Okay, it was technically a lie. What he should've said is "If you like your health care plan, and it passes muster under the new rules, you can keep it". He should've explained why there were going to be new rules - presumably to ensure that all insurance that calls itself a 'health care plan' had to actually provide health care when it was needed.
Now I don't say this as a major fan of Obamacare. I was on it for a while, and it was better than nothing. But it works out as essentially a free annual checkup plus a plan to negotiate discounts with doctors for fees that, unless you get seriously sick, you have to pay out of pocket. And in an emergency, it's real health insurance. That was the best that our political system was able to provide. And truth be told, it was exactly what Republicans claimed to have wanted - before Obama proposed it...
Well, by 'tainted', I suppose I mean if the Russians had really hacked either voting machines - or tampered with voter registration rolls. Not saying that happened - just asking what the Constitution would have to say about it if it did...
And I guess if the Trump campaign had actually participated in crimes - like the email hacking itself - or the dissemination of the hacked material, that might count as 'tainted', no?
Does the Constitution address what should be done if the results of an election are tainted? Is impeaching the President and Vice President and following the chain of succession from there the best we have - or is it undefined how you deal with an invalidated election process?
Of course, the New World was quite capable of sustaining life - and even had its own life forms to explore (and cultures to dominate).
What amazes me are the people that say we need to colonize other worlds for when we render this one uninhabitable. Well the worlds we could conceivably reach with our 'proven space travel technology' are far less inhabitable than this one will be - even after we're through with it. That doesn't mean we should stop looking for interesting targets and developing new technologies that may someday make practical space travel possible. But to argue that it's possible now - just because we know how to send a projectile with a short-term human-supportable environment to the moon - is absurd.
There is one picture, and if you bother to actually look at it, it's using the camera angle to fake groping - kind of like those photographs of a tourist 'holding up the leaning tower of Pisa'. Tasteless, perhaps, but not 'evidence of assault'. And you might want to account for the context of the joke - i.e. whether it was consistent with the general cut-up nature of that USO backstage scene.
No, the Democrats got played on this one - and yeah, they're way to easily played this way. That Breitbart chick that tried to dupe the Washington Post almost got away with it too.
But glaciers are disappearing elsewhere - and the overall trend is toward melting.
Just because Antarctica - which even if it's warming is still cold enough for snow to fall - accumulates ice doesn't change the fact that globally on average, land ice is melting and sea levels are rising. So your factoid - even if 'true', is an interesting, but ultimately meaningless data point in the discussion. But keep on listening to the Fox experts repeat it...
Bitcoin has achieved something I've always wanted to see in the stock mkt - a reverse 1987 (20% gain in a single day)
It's all speculation - driven on by cheerleaders on the sidelines in the financial speculation media business. Kind of like the Trump campaign/presidency is all a substanceless shitshow driven on by cheerleaders in the news shitshow business.
Actually, I think you can credit "both parties are the same" to Ralph Nader, who was essentially saying that back in 2000, if not earlier. He had a point, in that both parties are dependent on big money interests to fund their campaigns. So on some issues, they're likely to be similar - as opposed, I guess, to ideologically pure like Ralphy (or, for that matter, Bernie).
But it's a dangerous meme when you apply it to voting in our two-party system's general elections. Democrats would never have produced as breathtakingly dishonest a piece of legislation as the current Republican 'tax reform' bill. You may think such Democratic spin as 'diversity instead of affirmative action' is dishonest - and in a way, it is. But it's not dishonest about what it's trying to accomplish; and it's nothing like way Republicans are selling their tax policy as a boon to the middle class - the complete opposite of what it actually does. Or the way they try to depict it as fiscally responsible, by sunsetting most of what middle class sops there are in the bill - while promising that they won't really be allowed to sunset. Not to mention the utter lie that growth will make up for the tax cuts.
Makes sense. It seems like Android Go is optimized primarily for phones with very little memory. Maybe they limit some background processes too and shut down all but the foreground app. That can be annoying - and unnecessary on a device with enough memory.
My question is - who's going to make these devices. if all they're really skimping on is memory vs today's low-end devices, and they're not really much cheaper (there are lots of great deals on pretty powerful Android hardware in emerging markets), then the only reason to produce Go phones would be to slightly increase your profit margins by making devices with 1GB of memory instead of 2GB. Really?
Of course, if this is a carrot vs. stick push to get low-end OEMs to release devices with Oreo - and project Treble, which should make them much more upgradable, that could be a nice start toward curing the android fragmentation problem. And if Google provides the upgrades (since for sure, the low-end OEM's won't), then it could be an important step.
Do you really think there's that much demand for MacOS these days? Back in the day when Windows was utter crap and MacOS had features Windows didn't, sure, there was a market for cheap MacOS clones. But these days, people buy Mac's mostly because they're Apple people, or perceive it as some kind of status thing.
Anybody interested enough to make a MacOS build for generic hardware is already using Linux - or can get by quite well on Windows these days. I'd bet that at this point there's more of a market for Linux support on Mac hardware than there is for MacOS on generic hardware.
You must have an interesting idea of what constitutes "a mild disagreement on some non-controversial subject", given the amount of sheer vitriol I've seen in Facebook comments. Second only to those on Slashdot - except that Facebook commenters aren't as interested as Slashdotters in convincing people that they're smart while they insult them...
Or like 'Activities' in KDE, which is like multiple desktops - but much more. So much more that nobody understands it or uses it. But hey, it's really powerful. Too bad I only use my KDE-based system to browse the Internet.
Of course, there's a difference in terms of what *happens* when each packs the courts. With Democrats, you get Social Security, Healthcare, and voting rights. With Republicans you get "money == speech", voter suppression and eminent domain.
Are you saying that SpaceX is cheaper because they're in the 'build market share' stage of the corporation - i.e., they don't need to make a profit (and in fact can afford to lose billions), because it's still all about the hype and the investors are looking to a SpaceX-dominated future. If that's the case, then it's meaningless to compare costs.
Now, if SpaceX is really building a new and different future for space missions that will ultimately be much better than what NASA has been doing, and the VC's are willing to take a loss to bring that future into being, who am I to balk at NASA saving hundreds of millions. But once they go public and their incentives do a 180 - are we going to be left with some kind of Facebook (or, yes, Google)-like company, whose social contract adds up to 'profit above all and any way you can generate it - including blurring the lines between content and advertising and doing away with any reasonable expectation of privacy'. Well, then it might not be such a great deal.
Not sure what the ultimate downsides to a truly commercial SpaceX would be - but there are sure to be some.
Except that C++ has several features that inherently make it hard to pick up a piece of code and understand what it does. Yes, it's very 'nice' that you can define a new version of the same function by varying its parameters - when done consistently within a well designed class library. But it's sheer laziness to refactor existing code by counting on that feature. Have pity on the poor schlub that's ultimately going to inherit your code and try to support it.
To some extent, I think C++ is fine - as long as you code your application logic as if it were in C and restrict the C++'y stuff to the class libraries you use. That avoids the problem of programmers who barely understand what the C++ compiler is doing 'designing' classes that somehow magically work - most of the time.
Some of the most common problems programmers encounter with C have to do with the stupid, inconsistent design of some of the standard C library functions. I was a C programmer for years before I realized that the 'size' parameter to strncat was not the size of the target array, and is basically a bait-and-switch temptation to overflow your buffer. I have my own Strnzcat function that's defined sanely to concatenate strings and truncate the result to produce a zero-terminated string within the provided buffer. Trivially easy - assuming you've figured out that that's not what strncat does.
Other than that, the most common programmer error is using uninitialized stack frame variables. Would it really be so much of a performance hit to have the compiler generate a call to zero out each new the stack frame on function entry. Perhaps with an 'I really care about performance here' option to not do it...
In any case, unless this was a freaky situation, I'm gonna guess a human driver of the shuttle would've not gotten into the accident. So maybe hitting the brakes and stopping isn't enough of an algorithm to let this thing loose in the real world. Calling this human error is giving the algorithm a bit too much benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for injecting a bit of reality into the discussion. There may someday be flying cars - or some other kind of flying transport for individuals, but this isn't going to be it. And why on earth any news outlet is willing to discuss it as though it's just around the corner - much less going to be provided by Uber is beyond me. What special expertise does Uber have that makes anybody believe they can invent a whole new mode of transportation based on artificial intelligence.
Uber has built a straightforward scheduling and billing app for taxis that takes some input from existing GPS/Mapping systems. That's it. Plus being good at marketing hype and having established themselves as a brand name. They've done nothing beyond that than make a bunch of noise and poach some Google driving robot technology.
What seems to be 'under his control' (at least for his followers) is what outlets can be believed - and even what stories on those outlets.
Orwell envisioned North Korea style government controlled media pretty well, but he seems to have missed what happens when there is no sense of what a reliable media outlet (let alone reliable truth) is. The apologists for the latest waves of media consolidation and breakdown of ownership limits always point to the vast number of sources now available for information. But if none of those sources can be counted on to be telling the truth, then what? Say what you will, but the fairness doctrine produced some reliable concept of objective reality in media.
Actually, it sounds more like if it ever gets to the point where warming causes it to be released into the atmosphere - we've lost, and burning it won't help.
I suppose burning some of it now - as opposed to burning coal or methane extracted by fracking - is better than just continuing to burn coal and oil. But if we don't prevent the natural release of the frozen stuff, we're in serious trouble. And this isn't going to be nearly enough to stop that.
The thing that's shocking isn't that Russia spies on us - and even tilts toward one political party or another. It's that Facebook and other social networking sites have suddenly provided a way to easily and fraudulently inject propaganda into our electoral process. It's the way they used the info that's so shocking and scary.
And one more thing that's shocking to me. Fox and the like have so primed a large audience to believe farcically untrue stuff (and don't go citing MSNBC or CNN - Fox is qualitatively different in this regard, not to mention Limbaugh and his kind) that outright falsehoods that would never see the light of day in, say, a TV ad found a platform that was fine with spreading them - and an audience willing to if not believe, then pretend that there was an argument in favor of their side in there.. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg never envisioned this for his baby, but hey, they're a public company and gotta keep that stock price up. That's why we need government regulation of business. Whatever downsides you see to it, there's no other way to combat fraud and the like.
it wasn't the ads, folks. It was the trolls pretending to be Bernie Sanders fans - who presumably wanted the Democratic platform, and more, but were fine with tossing around 'Killary' and "Warmonger', etc. and pushing for 'anybody but Hillary' to the extent that Jill Stein got enough swing state votes to throw the election. And those 'Bernie Supporters' got nothing that Bernie wanted.
Now some of those trolls were paid by the Russians, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were paid by various right-wing American groups. But either way, it's fraudulent - and troubling.
As far as the Russia investigations being 'fake', well then why all the obstructionism? There's obviously something they're hiding - and it's not just Manafort's money laundering - since Trump would throw him under the bus in a millisecond. Sometimes I think the most 'reasonable' explanation is that Trump's ego can't withstand even the hint that he didn't win in a landslide and somehow the Russia investigation - combined with the fact that he knew they were pulling for him, and that the Russian provided Podesta/DNC emails helped him - is too much for him to tolerate. So he tried to make it go away, and dug himself a deeper hole. Sometimes. Most times, I go with - yep, Putin's got stuff on him. End of story.
Google Play Services probably has all the aspects that you attribute to it. Though, if I recall, much of the reason a lot of that stuff migrated to Play Services from AOSP was to make sure that it was available on devices that never got OS upgrades. I don't know if that was by design, but I'm willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt and assume that when AOSP was released, they didn't have some nefarious plot to get OEM's to 'force' them to take bits proprietary by not keeping their devices up to date.
That said, yep. Lots of what lots of developers think of as the 'Android' platform is now provided by Google Play Services. Of course, you can install GPS on LineageOS - and even Amazon's 'google free' devices. So yeah, relying on GPS locks you into y'know, Android. Which I guess makes it harder for Amazon or Microsoft or (more likely, Samsung) to take over the platform, I guess. But unless you yourself were wanting to put out your own (presumably proprietary) alternative Android platform, it shouldn't matter much to you. And if you did want to put out an alternative proprietary version of Android - why would I want to use it? Didn't Cyanogen Inc. have such designs at one point - backed by MS dollars?
You left out the bit about extending with proprietary functions - that only work with the Microsoft implementation of the open standard, and that you're quietly nudged toward using without quite understanding that they're locking you in to that Microsoft implementation.
This thing, while controlled by Google, isn't quite proprietary. It can be forked. And it since it depends on machine-readable tags in otherwise standard HTML, it can be removed if you decide you don't like Google's influence. I don't see where AMP'd web pages only work with Chrome - or on Android, or any other of the extension options that would open up an opportunity to extinguish. So, other than "Google is Big", and "Google is Powerful", and "Google could potentially become the kind of evil that Microsoft is - or used to be", there's nothing here even remotely like Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.
Google may be (becoming?) evil - but this isn't the evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, it was technically a lie. What he should've said is "If you like your health care plan, and it passes muster under the new rules, you can keep it". He should've explained why there were going to be new rules - presumably to ensure that all insurance that calls itself a 'health care plan' had to actually provide health care when it was needed.
Now I don't say this as a major fan of Obamacare. I was on it for a while, and it was better than nothing. But it works out as essentially a free annual checkup plus a plan to negotiate discounts with doctors for fees that, unless you get seriously sick, you have to pay out of pocket. And in an emergency, it's real health insurance. That was the best that our political system was able to provide. And truth be told, it was exactly what Republicans claimed to have wanted - before Obama proposed it...
Well, by 'tainted', I suppose I mean if the Russians had really hacked either voting machines - or tampered with voter registration rolls. Not saying that happened - just asking what the Constitution would have to say about it if it did...
And I guess if the Trump campaign had actually participated in crimes - like the email hacking itself - or the dissemination of the hacked material, that might count as 'tainted', no?
Does the Constitution address what should be done if the results of an election are tainted? Is impeaching the President and Vice President and following the chain of succession from there the best we have - or is it undefined how you deal with an invalidated election process?
Of course, the New World was quite capable of sustaining life - and even had its own life forms to explore (and cultures to dominate).
What amazes me are the people that say we need to colonize other worlds for when we render this one uninhabitable. Well the worlds we could conceivably reach with our 'proven space travel technology' are far less inhabitable than this one will be - even after we're through with it. That doesn't mean we should stop looking for interesting targets and developing new technologies that may someday make practical space travel possible. But to argue that it's possible now - just because we know how to send a projectile with a short-term human-supportable environment to the moon - is absurd.
There is one picture, and if you bother to actually look at it, it's using the camera angle to fake groping - kind of like those photographs of a tourist 'holding up the leaning tower of Pisa'. Tasteless, perhaps, but not 'evidence of assault'. And you might want to account for the context of the joke - i.e. whether it was consistent with the general cut-up nature of that USO backstage scene.
No, the Democrats got played on this one - and yeah, they're way to easily played this way. That Breitbart chick that tried to dupe the Washington Post almost got away with it too.
They also tend to repeat posts in your feed - or start the feed over when they've used up the new stuff that should be at the top.
But glaciers are disappearing elsewhere - and the overall trend is toward melting.
Just because Antarctica - which even if it's warming is still cold enough for snow to fall - accumulates ice doesn't change the fact that globally on average, land ice is melting and sea levels are rising. So your factoid - even if 'true', is an interesting, but ultimately meaningless data point in the discussion. But keep on listening to the Fox experts repeat it...
This quote says it all:
Bitcoin has achieved something I've always wanted to see in the stock mkt - a reverse 1987 (20% gain in a single day)
It's all speculation - driven on by cheerleaders on the sidelines in the financial speculation media business. Kind of like the Trump campaign/presidency is all a substanceless shitshow driven on by cheerleaders in the news shitshow business.
Actually, I think you can credit "both parties are the same" to Ralph Nader, who was essentially saying that back in 2000, if not earlier. He had a point, in that both parties are dependent on big money interests to fund their campaigns. So on some issues, they're likely to be similar - as opposed, I guess, to ideologically pure like Ralphy (or, for that matter, Bernie).
But it's a dangerous meme when you apply it to voting in our two-party system's general elections. Democrats would never have produced as breathtakingly dishonest a piece of legislation as the current Republican 'tax reform' bill. You may think such Democratic spin as 'diversity instead of affirmative action' is dishonest - and in a way, it is. But it's not dishonest about what it's trying to accomplish; and it's nothing like way Republicans are selling their tax policy as a boon to the middle class - the complete opposite of what it actually does. Or the way they try to depict it as fiscally responsible, by sunsetting most of what middle class sops there are in the bill - while promising that they won't really be allowed to sunset. Not to mention the utter lie that growth will make up for the tax cuts.
Makes sense. It seems like Android Go is optimized primarily for phones with very little memory. Maybe they limit some background processes too and shut down all but the foreground app. That can be annoying - and unnecessary on a device with enough memory.
My question is - who's going to make these devices. if all they're really skimping on is memory vs today's low-end devices, and they're not really much cheaper (there are lots of great deals on pretty powerful Android hardware in emerging markets), then the only reason to produce Go phones would be to slightly increase your profit margins by making devices with 1GB of memory instead of 2GB. Really?
Of course, if this is a carrot vs. stick push to get low-end OEMs to release devices with Oreo - and project Treble, which should make them much more upgradable, that could be a nice start toward curing the android fragmentation problem. And if Google provides the upgrades (since for sure, the low-end OEM's won't), then it could be an important step.
Do you really think there's that much demand for MacOS these days? Back in the day when Windows was utter crap and MacOS had features Windows didn't, sure, there was a market for cheap MacOS clones. But these days, people buy Mac's mostly because they're Apple people, or perceive it as some kind of status thing.
Anybody interested enough to make a MacOS build for generic hardware is already using Linux - or can get by quite well on Windows these days. I'd bet that at this point there's more of a market for Linux support on Mac hardware than there is for MacOS on generic hardware.
You must have an interesting idea of what constitutes "a mild disagreement on some non-controversial subject", given the amount of sheer vitriol I've seen in Facebook comments. Second only to those on Slashdot - except that Facebook commenters aren't as interested as Slashdotters in convincing people that they're smart while they insult them...
Or like 'Activities' in KDE, which is like multiple desktops - but much more. So much more that nobody understands it or uses it. But hey, it's really powerful. Too bad I only use my KDE-based system to browse the Internet.
Of course, there's a difference in terms of what *happens* when each packs the courts. With Democrats, you get Social Security, Healthcare, and voting rights. With Republicans you get "money == speech", voter suppression and eminent domain.
Are you saying that SpaceX is cheaper because they're in the 'build market share' stage of the corporation - i.e., they don't need to make a profit (and in fact can afford to lose billions), because it's still all about the hype and the investors are looking to a SpaceX-dominated future. If that's the case, then it's meaningless to compare costs.
Now, if SpaceX is really building a new and different future for space missions that will ultimately be much better than what NASA has been doing, and the VC's are willing to take a loss to bring that future into being, who am I to balk at NASA saving hundreds of millions. But once they go public and their incentives do a 180 - are we going to be left with some kind of Facebook (or, yes, Google)-like company, whose social contract adds up to 'profit above all and any way you can generate it - including blurring the lines between content and advertising and doing away with any reasonable expectation of privacy'. Well, then it might not be such a great deal.
Not sure what the ultimate downsides to a truly commercial SpaceX would be - but there are sure to be some.
Except that C++ has several features that inherently make it hard to pick up a piece of code and understand what it does. Yes, it's very 'nice' that you can define a new version of the same function by varying its parameters - when done consistently within a well designed class library. But it's sheer laziness to refactor existing code by counting on that feature. Have pity on the poor schlub that's ultimately going to inherit your code and try to support it.
To some extent, I think C++ is fine - as long as you code your application logic as if it were in C and restrict the C++'y stuff to the class libraries you use. That avoids the problem of programmers who barely understand what the C++ compiler is doing 'designing' classes that somehow magically work - most of the time.
Some of the most common problems programmers encounter with C have to do with the stupid, inconsistent design of some of the standard C library functions. I was a C programmer for years before I realized that the 'size' parameter to strncat was not the size of the target array, and is basically a bait-and-switch temptation to overflow your buffer. I have my own Strnzcat function that's defined sanely to concatenate strings and truncate the result to produce a zero-terminated string within the provided buffer. Trivially easy - assuming you've figured out that that's not what strncat does.
Other than that, the most common programmer error is using uninitialized stack frame variables. Would it really be so much of a performance hit to have the compiler generate a call to zero out each new the stack frame on function entry. Perhaps with an 'I really care about performance here' option to not do it...
In any case, unless this was a freaky situation, I'm gonna guess a human driver of the shuttle would've not gotten into the accident. So maybe hitting the brakes and stopping isn't enough of an algorithm to let this thing loose in the real world. Calling this human error is giving the algorithm a bit too much benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for injecting a bit of reality into the discussion. There may someday be flying cars - or some other kind of flying transport for individuals, but this isn't going to be it. And why on earth any news outlet is willing to discuss it as though it's just around the corner - much less going to be provided by Uber is beyond me. What special expertise does Uber have that makes anybody believe they can invent a whole new mode of transportation based on artificial intelligence.
Uber has built a straightforward scheduling and billing app for taxis that takes some input from existing GPS/Mapping systems. That's it. Plus being good at marketing hype and having established themselves as a brand name. They've done nothing beyond that than make a bunch of noise and poach some Google driving robot technology.
What seems to be 'under his control' (at least for his followers) is what outlets can be believed - and even what stories on those outlets.
Orwell envisioned North Korea style government controlled media pretty well, but he seems to have missed what happens when there is no sense of what a reliable media outlet (let alone reliable truth) is. The apologists for the latest waves of media consolidation and breakdown of ownership limits always point to the vast number of sources now available for information. But if none of those sources can be counted on to be telling the truth, then what? Say what you will, but the fairness doctrine produced some reliable concept of objective reality in media.
Actually, it sounds more like if it ever gets to the point where warming causes it to be released into the atmosphere - we've lost, and burning it won't help.
I suppose burning some of it now - as opposed to burning coal or methane extracted by fracking - is better than just continuing to burn coal and oil. But if we don't prevent the natural release of the frozen stuff, we're in serious trouble. And this isn't going to be nearly enough to stop that.
The thing that's shocking isn't that Russia spies on us - and even tilts toward one political party or another. It's that Facebook and other social networking sites have suddenly provided a way to easily and fraudulently inject propaganda into our electoral process. It's the way they used the info that's so shocking and scary.
And one more thing that's shocking to me. Fox and the like have so primed a large audience to believe farcically untrue stuff (and don't go citing MSNBC or CNN - Fox is qualitatively different in this regard, not to mention Limbaugh and his kind) that outright falsehoods that would never see the light of day in, say, a TV ad found a platform that was fine with spreading them - and an audience willing to if not believe, then pretend that there was an argument in favor of their side in there.. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg never envisioned this for his baby, but hey, they're a public company and gotta keep that stock price up. That's why we need government regulation of business. Whatever downsides you see to it, there's no other way to combat fraud and the like.
it wasn't the ads, folks. It was the trolls pretending to be Bernie Sanders fans - who presumably wanted the Democratic platform, and more, but were fine with tossing around 'Killary' and "Warmonger', etc. and pushing for 'anybody but Hillary' to the extent that Jill Stein got enough swing state votes to throw the election. And those 'Bernie Supporters' got nothing that Bernie wanted.
Now some of those trolls were paid by the Russians, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were paid by various right-wing American groups. But either way, it's fraudulent - and troubling.
As far as the Russia investigations being 'fake', well then why all the obstructionism? There's obviously something they're hiding - and it's not just Manafort's money laundering - since Trump would throw him under the bus in a millisecond. Sometimes I think the most 'reasonable' explanation is that Trump's ego can't withstand even the hint that he didn't win in a landslide and somehow the Russia investigation - combined with the fact that he knew they were pulling for him, and that the Russian provided Podesta/DNC emails helped him - is too much for him to tolerate. So he tried to make it go away, and dug himself a deeper hole. Sometimes. Most times, I go with - yep, Putin's got stuff on him. End of story.
Google Play Services probably has all the aspects that you attribute to it. Though, if I recall, much of the reason a lot of that stuff migrated to Play Services from AOSP was to make sure that it was available on devices that never got OS upgrades. I don't know if that was by design, but I'm willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt and assume that when AOSP was released, they didn't have some nefarious plot to get OEM's to 'force' them to take bits proprietary by not keeping their devices up to date.
That said, yep. Lots of what lots of developers think of as the 'Android' platform is now provided by Google Play Services. Of course, you can install GPS on LineageOS - and even Amazon's 'google free' devices. So yeah, relying on GPS locks you into y'know, Android. Which I guess makes it harder for Amazon or Microsoft or (more likely, Samsung) to take over the platform, I guess. But unless you yourself were wanting to put out your own (presumably proprietary) alternative Android platform, it shouldn't matter much to you. And if you did want to put out an alternative proprietary version of Android - why would I want to use it? Didn't Cyanogen Inc. have such designs at one point - backed by MS dollars?
You left out the bit about extending with proprietary functions - that only work with the Microsoft implementation of the open standard, and that you're quietly nudged toward using without quite understanding that they're locking you in to that Microsoft implementation.
This thing, while controlled by Google, isn't quite proprietary. It can be forked. And it since it depends on machine-readable tags in otherwise standard HTML, it can be removed if you decide you don't like Google's influence. I don't see where AMP'd web pages only work with Chrome - or on Android, or any other of the extension options that would open up an opportunity to extinguish. So, other than "Google is Big", and "Google is Powerful", and "Google could potentially become the kind of evil that Microsoft is - or used to be", there's nothing here even remotely like Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.
Google may be (becoming?) evil - but this isn't the evidence.