That cannot be stressed enough: no stock Android is a pain (at least if coming from there)
E.g. more or less bound to their camera app, my automatic sync with Google photos isn't working because they want me to use _their_ gallery. Only when I start Google's photo app does a sync start.
Repeating explicitly: that's preventing that pictures are automatically backuped to the cloud! -- too me, that's preventing the main selling point of paying a lot of money for a phone with a decent camera
And: why would I switch every service to the crappy Samsung equivalent?
Google is becoming incompetent. It's not only their phones.
Currently they fail to fix their speech services for over a month. Doesn't update the language over mobile networks and drowns batteries while waiting/trying -- no matter the settings, restarts, Cache cleans. While other apps on those phones update properly over the same network.
Dropped from a 4* rating to 1.5 (s. Play Store)
Major changes were "changed name", "new icon", which were a clear warning sign to me -- now they can add "botched network handling"
+ the shitshow called Galaxy Store that you mandatory have to visit if you care about security updates always greets me with a dialog that suggests to install some game _and_ I have to opt-out for _every_ game.
I don't know any real world example were you can be forced to watch an ad before something broken gets fixed. That only works in the (virt.) environment of a quasi monopoly.
Which costs you more than $100k monthly to operate with the same level of manageability and reliability.
We don't use AWS, because our use cases don't require that level of reliability and we simply cannot afford it, but if I needed a company to depend on IT that generates enough revenue... I probably wouldn't argue about the AWS bill.
So long, prepaid at hetzner + in-house works good enough, but I know what I cannot offer with the click of a button to my user!
This is a religious debate among many. The IT/engineering nerd stuff doesn’t matter at all. Cloud migration decisions are always made by accounting and tax factors.
I run two critical apps, one on-prem and one cloud. There is no difference in people cost, and the cloud service costs about 20% more on the infrastructure side. We went cloud because customer uptake was unknown and making capital investments didn’t make sense.
I’ve had a few scenarios where we’ve moved workloads from cloud to on-prem and reverse. These things are tools and it doesn’t pay to be dogmatic.
> These things are tools and it doesn’t pay to be dogmatic.
I wish I would hear this line more often.
So many things today are (pseudo-) religious now. The right frsmework/language, cloud or on prem, x vs not x.
Especially bad imho when somebody tries to tell you how you could do better with 'not x' instead of x you are currently using without even trying to understand the context this decision resides in.
Even GNU recommends liberal licenses for snippets with less than 300 lines (and allows for commercial use anyway!):
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
"
What if the work is not very long? (#WhatIfWorkIsShort)
If a whole software package contains very little code—less than 300 lines is the benchmark we use—you may as well use a lax permissive license for it, rather than a copyleft license like the GNU GPL. (Unless, that is, the code is specially important.) We recommend the Apache License 2.0 for such cases.
"
While LOCs poorly reflect the effort made, in this case a less anal-retentive approach would have opened up a long-term contribution to societies at large. Considering that the BBC was mainly finances by quasi-public money it's a shame that it was opted for a license with an unnecessary special case (NC).
> Considering that the BBC was mainly finances by quasi-public money it's a shame that it was opted for a license with an unnecessary special case (NC).
Unfortunatly this is why it has to be licensed in that way. Having the BBC release code for free to commercial use is often deemed to be a "market distortion", and thus not allowed to happen, as such the lawyers will often err on the side of caution.
Also remember this was 1999, 5 years before Apache License 2.0 was approved.
> Having the BBC release code for free to commercial use is often deemed to be a "market distortion", and thus not allowed to happen, as such the lawyers will often err on the side of caution.
People outside the UK: this isn't just theoretical, please look at the history of BBC Micro. That's how the corporation was structured at the time, and it should be read with this in mind. There are a lot of very fine pieces of BBC software that is stricter than that and can't be legally released to the public, for example most broadcasting software like its MPEG2 encoder aren't available because it'll disadvantage broadcast equipment manufacturers (although for the MPEG2 encoder FFMPEG's is now better). This is also not specific to the BBC: before its disbandment, the Independent Broadcasting Authority (which owned half of the transmission network in the UK, the other half was previously BBC but both were privatized and now owned by Arqiva) required to do product development and research by law but can't commercialise those research by themselves.
Very true. I've mentioned in another comment the "Other <product category> are available" disclaimer, that used to be tacked onto any content mentioning The Radio Times or any of the BBC Gardening/Good Food/Sport products from BBC Enterprises or licensees.
It's now a running joke, but the disclaimer about The Radio Times really did emerge out of a market distortion legal complaint by a competitor, TV Times.
These market distortion complaints were often timed around BBC Charter renewals to give the BBC's critics in Parliament (generally on the Tory side) ammunition. But at the same time, it's also the era of the Radio One Roadshow, the BBC Micro as you say, the emergence of the VHS box set, etc., etc., and the BBC did need to be required not to distort markets accidentally as it expanded commercially (which ironically it felt encouraged to do in order to find future non-licence-fee revenue)
It's a little bit complicated but before 1991-1994 (where there are large-scale changes outside of BBC), Radio Times were exclusively for the BBC while TV Times were exclusively for the ITV companies (yes, ITV wasn't just a single company those days!), Channel 4, and S4C (technically there is a third one, Channel Times, but that's for the Channel Islands which has a very interesting ITV setup at that time).
Yeah -- I remember more than a full decade of two listings magazines per week!
To break it down a little for non-British HNers (it is very confusing and messy):
The BBC does not run adverts, but it does have a carve-out from that to mention its own associated products in limited circumstances. Most significantly the listings magazine, The Radio Times.
We start out in the situation zinekeller mentions where the BBC listed BBC TV/radio channels in The Radio Times, and TV Times listed programmes from the ITA (Independent Television Association - ITV/C4/S4C/London Weekend Television etc.)
But then you get a situation where TV viewers are buying two increasingly competitive magazines each week just to get the full listings. As satellite and cable TV appears, this becomes unfair on the consumer (to the benefit of the BBC) and it has to change.
The disclaimer came in part from those publications seeking and being granted access to the listings data that the others were publishing. TV Times got access to BBC listing data, and Radio Times published the ITA channel listings.
But the BBC was and still is able to mention the Radio Times, whereas TV Times cannot advertise on the BBC. A market distortion.
I suppose there must have been calls to ask the BBC to get out of the listings magazine market (I don't remember anything specific) but ultimately the disclaimer ("Other listings magazines are available") was imposed on the BBC.
I should correct myself above because the group wasn't the ITA, it was the ITCA -- the Independent Television Companies Association. Which is now UKIB:
Yeah, sadly. But good you say it explicitly and it a fair spin(?) -- I just wanted to point out the IMO damage that license does, not blame the authors/BBC.
In Germany it's the same with the "Mediathek" nonsense. Shows paid with public money can only shown for a ridiculously short time -- no freely accessible archive.
What the ELO ratings of established chess players were already suggesting.
Sharp decline seldomly happened before 65.
Nice to see that rigorously researched.
Overall, rounded: 48% natural gas, 25% oil, 14% district heating
https://www.bmwi-energiewende.de/EWD/Redaktion/Newsletter/20...
Electrical heating is rare, because it's inefficient. And considering the former energy mix of Germany: not ecological.
You don't have to like Scholz, but talking about nuclear in this context and calling the head of a state dumb... ?!?!... doesn't make much sense.