Power users in general will dsable telemetry, so the bulk of the data these companies get come from the patterns of usage of the lowest common denominator users. It's no surprise then that everything that appeals to power users is slowly but surely removed from future iterations of the software in question. Mozilla is just another dumb corporation circling the drain of death at this point.
In my experience, people often make decisions first then go trawling through sea of data, selecting metrics which support their decision and ignoring those that contradict it. Intentionally or not, much of this stuff is essentially p-hacked.
Did they eventually fix the story around being able to make screenshots and screen recordings? I haven't been following Wayland much because there didn't seem to be much interest in enabling basic functionality like this early on.
Yes. GNOME has its bundled screenshot tool, and Zoom supports screen recording on GNOME/Wayland. Sway has grim + slurp for screenshots, and wf-recorder or wlrobs for screen recording.
However, one difference between X11 and Wayland, is that the role of the compositor (window manager) is much larger in Wayland. Thus, I believe it is up to the compositor to offer an API for features like this in Wayland, and the API may differ between compositors. In practice, GNOME has done their own thing; KDE and Sway collaborate on protocols, and are partly compatible; nearly every other compositor is based on Sway's wlroots, and should be compatible with Sway.
I think it's completely legitimate (not necessarily the music, but the launcher has enough issues). I'm not sure why we're expected to put up badly designed software just because at some point we get to play a good game. I will absolutely give a game a bad review if certain parts of the on-boarding experience are terrible. My most recent one was Fallout 76, where all the problems getting the game running in the first place drained any interest I had in trying the game and at least giving it a chance.
I wish the site would just get rid of downvotes. Your post is constructive and well-written, doesn't say anything egregiously offensive and isn't trolling and doesn't lack effort. The only reason why you're being downvoted is because some people don't agree on an ideological level. Which is bullshit. You can still respect people who don't share your views, and I wish the site cared to foster that kind of community, instead of promoting another echo chamber.
> The only reason why you're being downvoted is because some people don't agree on an ideological level.
It's a very frustrating thing about this site, because, ironically, most people here think of themselves as nearly perfectly rational and open to new ideas, but in fact the opposite is almost always the case. If I think of myself as perfectly rational, that ironically gives me a way to think that anyone who disagrees with me must be trolling or must be saying something obviously wrong, even if I don't take the time to work out what that might be.
I admittedly added that just to complain, expecting it to trigger another wave of downvotes - because frankly, I don't care about getting downvoted. What I care about is how often this site turns into an ideological echo chamber for one of two popular worldviews, and on some level I wanted to try to call attention to that.
And you're just as much a part of the problem. You're blindly punishing him for pointing out that the system is unfair und his post is not and was not deserving of downvotes. It has nothing to do with the content of his actual comment. You're not contributing positively in any way. You're just reinforcing that anybody who speaks out or has a different point of view isn't welcome here.
Downvoting complaints about downvotes is an attempt not to have to read complaints about downvotes. But here's another: please don't complain about downvotes!
Yes, indeed. If you refresh often enough, you will notice the downvotes for a reasonable post come closest to when it is posted, which makes the post fade and gives the impression that something must be wrong with it. I think there is a very good chance this comes from people wanting to suppress information that does not support their position.
On an individual level the thing to do would be to upvote downvoted posts if they make some sense, they don't have to be great to be upvoted.
Man, I'd love to get this but that price is steep. I just hate how small smartphone displays are in general and how constrained multitasking is. Say I'm chatting with somebody and I nerd a source for something I'm arguing. I need to switch from the chat app, browse for a while, copy, switch, paste, keep typing. And if I need more than one, that's a whole lot of switching back and forth which is fairly slow and tedious and breaks the context I'm in every single time. Doesn't just go for chatting. Sometimes I'm writing something and need a reference. Switching back and forth every couple of seconds is unbearable. If I can get away with it, I'd rather pull out my tablet, but I also don't always have it with me.
Any app can prompt you to install another app without root on Android (since Android supports installing app packages outside of the Play Store). So if somebody wants to make an app store, they just need to publish an app that provides downloads to other apps and that's it. New app store. It doesn't affect how individual apps are sandboxed either. How apps are installed doesn't change the security model of the OS. Now, Google's position is still problematic because they clearly use their position to push the Play Store on everybody, but it shows that separating the store from the OS actually is quite possible.
And seriously, Apple is a hundred billion dollar company. I'm sure they can handle this if push comes to shove. People need to stop defending these companies as if they need the protection.
But how is that separate app store a business? The original proposal I replied to was:
> Better if the App Store gets broken up into its own independent company.
It sounds like the actual proposal would be “make apple allow the installation of arbitrary app packages without review”, since that would allow the app model from android you’re talking about.
That isn’t making the app store a business, but rather changing os permissions. It’s not clear to me “the apple app store” is a business separate from apple.
Btw, got an example of one of those android app store apps? I’d be interested in looking at one. I’m assuming google doesn’t review the apps you can install with those?
I'm not sure how it couldn't be a business. The App Store currently takes a 30% cut of every purchase. The business is running and developing an app store and we already know where its revenue would come from. It wouldn't be any different from Valve running Steam.
Google has nothing to do with the curation of any of these alternative stores, since they're owned and run by completely separate third-parties and Android as currently designed doesn't prevent a user from installing arbitrary app packages (apk's).
The app store has the 30% commission because apple runs it. Really not obvious thry could have that if independent.
F droid isn’t a business, it’s a non profit. The amazon app store is mostly for fire devices. On non-fire devices:
> The Amazon App Store is not limited to just Fire devices. While it takes a bit of work, the App Store can be installed on most Android devices and provide users with an alternative to the Google Play Store. However, the process requires you to enable the ability to install apps from unknown sources, which is highly discouraged by Google.
I’m sure the Samsung app store is a similar story on non-samsung devices.
Outside of games, there aren’t really any app stores on mac/pc, because you can install anything you want. It is the security model of phones that makes app stores a thing in the first place.
A proposal to allow multiple app stores seems like a proposal to make apple alter its security model. Alternate app stores on android involve circumventing android’s default security model.
I'm not the guy you're responding to, but to be clear, yes: Apple would need to alter its security model to allow third-party app stores to exist, as they cannot exist with its current their-apps-only model.
The app store could have a 99% commission "because Apple runs it". That's part of the problem. If a developer wants to target iOS users, they have to go through Apple's store and agree to anything Apple says.
But, of course, that's totally legal and fine. That's not why people are advocating breaking up the App Store. The real problem is that Apple has free reign to remove, ban, or hinder adoption (in basically unlimited ways) any app they want, which often equates to "apps that compete with anything Apple wants to do as a company". Does your music streaming company want an app on iPhones? Too bad, Apple can simply say "no" because they have Apple Music. Want to let people buy books through your company's app? Too bad, Apple can just say no because they have Apple Books. Want to let your existing customers access their existing Stadia purchases on an iOS device they own? Too bad.
It's pretty basic anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior under the guise of needing to "review" all apps, coupled with the idea that only reviewed apps can be installed on your phone (a paradigm that doesn't exist on other widespread operating systems, mind you!). There's benefit in reviewing apps, for sure, but when you, as a company, have the means and the motive to screw over your competitors, it's often in everyone else's best interest to remove either the means (separating the app store from Apple) or the motivation (removing Apple's apps from the app store).
Apple's not alone in this, and they're not the only one politicians like Warren are going after. It's not really any different from e.g. Amazon siphoning up data on purchase patterns and then producing their own products that they can then promote instead of their competitors on their own store.
Having third-party app stores lets Apple continue to play in their own store, but arguably removes the means to screw over competitors by giving them an alternate way to get their app to a user's phone and frees them from having to agree to literally-anything-Apple-says to play on customer devices that Apple doesn't own.
When was that? I don't live in the US, but just the other day I finished 'The Emperor of All Maladies' that someone recommended here. If I understood the book correctly, the link between tobacco usage and lung cancer was established pretty rapidly, but it took a very long time (and decisive political action resulting in massive propaganda campaign) to convince the public.
I always chuckle to myself a bit when I see narratives of "trust the science" on various social media platforms. There seems to be no end of credible-to-the-layman scientitsts who have any opinion you want to hear and politicians and companies will find them.
I'm not an antivax climate denier or anything but a single study or a single scientist isn't going to convince me of anything. I just tend to remain unconvinced a bit longer than most.
The important thing to me is to recognize that I'm not an expert in most things and to remain open to having my mind changed in those things.
And it is quite normal, these are not "bad" scientists, as in only "bad" scientists will receive money to spit out the "desired" societal results, this is how science generally works.
If the society needs rockets in its arms' race against a foreign foe then said society suddenly "forgets" that the scientists involved are bad by definition (Von Braun was a Nazi, it doesn't get any more "bad" than that, his rockets had killed innocent British civilians) and it starts using their work for its societal needs. When some scientists start growing a spine and start realising the moral conundrum of their trade they're either treated as crazy or as communists (see Oppenheimer).
This looks great, but this feels way too skewed to people who are popular or in roles of power. Is it really valuable to know what Trump is reading? Emma Watson? Ashton Kutcher? Oprah? Ellen? Musk? Tom Hanks? Like, at least Obama was in academia for a long time (also, tagging him just as "politician" is ... misleading), so he's probably well-read and has decent suggestions. Bill Gates has been incredibly active in third world development, the tech industry, etc., so he likely also has decent suggestions. But ... Alicia Keys? There's way too much noise here.
Edit:
BTW, I'm surprised by how well this performs. What did you use to build this?
I was actually deliberate about adding these people. The mission here is to make people read more and some people might not be impressed by what Alicia Keys, Emma Watson or Taylor Swift have to recommend, but there's an ocean of teens who don't normally read and no matter what Obama or Bill Gates recommend they'll not get into reading unless they see a book recommendations from one of their pop gods.
I feel like this is half a solution to me. I use Git too, but it does nothing about how notes are structured or linked, for which I lean on sublime, Obsidian and Zettelkasten.
I recently started with Obsidian which I sync up via DropBox using a text editor on my machine or Markor on Android (still haven't selected an iOS equivalent.. tips welcome). I see Zettelkasten mentioned in tandem with Obsidian frequently but I can't figure out what it does? Is it just timestamping for notes?
Zettelkasten in digital form has been largely bastardized for some reason that I haven't quite figured out. The original ZK doesn't have timestamps and timestamps are such a terrible, uninformative, non-contextual way to codify notes. ZK originally uses a hierarchical and sequential numbering system that immediately tells you when it was created in relation to other notes and tells you its hierarchical relationship to neighboring notes (note 1a2 is a child of 1a; 1b is a sibling of 1a; and if 1 is an overarching theme, 1a, 1b, and 1a2 are each sub-ideas under that theme).
I've resorted to using the original numbering system manually, but I'm still waiting for a tool that understands them and knows how to work with them (or maybe I'll get fed up after a while and make my own).
I'm constantly annoyed that there are no decent stylus apps on Android. The only one with an infinite canvas has more annoyances and issues than I can count (beginning with how scheduled backups can only be pointed at cloud storage, and manual local backups can only be made to a proprietary format) and I just absolutely hate it.
I use Squid on Android. I learned to adjust the options to suit me well. I use my stylus for writing or drawing and use my fingers to lasso objects to move them or resize them. My stylus has an eraser function when I use the back end of the stylus.
I also use Squid. It's the app I'm talking about it. It effectively holds your data hostage and if there were any other alternative, I'd use it. The UI is also quite bad and the functionality just isn't there compared to the best iOS stylus notetaking apps.
