Depends on the "Let's Play" quality.
Most I've seen are just garbage. Only a handful of channels are actually playing these games without curse words or social commentary
For every major story, there's always a TechCruch blogspam at the top of the index, sometimes with less votes than the actual sources they're duplicating.
Just add "sponsored" in front of it and get it over with.
Apple won't let you change a changelog after the binary is built and put on the store. So if you want to get a fix out, but not alert people that you're on to them, you have to put out a changelog that just says something like "Bugfixes". Then you have to build another build and submit another changelog, but Apple probably won't let you issue builds that are duplicates...
It's kinda the opposite actually. iframes didn't provide sufficient security to do the sort of things Google wanted to be able to do with them, so they had to design a new standard with better protections: https://github.com/WICG/portals/blob/master/explainer.md#why...
I don't understand the cynicism people have for this idea. All they did was say "wouldn't it be cool if you could have nice animations in between pages" and built a proof-of-concept. It's not a finished product. They aren't forcing it into a standard. It's a demo of something that would be cool.
My point is, portal isn't "an iframe without all the security protections." portal is a demo of animating between pages. What it becomes from there is completely flexible.
Things are not "flexible" once they have been shipped on by default, typically. Changing behavior or removing at that point becomes very hard, requiring usage measurements, etc.
when you are google, unilaterally releasing and pushing a major new feature for “the web” has an entirely different meaning and implication to it compared to, sadly, mozilla, or some other player (even apple to some extent) because of their huge market/mind share.
in that scenario “wouldn’t it be cool” is not a good enough reason, and for a major feature such as this, skepticism is healthy and warranted... the “web browser” is slowly being transformed into “the google browser” and we have no one to blame but ourselves
The consensus opinion seems to be, from this thread and elsewhere, "While Google is not doing anything wrong by standards in this case, because they have the power/potential to do something wrong by standards we must oppose this as well."
I tried searching for keywords on Google and Twitter and couldn't find anything to suggest this was the case. Do you have a source that you can suggest for this?
That's not racist. The Wikipedia definition is the belief in the superiority of another [0], which this doesn't fit.
Has nobody considered that blacks are a minority and therefore there is less data available for training or testing? This might always be the case, simply because there are fewer in America (where Apple designs it's phones).
