"When you open up an app like Messages or Settings you'll see the name of the app in a field of white (or black, in dark mode) that takes up the entire top half of the screen. When you scroll, though, the giant header shrinks down and you have a full screen of content."
So the entire top half of the screen will show the name of the app that I just clicked on? Every time I open the app? WTF is the purpose of that? I know the app is Messages because I just tapped on the icon that says "Messages". I really don't need half the screen wasted until I scroll down every time I open an app. Sounds like a horrible design to me.
If that's the kind of stuff they baked into "Samsung's version of Android" then I'll just stick to the Pixel.
They might not be doing anything illegal, but I disagree what they are doing is ethical. Ethical is a higher bar than legal. One of the definitions of ethical is: avoiding activities or organizations that do harm to people or the environment. So they found a loophole that allows them to avoid all federal taxes. They could chose to not use that type of loophole and pay a reasonable amount of tax to the country that allows them to make billions in profit.
"And >90% of the time, those rich people got their wealth from their parents,"
citation needed
"For example, Trump."
Trump is an extreme outlier, not the norm. Using him as an example in this discussion is pretty silly.
"The wealthy give their children many advantages that put them ahead within that framework. Again, this means we get massive inefficiency because the person didn't actually make the effort, mom and dad bought their place."
People wealthy enough to give their children a significant money advantage make up a very small part of our population. Households making more than $250k per year only make up 3% of our population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States And $250k isn't even "rich" in some parts of the country. Your "massive inefficiency" is confined to less than 3% of the population. It's an extreme outlier that in no way reflects the norm.
There's a rather straight forward solution to this problem, but I doubt tech companies have the backbone to do it. Every tech company should stop selling their products and services to Australia until this law is reversed. Take away the iPhones, Facebook, Android, and every all website from anyone in Australia. Let the people of Australia decide if they want these gadgets or if they want a government that can break encryption.
Given that our country spends significantly more on Medicare/Medicaid than they do on the Military, I would suggest you ask yourself why you aren't getting reliable access to medicine.
I don't know about Aurora, but DynamoDB is a pain in the ass. Limited functionality, some odd rules, and a very crappy API. I hated using it and would be concerned about any "mission critical databases" running on DynamoDB.
"Why is your UI designer and DBA not part of the team?"
I work for a fairly large company. I'm not sure the exact count, but I would assume that we have > 80 development teams. We don't have anywhere near enough UI designers and DBAs to put one on each team. My point above was that organizations need to make changes throughout to support agile (ex: hire more UI designers and DBAs so that each team can have one), but we all know how that suggestion turns out don't we?
What's the cost of having extremely flexible (agile) development? The cost is that you have to staff teams with all the experience necessary to do full life cycle development without waiting on others. If you just have people with one standard role (ex: DBA), then that means some resources will be underutilized. Large companies hate to see underutilized people, so now you need to find someone who is good at development AND DBA. That's a little tougher to find. And you have to find a person like that for EACH development team. Good luck with that.
Honestly, I would be surprised if any large corporation is actually doing real agile as specified in the manifesto. My guess is that this model only really works for start up companies with a few teams filled with rock stars developers who can do multiple roles. And those are the people writing books and giving talks at tech conferences, trying to convince the rest of us to just work the way they do. If only it were so easy.
I've supposedly been doing agile for years, but I've never once worked on a self-organizing team who could build software without working with several external groups. And all of those external groups are set up to work waterfall. You've got the UI designer who wants to design the whole experience up front. You've got the data modeler and DBA who both want to know exactly what data you will be using up front. You've got the architect who wants the full design documented so they can spend 10 minutes looking at it and give you an approval. You've got the project manager who wants to know exactly how long all the development is going to take. So you end up having to do big-design-up-front in order to work with all these external groups.
A lot of companies say they want developers to do agile, but they need to realize that agile requires changes throughout the organization. It's not something that developers can just do by themselves.
A super-liberal company in a super-liberal city complaining about taxes for social programs. That's rich. I thought liberals wanted big government programs to take care of the down-trodden. Amazon is all for more social programs at the federal level, but they hire a truckload of lawyers to set up tax shelters and move money into offshore accounts to avoid paying their fair share of federal taxes. Someone else is footing the bill for those programs. Now the city introduces a more direct tax that can't be avoided and suddenly it's "hostile".
The issue with this is that there are a few legitimate robocaller uses. My credit card company uses robocalling to contact me when there is potential fraud charges on my account. I realize this might be a rare case, but I really want that particular robocall to go through.
I'm not a phone line expert, but it seems like phone companies should require companies register numbers that they want to spoof and provide proof that they actually own that number. Any spoofed calls not validated should be killed.
Another thing that phone companies could do is charge significant fees for robocalling, making it prohibitively expensive for scammers.
The Spammers are already on to the next tactic: spoofed numbers. I have Call Protect (powered by Hiya) installed. It used to catch the majority of spam callers and flag them as such. But lately, the spam callers are coming in using spoofed numbers that seem like valid phone numbers in my area code. It's a different number every time, so you won't find them in a spam caller registry. It's very difficult to determine whether it is a spam caller or someone from work calling me, so I pretty much have to pick up during the daytime.
Why do the telephone companies allow callers to spoof the originating number?
No one was upset until Trump used the data. Obama was a modern-day genius when he used the data, and thousands of unknown companies having the data was fine. But Trump using it is what caused some people to go bonkers.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/ "In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends. According to a July 2012 MIT Technology Review article, when you installed the app, "it said it would grab information about my friends: their birth dates, locations, and 'likes.' ". The campaign boasted that more than a million people downloaded the app, which, given an average friend-list size of 190, means that as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent."
Facebook *could* solve this issue just by giving people the tools to easily reduce how much of the share spam shows up on their wall. But they won't do that because their bean counters tell them that more shares = more data = more money.
So building walls are ineffective? Then why are there so many walls? Most countries have walls. Celebrities have walls around their houses. The pope has a massive wall around Vatican City.
The major car manufacturers don't seem to WANT to play in this specific space. Sure, each of them have a token EV. But they are mostly ugly and slow and don't sell extremely well. Nobody other than Tesla seems to want to make an EV that is fast, fun and looks nice. Maybe the majors don't make as much money on maintenance of EVs and that's why they don't want to play in that space.
The question posted is: Why Are We Still Using Passwords?
The answer is provided in the summary: Stronger and more reliable alternatives to passwords already exist, but the obstacles to using them are often prohibitive
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, since you are just renting a product instead of owning it I'm sure digital games will be much cheaper than physical games. Right? Right?
Sorry, but only the great grandson of a legendary inventor has the final word on whether or not the company is now corrupt.
Funny, because I ditched the NYT and it "Unbroke my brain".
"When you open up an app like Messages or Settings you'll see the name of the app in a field of white (or black, in dark mode) that takes up the entire top half of the screen. When you scroll, though, the giant header shrinks down and you have a full screen of content."
So the entire top half of the screen will show the name of the app that I just clicked on? Every time I open the app? WTF is the purpose of that? I know the app is Messages because I just tapped on the icon that says "Messages". I really don't need half the screen wasted until I scroll down every time I open an app. Sounds like a horrible design to me.
If that's the kind of stuff they baked into "Samsung's version of Android" then I'll just stick to the Pixel.
They might not be doing anything illegal, but I disagree what they are doing is ethical. Ethical is a higher bar than legal. One of the definitions of ethical is: avoiding activities or organizations that do harm to people or the environment. So they found a loophole that allows them to avoid all federal taxes. They could chose to not use that type of loophole and pay a reasonable amount of tax to the country that allows them to make billions in profit.
"And >90% of the time, those rich people got their wealth from their parents,"
citation needed
"For example, Trump."
Trump is an extreme outlier, not the norm. Using him as an example in this discussion is pretty silly.
"The wealthy give their children many advantages that put them ahead within that framework. Again, this means we get massive inefficiency because the person didn't actually make the effort, mom and dad bought their place."
People wealthy enough to give their children a significant money advantage make up a very small part of our population. Households making more than $250k per year only make up 3% of our population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
And $250k isn't even "rich" in some parts of the country. Your "massive inefficiency" is confined to less than 3% of the population. It's an extreme outlier that in no way reflects the norm.
There's a rather straight forward solution to this problem, but I doubt tech companies have the backbone to do it. Every tech company should stop selling their products and services to Australia until this law is reversed. Take away the iPhones, Facebook, Android, and every all website from anyone in Australia. Let the people of Australia decide if they want these gadgets or if they want a government that can break encryption.
Given that our country spends significantly more on Medicare/Medicaid than they do on the Military, I would suggest you ask yourself why you aren't getting reliable access to medicine.
I don't know about Aurora, but DynamoDB is a pain in the ass. Limited functionality, some odd rules, and a very crappy API. I hated using it and would be concerned about any "mission critical databases" running on DynamoDB.
By "free services", I was thinking of Google Search, Google Maps, Gmail, Google Drive, YouTube, Google Assistant, etc.
All of those are free and come baked into Android.
Because too many mangers don't believe they need to do any research before making sweeping changes.
"Why is your UI designer and DBA not part of the team?"
I work for a fairly large company. I'm not sure the exact count, but I would assume that we have > 80 development teams. We don't have anywhere near enough UI designers and DBAs to put one on each team. My point above was that organizations need to make changes throughout to support agile (ex: hire more UI designers and DBAs so that each team can have one), but we all know how that suggestion turns out don't we?
What's the cost of having extremely flexible (agile) development? The cost is that you have to staff teams with all the experience necessary to do full life cycle development without waiting on others. If you just have people with one standard role (ex: DBA), then that means some resources will be underutilized. Large companies hate to see underutilized people, so now you need to find someone who is good at development AND DBA. That's a little tougher to find. And you have to find a person like that for EACH development team. Good luck with that.
Honestly, I would be surprised if any large corporation is actually doing real agile as specified in the manifesto. My guess is that this model only really works for start up companies with a few teams filled with rock stars developers who can do multiple roles. And those are the people writing books and giving talks at tech conferences, trying to convince the rest of us to just work the way they do. If only it were so easy.
I've supposedly been doing agile for years, but I've never once worked on a self-organizing team who could build software without working with several external groups. And all of those external groups are set up to work waterfall. You've got the UI designer who wants to design the whole experience up front. You've got the data modeler and DBA who both want to know exactly what data you will be using up front. You've got the architect who wants the full design documented so they can spend 10 minutes looking at it and give you an approval. You've got the project manager who wants to know exactly how long all the development is going to take. So you end up having to do big-design-up-front in order to work with all these external groups.
A lot of companies say they want developers to do agile, but they need to realize that agile requires changes throughout the organization. It's not something that developers can just do by themselves.
If Microsoft does acquire Github, does that mean that they will instantly have access to all the private repos from Google, Apple, IBM, etc?
A super-liberal company in a super-liberal city complaining about taxes for social programs. That's rich. I thought liberals wanted big government programs to take care of the down-trodden. Amazon is all for more social programs at the federal level, but they hire a truckload of lawyers to set up tax shelters and move money into offshore accounts to avoid paying their fair share of federal taxes. Someone else is footing the bill for those programs. Now the city introduces a more direct tax that can't be avoided and suddenly it's "hostile".
The issue with this is that there are a few legitimate robocaller uses. My credit card company uses robocalling to contact me when there is potential fraud charges on my account. I realize this might be a rare case, but I really want that particular robocall to go through.
I'm not a phone line expert, but it seems like phone companies should require companies register numbers that they want to spoof and provide proof that they actually own that number. Any spoofed calls not validated should be killed.
Another thing that phone companies could do is charge significant fees for robocalling, making it prohibitively expensive for scammers.
The Spammers are already on to the next tactic: spoofed numbers. I have Call Protect (powered by Hiya) installed. It used to catch the majority of spam callers and flag them as such. But lately, the spam callers are coming in using spoofed numbers that seem like valid phone numbers in my area code. It's a different number every time, so you won't find them in a spam caller registry. It's very difficult to determine whether it is a spam caller or someone from work calling me, so I pretty much have to pick up during the daytime.
Why do the telephone companies allow callers to spoof the originating number?
Why would technology backing chat need any access to payment information?
No one was upset until Trump used the data. Obama was a modern-day genius when he used the data, and thousands of unknown companies having the data was fine. But Trump using it is what caused some people to go bonkers.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/
"In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends. According to a July 2012 MIT Technology Review article, when you installed the app, "it said it would grab information about my friends: their birth dates, locations, and 'likes.' ". The campaign boasted that more than a million people downloaded the app, which, given an average friend-list size of 190, means that as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent."
Facebook *could* solve this issue just by giving people the tools to easily reduce how much of the share spam shows up on their wall. But they won't do that because their bean counters tell them that more shares = more data = more money.
So building walls are ineffective? Then why are there so many walls? Most countries have walls. Celebrities have walls around their houses. The pope has a massive wall around Vatican City.
The major car manufacturers don't seem to WANT to play in this specific space. Sure, each of them have a token EV. But they are mostly ugly and slow and don't sell extremely well. Nobody other than Tesla seems to want to make an EV that is fast, fun and looks nice. Maybe the majors don't make as much money on maintenance of EVs and that's why they don't want to play in that space.
The question posted is: Why Are We Still Using Passwords?
The answer is provided in the summary: Stronger and more reliable alternatives to passwords already exist, but the obstacles to using them are often prohibitive
Nothing more to say.
"The only thing that will stop them is laws, "
What???? How about people just stop buying products from companies that adopt anti-consumer policies? Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smart phones.
We don't need a law for everything.