve the Web (and therefore google usage), but also to control it (and steer advertisers to Google even if it undermines the Web as a whole).
It will not be enforced by an overworked regularly body, but by customers suing software companies.
No reason for the government to investigate proactively (as long as the government was not affected).
I don't know if they actually have to do this (It might be necessary for seamless scrolling?), but building some partial rendering might be more complicated than GPU acceleration as well.
I'd be interested if someone knows more about this.
Owning a physical thing and "owning" information is fundamentally different. Information can be copied, spread, redistributed without taking it away from someone.
If you take land from someone they can no longer use it, if you copy information from someone they still have it themselves. You cannot build two houses onto the same place in the same property.
Ownership is designed so that we can say who is allowed to use things with naturally exclusive use.
Copyright is designed to make the use of naturally unlimited and reusable information exclusive.
... But we are still doing this, today. Though not excactly by hand-crank.
But the part about hacker-tools applys only for tools that cannot be used legally (basically none) or are explicitly and knowingly made or acquired to be used illegally (as in you explicitly stated you are downloading this tool in order to get into a computer you do not have permission to get into). They have to prove you are not intending to use it legally (like checking your own network or one you were hired to check).
I hope it will outcompete cheap, monoculture-soy fed, medicine pumped, densely grown and factory slaughtered cheap meat.
The second is far more common than the first. As you said, good meat from well-raised animals is expensive.
So not the awesome and expensive steak you may eat from time to time, but the cheap meat in fast-food, the chicken-wings, burgers, lasagnas, pizzas, tacos, currys and more.
Otoh creators can delete comments. So the comments existing and being positive about a video is not a good signal for the video being good either.
There's artists building the game experience and CS people building the game technology.
The latter do use and reuse smaller software components to build the level editors, scripting interfaces, particle physics, path-finding, illumination, etc. The engine. This job is very much like other fields of software development, not actually behind.
The first might write code (e.g. scripting), but they are generally doing so in a restricted 'monolithic' environment provided to make their job easier. They do not have to build the technology, they can just direct it, if that makes sense. Their job isn't typical software development, more content development, thus it seems a bit alien, behind from a software developer's perspective.
I'd argue that's because game development is not a CS discipline. Game tech / engine is, but games need more man-hours in artistic disciplines like modeling, animation, level-design, story-telling etc. than they need for cs.
There is a lot of 'game middleware' out there for the CS part of the equation. Game engines themselves are not monoliths, using 20+ middleware components is common.
The game design part is done using a monolithic interface to the technology (the engine), but that's because that job is not 'programming'.
There is also some scale issues. A walkable city is great. A walkable neighborhood might not be, not if it is too small and everyone has to drive to work, to the grocer and to the doctor. Public transport makes only sense if it can move enough people. All drivers (so everyone) will be uncomfortable with the walkable, but disconnected small neighborhood.
There has been some rethinking in the last decade or so and cities are trying to become more walkable, more livable and less car focused with increasing frequency.
Yes. Though that sounds like weasel words, the word change is missing.
It was 100% proven that human contribution is the main and most important culprit of (the current) climate change. Also that human released CO2 is the most important mechanism.
Yeah, a nobody (in the public's mind) making false accusations is not a story worth telling.
Facebook stealing billions worth of IP is.
That's obvious so far, isn't it?
Though you are right with news reporting giving unproven accusations and in-process trials far too much weight. This is not just happening with 'hated' entities like Facebook, but also publicly unknown individuals. It clearly can convey a distorted picture of the facts.
This seems even worse. More like reading their diary than snooping for pornographic magazines.
Super creepy and I cannot help but see a parallel to the teenager's list. Cannot leave them alone, keeps tabs on everyone and all they might do wrong.
> Typically, when you have even two competitors, the quality is improved.
If those state services weren't available for the public they would exist anyway, they are primarily for military purpose.
Imagine the US didn't offer free GPS and civilian competition would arise. Wouldn't it just mean the US users would have to pay for two satellite services? Once for the military one, once for the civilian. Since cost does not increase with users, the military (tax supported) one wouldn't be cheaper to run either.
Apart from that there are competitors even today. My smartphone does connect to Galileo, Glonass and GPS.
Doesn't it kind of prove part of the argument?
Google apparently felt threatened by patents, enough so to acquire "second strike capabilities" as deterrence.
Seems to me Google though patents aggressive tools with the purpose to hurt other companies or threatening to do so (though defensively in this case).
I am really interested in the "since discarded" part, if someone can recommend some reading.
I don't think it's remarkable at all. Common people with some level of scientific literacy took basically all kind of stances about masks. Some of them had to be right in the end.
'The medical establishment' otoh had to come to one single common recommendation and as it's only one there's a chance of failure (there were, ofc. individual medical professional and scientists who got it right as well).
Independently of whether that's true, isn't most consumer hardware (laptops) running "idle" most of the time?
Not setting "powersave" might be better if you want to compile something, transcode a video or do some machine learning and turn the machine off as soon as it's done. But that's hardly how a majority uses their devices.
Definitely worth a read. The deterministic simulation is easy to understand (though not to do), clever and allows for great networking performance.
Afaik this approach is still useful and used today (e.g. in fighting games).
Instead of fighting human psychology the apps should sidestep it. How about unsubscribing, but not unfriending? Shadow-unfollowing, settings like the Youtube bell for your content-stream?
I don't care to see your status-updates, but I want you in my friend list - there should be an option for that.
No? If she does not get infected after vaccination the job is done. The goal is not 'theoretical maximum protection' the job is 'not getting sick'.
If she gets infected after vaccination (very possible), she will have less risk during infection and have improved protection after.
Vaccination first and then infection is definitely safer than the other way around.
Ofc the risk for young children is low either way, so going with the low risk of being unvaccinated might be something you are ok with.
But getting infected to get best protection against infection is kinda backwards.
Excactly them trying to find more sources of income is fine by me. The hiding it and the deceptive messaging is awful. "enhance and speed up your searching experience" - I'm sure it will.
Even the opt-in screen is an anti-pattern.
"Allow suggestions" or "customize". No "do not allow suggestions". On the first level.
This is the stuff I want (and in the past expected) Mozilla to fight, not to become.
and yet even this explanation contains loaded phrasing suggesting excactly that
> Ferrari's pride has always been engines > Nothing says made in Italy more than a Ferrari
There is some value in the quality argument, but surely they can check incoming parts? Hand check everything, do the luxury quality thing etc.
I think the argument is not that they cannot get their hands on batteries up to their performance standard, rather it is they cannot make "unique, hand-crafted batteries lovingly labored over by the best people in the industry doing nothing but supplying Ferrari and looking back at X years of tradition". And honestly, it just sounds like pride to me (not that pride is always a bad thing).
> They live the Apple experience in full.
And the Apple experience worked just fine during the Intel MacBook phase.
Ferrari could do the same and try to come back with their M1 equivalent for electric driving later.
If they were taxed high enough to offset that shared cost completly or even more than that it would be fine.
... but that doesn't seem to be the plan here.
Why give them a choice now? They will still be able to stay in business and make great cars. They will be called Ferrari by them and the rest of the world. Some whining over them no longer being "real" Ferrari or Italian can be and has been ignored.
Job loss over no longer being competitive with current / coming tech is a real problem. But I feel politics should not step in to protect obsolete tech, rather they should help stear away from it and support innovation.