Grim-444

I agree, but it also interestingly at the same time gives me a conflicting thought - how can we be so confident that we know what's going on in/around our planet if such a huge percentage of the population doesn't have even the most basic knowledge about the topic?

Well both of your complaints were already addressed. Android introduced the scoped storage system to remove and fix abuse of "full" disk access, and they also added the foreground notification system which forces a system notification to be displayed if any app is doing work in the background, so that you know about.

There's a difference between funding research and funding development and manufacturing. No company would develop and manufacture a drug if they wouldn't make profit of it, no matter how much related research was or wasn't done using public funding.

Well I give them props for at least having a facade of a "what went wrong" section, which most RN articles leave out, although it doesn't feel like an honest analysis of the negatives of their switch.

I'd like to see some actual data about what percentage of their code is written in native vs RN. In my experience you need to maintain massive amounts of native framework code on both sides to support the RN code, and to implement stuff that RN can't do or does horribly. Adding RN into the mix just basically adds one more platform to be supported, making things more complicated, rather than combining code into fewer platforms. RN teams never bother to mention how much native code is needed to support them, and seemingly never include native work that was done when giving metrics about how long it took to "write" a feature in RN, usually because a separate "native" team does that work, not them, so it's conveniently not mentioned.

Also curious about other metrics such as how many developers they lost that weren't interested in becoming JS developers. Or have they stuck around because there's still so much native work that they need native developers for, to support RN.

The title claims "behind every self-made millionaire", then the article subtitle claims "behind most self-made millionaires", then the article body just points at a grand total of 4 human beings that are millionaires that had rich fathers, as proof that most/every self-made millionaire had a rich father. The article is nothing but class-warfare propaganda.

Whether or not any of the post is accurate, it really just comes off as a begrudged ex-employee trying to throw dirt. As a supposedly former "senior software engineer", their entire description of the problem is that their system "went offline due to its outdated software packages and over utilized server resources aka cpu, memory and disk space.". There's zero technical detail, just an incredibly generic statement.

At even colder temps than that EV batteries start having even more problems, for example they become permanently damaged if charged at freezing temps or below, so even more energy has to be used to heat the batteries for the batteries to be able to accept a charge.

Not trying to be snarky here, but I'm curious what percentage of the people complaining in this thread also complained about the constant censorship and deplatforming by Twitter pre-Musk? Don't get me wrong, I think it's all bad, both ways, it's just the outcry now is extremely telling.

Do you not believe it was happening before? Or were you not told that it was happening before? Or did you just not care before because it was directed towards people you were told are "bad"?

I wonder how many people in this thread are actual human beings, vs. bots/shills working overdrive to force the narrative through, but that's a topic for another day ..

Well they start by listing out the advantages of stuff like Robux:

"Parental controls implemented in recent years mean out-of-control spending by children is less of a concern than it once was. By topping up virtual wallets with a little cash, parents save money and time compared with a trip to Target and don’t have to take out their wallets for every little purchase."

They proceed to list out different game currencies and what having them allow you to do, which you couldn't do with cash. Followed by providing directions and helpful tips to parents about how to do it, such as "Advocacy groups recommend that parents talk to children about the potential for disappointment when buying blind packs".

The title claims that a four-day week trail shows that working less increases productivity.

The article provides two data points for this.

1) The author's personal research, in which they say they measured a 10% increase in productivity, but about which they explicitly fully admit that in the end it doesn't make up for the loss of productivity from working 20% less. They actually write in the article that end productivity would be less.

2) They link to a study of a single Japanese company that was overworking their workers by 20-40 hours of overtime each month, which was reduced to ~20 hours of overtime after the 08 recession. They took the income the employees earned, divided it by how many hours they worked, and somehow determined that the employees were "7.6%" more productive when they had to work less overtime. This study has nothing to do with a four-day work week, it's for a single company, and for a company that was already working their employees well past a normal 40 hour work week.

That's it. That's the proof they provide, as they make the claim that four-day work weeks increase productivity. One data point that the author admits doesn't say that, and one data point that has nothing to do with a four-day work week and makes little sense.

This comment is pretty much the definition of a straw-man argument. You're presenting an extreme opinion as the opinion of hundreds of millions of human beings. Just adding to the hate in the world.

Calmly and rationally?

"It was relatively easy for most of us to condemn the allergic-to-truth rantings of former President Donald Trump. His lies were so transparent and prodigious that anyone outside the MAGA-verse could easily see through them. Many of us collectively recoiled at the reality-distortions he spun and how they were lapped up with religious-like zeal by his followers."

This is "calmly and rationally" to you? To immediately start a persuasive article by launching into a political rant? Your "rationality" is demonstrated by emotional rantings of somehow who's obviously pretty much as hard to one end of the political spectrum as one can be? Who defines their political beliefs as "the truth", and anyone who believes anything different than them as a evil moronic heathen?

How are we computing something we can't yet even define?