Heat is not by itself waste. It's what electricity turns into after it's done doing computer things. Efficiency is a separate question - how many computer things you got done per unit electricity turned into heat.
How many computer things you got done per unit electricity, and how many mechanical things you do with the temperature gradient between the computer and its heat sync.
For example, kinda wasteful to cook eggs with new electrons when you could use the computer heat to help you denature those proteins. Or just put the heat in human living spaces.
(Putting aside how practical that actually is... Which it isn't)
Oh! I thought I had found the crucial piece finally after ~500 words, but there's indeed better news in the section after that! Thanks, I can go sleep with a more optimistic feeling now :)
Also this will kill any impetus that was growing on the Linux phone development side, for better or worse. We get to live in this ecosystem a while longer, let's see if people keep damocles' sword in mind and we might see more efforts towards cross-platform builds for example
That's like accepting vaders 'altered' deal, and being grateful it hasn't been altered further.
If google wants a walled garden, let it wall off it's own devices, but what right does it have to command other manufactures to bow down as well? At this stage we've got the choice of dictato-potato phone prime, or misc flavour of peasant.
If you want walled garden, go use apple. The option is there. We don't need to bring that here.
Google Certified Devices is any device that has GMS (Google Mobile Services) installed - ergo almost all of them. It's worth noting that a _lot_ of apps stop functioning when GMS is missing because Google has been purposefully been putting as much functionality in them instead of putting them in AOSP. So you end up in a situation where, to make an Android phone compatible with most apps, you need GMS. Which in turn means you need your phone to be Google Certified, and hence must implement this specification.
The others answered the question, but I wanted to add that this is "new English" to me as well (also non native though). I first saw it in chats with mostly teenagers in ~2021, where I've also learned "let's go" isn't about going anywhere at all (it means the same as w)
This is the first sign we're getting old :) new language features feel new. The language features I picked up in school, that my parents remarked upon, were simply normal to me, not new at all. I notice it pretty strongly nowadays with my grandma, where I keep picking up new terms in Dutch (mainly loan words) but she isn't exposed to them and so I struggle to find what words she knows. Not just new/updated concepts like VR, gender-neutral pronouns, or a new word for messages that are specifically in an online chat, but also old concepts like bias. It's always been there but I'd have no idea what she'd use to describe that concept
Yes, but it's often just "a W" or simply "W" in response to something good or seen as a "win."
There is also the same thing with L for loss/loser. "that's an L take", "L [person]", "take the L here", etc.
They are pretty straightforward in their meaning, basically what you described. I believe it comes from sports but they are used for any good or bad outcome regardless of whether it was a contest.
This isn't a "W", but I am finding my own "W" from this by seeing others distrust Google, and remembering to continue supporting and looking for open alternatives to Google.
Ok, but sideloading is already a thing. What will this way to install unverified apps be? I doubt it will be an extra screen asking "Are you super-duper sure you want to enable sidloading???" after the one already asking the same question.
They talk about doing it under pressure, so my guess is there might be a waiting period before you're allowed free reign, or maybe per-app. Or some level of calling google, listening to 10 minutes of how poor billionaires are going to starve if you have control of your own device before being allowed to unlock it.
That doesn't say that you can just build an APK and distribute it. I suspect this path _still_ requires you to create a developer console account and distribute binaries signed by it... just that that developer account doesn't have to have completed identity verification.
That's not fine at all. A developer who doesn't want to (or can't) distribute through the Play Store will now need to teach their users how to enable developer mode and toggle a hidden setting. This raises the barrier a bit more than the current method of installing outside the Play Store.
Maybe this sounds dark but see also how the net is tightening around phones that allow you to run open firmware after you've bought the hardware for the full and fair price. We're slowly being relegated to crappy hobbyist projects once the last major vendors decide on this as well, and I don't even understand what crime it is I'm being locked out for
We're too small a group for commercial vendors to care. Switching away isn't enough, especially when there's no solidarity, not even among hackers. Anyone who uses Apple phones votes with their wallet for locking down the ability to run software of your choice on hardware of your choice. It's as anti-hacker as you can get but it's fairly popular among the HN audience for some reason
If not even we can agree on this internally, what's a bank going to care about the fifty people in the country that can't use a banking app because they're obstinately using dev tools? What are they gonna do, try to live bankless?
Of course, so long as we can switch away: by all means. But it's not a long-term solution
I think pretty soon I'll carry a "normal" phone in my bag for things like communication and banking/ticketing, but I'll carry a device I actually like in my pocket. It'll be the best of both worlds - content I want to see often and easily in my pocket, and the stuff I don't want to be distracted by will be harder to reach on a whim.
Yes, I think I'll have to do the same. I've been in the market for a new phone but the one I had pretty much settled on removed the option to update the boot verification chain so I'm obviously not buying that. Might as well buy apple then
It seems like a finite solution though. Having a second phone is not something most people will do, so the apps that are relegated to run on such devices will become less popular, less maintained, less and less good
Currently, you can run open software alongside e.g. government verification software. I think it's important to keep that option if somehow possible
Let me guess, a warning box that requires me to give permission to the app to install from third-party sources? Is that not clear enough confirmation that I know what I'm doing? /s
A simple yes/no alert box is not "[...] specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer". In fact, AFAIK we already have exactly that alert box.
No, what they want is something so complicated that no muggle could possibly enable it, either by accident or by being guided on the phone.
The angry social media narratives have been running wild from people who insert their own assumptions into what’s happening.
It’s been fairly clear from the start that this wasn’t the end of sideloading, period. However that doesn’t get as many clicks and shares as writing a headline claiming that Google is taking away your rights.
> The angry social media narratives have been running wild from people who insert their own assumptions into what’s happening.
No, until this post, Google had said that it wouldn't be possible to install an app from a developer who hadn't been blessed by Google completely on your device. That is unacceptable. This blog post contains a policy change from Google.
> The angry social media narratives have been running wild from people who insert their own assumptions
There may have been exaggerations in some cases but these hand wavy responses like "you can still do X but you just can't do Y and Z is now mandatory" or "you can always use Y" is how we got to this situation in the first place.
This is just the next evolution of SafetyNet & play integrity API. Remember how many said use alternatives. Not saying safetynet is bad but I don't believe their intentions were to stop at just that.
Sorry what? Their original plan absolutely was the end of sideloading on-device outside of Google's say so. That's what the angry social media narratives were that you seem upset about. Anyone being pedantic and pointing out that adb install is still an option therefore sideloading still exists can fuck off at this point.
I don't think this section is actually the same as the present state just with a new alert box.
I suspect they mean you have to create a android developer account and sign the binaries, this new policy just allows you to proceed without completing the identity verification on that account.
What are you talking about? This change for "experienced users" was only just announced and not part of any previous announcement. It has not been clear from the start at all.
The GraphQL ecosystem has grown amazingly quickly over the last year. It's definitely not a single-vendor technology at this point. Check out this list of GraphQL libraries, tools, and implementations:
https://github.com/chentsulin/awesome-graphql
The majority of people who are using GraphQL are using an implementation from someone other than Facebook (on either the client or the server, or in many cases both).
(And for what it's worth, I did see a "Why not RDF" slide in one of Lee Byron's decks, and those of us at Meteor who are working on GraphQL are definitely aware of the RDF/SparQL roots. I think what's driving GraphQL's growth is, first, it addresses a very timely problem - fetching all of the data for a screen in a mobile app in a single round trip without coupling your backend to your UI - and second, the focus on tooling and developer experience which has been a weakness for SparQL.)
I didn't say that Facebook's reference implementation is the only one (it is in fact the most popular based on downloads), everyone else is performing free labor for Facebook. The point is that they can make any change they want to the spec for themselves and imposing their will, bypassing standards processes because there are none.
>fetching all of the data for a screen in a mobile app in a single round trip without coupling your backend to your UI - and second, the focus on tooling and developer experience
There is no reason why one can't do this with existing web technologies as an additional feature. There was no reason to ignore what already exists and works for the web at large.
I think you should disclose that you are founder of Meteor and have a vested interest in GraphQL. So when is the Facebook acquisition?
While I also have a vested interest in GraphQL (competing in the same space as Scaphold) I agree partially with what you stated above but it's not all that bad as you seem to imply.
Yes, FB does have the power (now) to change the spec over night but so far it was mostly stable and whatever changes were added were only for the better. No new technology comes to life as a standard, it needs someone inventing it, maintaining it, promoting it up to the point where people can get behind it and form a group and make it a standard. Let's give FB a chance, so far it has done an excellent job with the GraphQL standard.
On the other hand, graphql-js and Relay are not that stable yet and their interfaces are changing very fast and probably for people that use them it's a bit frustrating but it's only been a year and i bet they will get to a stable interface in 2017 enough for people to be able to really depend on them.
>There was no reason to ignore what already exists and works for the web at large.
GraphQL came to life (and a lot of people adopted it practically over night) precisely because the things that "already existed" did not work really well (REST for SPA/Mobile).
When a lot of your business logic (whatever that means :)) moves to the frontend (browser/mobile), the backend API tend to become very complex in order to support the frontend and REST can not express very well that complexity.
Whenever people "sell/promote" GraphQL, they bring up 2 main benefits, fetching the data you need in a single request and integrating multiple backends/microservices.
If you look at GraphQL only form this perspective i would agree with you that it brings nothing radically new to the table.
You can have a REST api flexible enough to be able to get only the data you need in one request (see http://postgrest.com) and you can integrate multiple microservices behind it, we've also seen in the past "typed" schemas (WSDL and things like that).
Imo what makes GraphQL so nice is the the simplicity (Rich Hickey's definition), how you immediately get what a query does, how it relates to JSON and the shape of the response you get back. Making something "simple" is very hard work and i think FB nailed it.
Our Meteor business is thriving and we beat our 2016 revenue goal by almost 40%, driven by strong Galaxy growth. We expect that to continue into 2017 based on what we heard from a survey of Meteor/Galaxy users that we did recently – they are using Meteor for mission critical apps and most of them plan to write more Meteor apps in 2017. In line with this, we are growing our Meteor open source team while also continuing to ramp up our work on Apollo.
The big difference between Meteor and Apollo is that Meteor is about new app development (specifically in JavaScript), and Apollo is about a data system that you can add to already-existing apps that are running in production at meaningful scale. There's a place for both of these things and a lot of overlap between them.
Meteor isn't going to take over all JavaScript development the way Rails took over Ruby development, at least not anytime soon. That's just not how the JavaScript ecosystem works. However, I think it will be the #1 full stack JavaScript framework for a long time to come and will continue to be a really great option for teams that want to build JavaScript apps quickly, especially apps that have a realtime or collaborative element.
There are a variety of theories of copyright infringement in the US: direct infringement, contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and inducement to infringe. I don't remember exactly which would apply to the circumstance you're describing, but in general, if you're making money off of someone else's infringing activity, if you are tolerating infringement that you have ability to stop, or if you have a landing page that suggests that people use your product to infringe copyright, you're probably in hot water, even if you're not infringing copyright yourself.
I dropped out of MIT after a term (in 1999), raised venture capital for my first startup shortly after that, and went on to have a successful career.
I never recommend skipping college to anyone. If you have a unique opportunity that can't wait, you have a solid plan, AND you have unique skills, then it might make sense. Or maybe if you have a very strange combination of strengths and weaknesses such that you are mature enough to succeed on your own, but not capable of making school work for you. Or if you can't find a way to get to a school where you will be with a good set of intellectual peers.
I know quite a few people who have dropped out of or skipped college, and in all but one or two cases I think they're worse off for it, or at least, they spend many years struggling to replace or replicate the college experience.
There are three big things you have to replace if you skip college: The social experience (learning how to exist both socially and intellectually in a group of peers). The material (in some hypothetical sense you can learn it all on OpenCourseWare, but in practice, most people find this to be a serious grind). The intellectual discipline (learning to think clearly and maturely, filing down your rough edges).
Your best bet is to find a group of really smart people who will be absolutely merciless in instilling intellectual discipline in you (constantly challenging you be rigorous, to know your field, to fully back up your ideas), and that will also be your close friends and romantic interests, and then find a way to have lots of spare time to hunker down and work through OCW or your favorite MOOC or textbooks. I know several brilliant people who have created these situations for themselves, and I think they've all found that it takes a huge input of energy to even approximately replicate what is readily available at top colleges, even for people that are smart enough to breeze through or basically intuit/rederive the course material.
Logistically, dropping out will close some doors forever. People with degrees can switch fields later in life by going to grad school; it is harder to switch fields if you don't have a degree. Immigration situations are far more difficult without a degree. There are ways around the closed doors but you will have to fight very very hard for them and become the top in your field. On the other hand, you also have a huge advantage (at least if you skip college entirely) which is that you don't have student loans and that may significantly increase your freedom during a period of your life when freedom is critical. In my own life I think these logistical factors came out about even.
In the end, I think it was right for me to leave in '99 and dive into startups, but, like, I made that decision in Stockholm, at the Nobel prize ceremony, where the establishment sent me after winning the top prize at world science fair, so I had every possible advantage and it was still a very difficult road. Do it only if you really don't see a future for you at college.
Hazel thinks George looks exhausted and urges him to lie down and rest his "handicap bag", 47 pounds (21 kg) of weight placed in a bag and locked around George's neck. He says he hardly notices the weight any more. Hazel suggests taking a few of the weights out of the bag, but he says if everyone broke the law, society would return to its old competitive ways. Hazel says she would hate that. A noise interrupts the conversation, and George cannot remember what they were talking about.
The NSA isn't going to swoop in and claim that the results of the Truecrypt audit were born secret. But the answer to nabla9's question is yes, legal precedent exists in the United States for restraining the publication of original research when it is perceived to damage vital national security interests.
Yeah, we have several big projects in flight, and we're shipping them in the order that they're ready.
We push them out first as prereleases (which you can run by passing a --release flag to meteor, and it will automatically download and install everything) and announce them to meteor-core and see what people think. In this case both oplog tailing and Meteor UI were out as prereleases, but there was more feedback and more feature requests for Meteor UI, so oplog tailing ended up winning the race.
reply