ForgotAboutDre @ ForgotAboutDre @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

558

Joined

2 yr. ago

They wouldn't know their location or have a means of sending that location. This would require every subsystem to have a gps antenna, radio and battery. It would be expensive, heavy and wasteful.

This stops theft significantly.

iPhone were one of the easiest devices to steal and sell. Even conventional anti theft measures wouldn't deter theft significantly. Because they are so popular and common stealing an iPhone just to sell parts would still be worthwhile. Making stolen iPhone parts worthless reduces incidence of theft significantly.

This is less of an issue for other manufacturers. They often have more models serving a small customer base, with significantly less retail value.

Google apps used to be significantly better on iOS than android for a long time. The commenter is pointing to the quality of software developers are happy shipping has went down not the os.

Cheaper upfront costs. Engines alone are very expensive and require a lot of maintenance. This would increase the capacity for any freight carrier very cheaply.

It would be particularly advantageous for short term increases in freight. People buying gifts at Christmas, natural disasters, medical events like COVID etc.

The alternative would be a second aircraft, that would also need more fuel than a single aircraft.

I imagine a ground based crew would be available to intervene and fly it remotely. With an option for the powered aircraft crew to fly it remotely through a data link in the cable.

Proper sensory redundancy, appropriate control systems and designing for inherent stability should make this very safe.

The problem with the recent Boeing aircraft is modifying the airframe to take larger quieter engineers caused it to be inherently unstable. This type of aircraft should be designed to be inherently stable. However, redesign is expensive so they avoided that. Instead they added a control system to stabilise the aircraft (perfectly acceptable). The problem is they didn't add redundancy to the sensors the control system relied on, faulty data caused the aircraft to crash. They also skipped training the pilots on how to override this new control system.

All completely avoidable if everything was done right. They got away with not doing everything right because they successfully corrupted the FDA. Other equivalent bodies assumed the FDA wasn't corrupt and accepted their qualification of the aircraft.

Remove the corruption and penny punching this concept is completely safe. With corruption all aircrafts are liable to be dangerous.

The lite apps also take up less user storage. Which was a big issue for lower end phones at that time. Once you ran out of storage people struggled to install new apps. Even with external SD cards, as it wasn't an easy concept for some people to get over.

Contact your GP, they should get you an appointment soon.

If they can't call 111. 111 may be able to get you an appointment for an ECG from a hospital or urgent care. Or some other intervention.

NHS inform is a much better place to get information than an internet form. It's probably the best place for medical advice on the internet for non-medical professionals. It also tells you appropriate actions for your symptoms - treat at home, speak to pharmacist, call GP, call 111, call 999.

Hilarious, but if the reporter asked this they would find it harder to get invites to events. Which is a problem for journalists. Unless your very well regarded for your journalism, you can't push powerful people without risking your career.

Many apps are just a web page packaged into an app. So safaris engine is being used their as well. So it's impact is bigger than just browsing.

Many apps are just web app packaged up in an app. Even on iOS. This wouldn't work for apple.

It not like people on Android are using web apps significantly more than iOS. Often on android websites are artificially limiting what you can do on the web app to push you to download their app (many of which are this packaging).

The biggest hold on web apps is websites.

Apple had to be forced to allow other browsers to be default because they get billions from Google each year. All because safari defaults to Google search. This is what would motivate apple to restrict the default web browser.

Changing the web engine isn't rely a factor in web apps. Safari is very capable. Websites generally work on safari, many that don't work right on firefox. This isn't because Firefox or safari is bad, but because Devs develop solely for chrome.

Samsung browser is just chrome in a jacket.

The biggest threat to an free and open internet is chrome. Chromium the base of chrome is open source and used by many other browsers as the engine (and most of the features). Everything else is clothing. Chrome, edge, brave, Vivaldi etc are all chrome in a mask.

Since chromium is developed and controlled by Google they have defacto control over how these browsers work, operate and display web content. This gives Google massive leverage in control how the web and it's standards develop.

There is only two other web browser. Firefox and safari. These are the only other operations cable of building and maintaing a modern web browser currently. Chrome took apples safari open source core WebKit to build chrome. They then forked it. Because Google chrome is so powerful, apple will need to follow to keep inline with Google. Google also pays them billions every year. Likewise Firefox is funded by Google through default search.

Google is trying to control the web. Use Firefox.

The other things in honey is what makes the difference. Good honey is a magical thing. But it wouldn't be mixed with anything else. A marker of high quality honey is being single source and single season (similar to single malt whisky).

HFCS has uses - many. But it's not a good substitute for honey if the honey flavour is important. This product is the cheapest honey mixed together and then added to HFCS to push the price down and make the low quality honey more tolerable in taste. There's a market for it only because honey is so expensive.

It's night and day on macos. I wouldn't be surprised if we start to hear people complain about chrome on iOS in the EU if they implement the chrome engine.

Apple doesn't have much of a reason to force it's own browser on iOS. They aren't involved in selling adverts like Google and Microsoft. They also aren't players in web technology in the same way as Google and MS. I suspect their big motivation in keeping chrome, edge and Firefox off the iPhone is to control the user experience an aspect of that being the battery life. The WebKit approach lets them have the browser and features like password managers, without sacrificing power consumption. If it want to keep Safaris user share they wouldn't have allowed them at all in the iOS store.

Google doesn't bother with optimising chrome performance on any platforms. Even their pixels and Chromebooks. It's just not a factor for them.

On macbooks Safari is excellent for battery life. Absolutely blows every other browser out the water. If the same optimisation has been done on mobile, then people will go back for that alone. Safari has less add-ons and a less intuitive interface (if your not accustomed to Mac) but the longer battery life makes up for the inadequacy.

Aveeno is widely available in the UK, don't know about the rest of Europe.

There's also no such thing as an inch. It's defined by the meter, there isn't an official yardstick.

The only reason the UK, Canada and USA used the same inch is because they needed to interchange parts for weapons and machines during WW1. Despite all thinking they used the same measurement system the definition had drifted between them. Metric was defined by enlightenment people with better methods of reproducing the standard. So it was easier to adopt a inch definition based on 25.4mm.

The UK and US inch only match because of WW1. The imperial volumes are still different.

That would be very hard to verify for most users. So the perceived risk can be high. Most people aren't going through source code or compiling the code themselves. Most are trusting the open source community to tell them it's safe.

Where as pen and paper, the risks are apparent to most people. It also severely limits the people who can access the information. Keeping out those that would sell or trade it. For a third party to access pen and paper they either need to trick you in person or break and enter.

Most businesses aren't going to take those risks. But they will steal your data from an app. Many businesses primary operation is stealing data from apps.

Your right. Google has wasted a lot of potential. They are too short sighted. When they do have good long term vision and goals, they abandon them far to early.

Additionally, the guise has dropped. They are aggressively harvesting data and constructing Android to harvest more and more.

Hitler also held referendums under military occupation.

That's wouldn't be a factor once the water entered the car. The pressure equalises if there water is on both side of the door.