Everyone seems to be missing the point of the external display. It’s to keep you somewhat tethered to the real world, not to look super impressive. It gives people around you enough information to know if they can see you, and if they are looking at you, that’s it’s purpose. And it does that really well from what I’ve seen. Does it look a little weird? Sure, but it’s doing what it was designed to do.
Or go club anyway, for free. Just went to one with no cover, and didn’t drink anything. They actually had a raffle I did pay for, but I ended up winning. So technically, I profited 🤔
They stormed the most secure building in our country with the express purpose of stealing control of our government while openly shouting they wanted to hang the VP and members of congress, with the gallows they brought.
If that isn’t the textbook example of seditious treason, what is? They should have the book thrown at them. To do any less is to endorse and encourage this behavior.
You can attach a fake one in software via XVFB (X Virtual Frame Buffer). It’s a little involved if you aren’t familiar with X, but it only took me an hour or so to get setup. Then you don’t need any hardware at all, and can set whatever resolution you'd like.
If that were solely true, there would be a lot more competition in the field right now. Amazon, (and to a much lesser extent the other 2 big names, GCP and Azure) are so massive not because they have a lot of power (plenty of other companies like digital ocean or OVM have plenty of scaling power too)— but because the integrations between their products are so seamless. Most of that functionality has a foundation in FOSS software that they’ve built on top of.
Regulate does not equal stop, or even really slow for that manner. There are a number of measures we can mandate that wouldn’t slow any real research, but that would curtail malicious activity, like mandating some form of detection research to go alongside models, or pushing for better watermarking technology for genuine content.
That would be a dream come true for Youtube. Think about how that would affect them financially, they would be serving significantly less load, but they would still rake in all those Youtube premium subscriptions. It would effectively be campaigning to remove the users who aren’t monetized from the platform.
No, they messed up. Regardless of user count, and economic context, there is a limit to how fast you can grow a company. Going beyond that limit means that you’re diluting internal company knowledge so much that everyone just ends up doing their own thing— it’s chaos. Quality control, standards, procedures, etc go out the window. You also loose your ability to create accurate, data-backed plans with a high degree of confidence the farther you get from where you are now. You can predict the impact of a few new hires pretty easily, but hundreds, when your current team is only a couple hundred? You simply can’t forecast what holes you are creating, and challenges you will encounter with that many new people (specifically, that high of a growth percentage) in that short a time period. Growing that fast is incredibly risky, and in almost all cases, a terrible business decision. I’ve worked for SEVERAL companies that have worked this way, and it always destroys the company from the inside out.
If you want confirmation, just look at their product offering. Discord has consistently come out with features that no one has been asking for in a desperate attempt to monetize their platform, while for some reason continuing to hire like crazy (I.E., spending shit tons of money). Instead of working on their core product, and finding a way to monetize that. I can (and do) pay for all the messaging platforms I use out of principle, and I would happily pay more if their platform were more reliable. They could easily gate features in a way that generates them money, but instead of doing that, they let the core platform stagnate and add all this paid crap no one wants, of course they aren’t making money. This is a direct result of their company having a huge percentage of employees that do not fundamentally understand the product, because they hired too fast and diluted their internal knowledge.
It was never a scam, it was always a successful money laundering operation for the rich while covid had all the real galleries closed. It did exactly what it said on the tin. It’s just unfortunate that some people thought it was a real economy to begin with. Either way, good riddance.
It discourages innovation more when the vast majority of modern cultural works, or mechanical inventions are completely off limits to all but a small ownership class. It means no one is generally free to iterate on modern ideas without risking legal liability. Ultimately, pretty much nothing in this world is original, everything is an iteration on existing works. When anything approaching a modern work is restricted, there’s far less to iterate on.
Depending on the profile, it’s not just a little latency that would be slightly annoying, it can be easily half a second or more, which is enough to be disorienting even in normal slow paced gameplay.
Yes, that was what I was getting at. Not having true random is one thing, I understand (and like) that implementation. Apple has been doing it since the first few iPods. But Spotify “shuffle” isn’t near even, it is exactly even, as in “if you shuffle play this playlist twice two days in a row, it will play the exact same order”. Which is why people are complaining about Spotify specifically.
The problem isn’t that their random is biased or has rules, the is that it is entirely deterministic, to the point where it will play the same exact songs, in the same exact order for days. It’s as if shuffle just activates a hidden “shuffle” playlist that only updates once a week.
No chat app needs a desktop App, they need a WEB app. Generally I’m against them, but in this case it makes sense. It makes cross platform trivial, and you would never really need to use a messaging app offline anyway, browser APIs have come a LONG way. It’s also Google’s core competency. So yes, I believe they 100% have the tools if they wanted to try.
As for integration, my point is: why would Apple bother integrating with Google’s suggestions? Google has a track record of abandoning standards and ideas at the drop of a hat. Why on earth would Apple spend time, money, and engineering talent on something that’s likely to become abandonware in 2-4 years time? That’s also assuming it’s a GOOD standard, most of the previous attempts had fatal flaws that made the product dead on arrival. If Google had something compelling, and gave us a reason to believe it would be around for more than a few years, I’m sure adoption would go through the roof, and Apple would want to integrate— Because it would now benefit them, they would be getting something out of the deal; More features, an established user base, etc.
Regardless, my point still stands. The reason folks on Andriod are hopping around between different chat apps every few years is because Google refuses to create a robust chat app, and commit to it. Apple has power in this space because Google has refused to seriously, honestly try. If Google had a GOOD chat app, and a track record to prove it’s going to stick around, Apple would be much more open to integrating with another ecosystem, because it would be beneficial for them to do so.
I am fully in the Apple ecosystem, including my phone, work laptop, personal laptop, and an Apple watch. I pretty much exclusively use telegram, and sometimes Discord, not iMessage— and that’s not a niche or unpopular opinion in my experience either. This is absolutely because Google can’t stick with one app or product long enough to gain any market share. Each time they have tried, it’s lasted barely a year or so before they killed it.
The GM software will ALWAYS be better than Carplay/Andriod Auto, because the metric they are optimizing for is being able to add microtransactions to your car after you’ve bought it, not optimizing for the user experience.
They can be far more predatory on their own you see.
Everyone seems to be missing the point of the external display. It’s to keep you somewhat tethered to the real world, not to look super impressive. It gives people around you enough information to know if they can see you, and if they are looking at you, that’s it’s purpose. And it does that really well from what I’ve seen. Does it look a little weird? Sure, but it’s doing what it was designed to do.