They don't have to be known faults. I was speaking more about assertions to catch logic failures, which is especially useful to future-proof logic against subsequent changes that may violate assumptions built into the logic.
The company could require the user to reply to an email sent on the same email account active on the phone. That will address your second concern about users sending in stolen phones. As for assuring whether authorized users will actually unlock the phone after receiving payment, they company could either use Paypal with specific terms about cancelling transactions for owners who fail to unlock the phone (ebay always sides with the payer in disputes anyway) or they could use an escrow service.
It doesn't prevent a factory reset but after a reset has been performed the original iCloud / Gmail account remains associated with the phone. The credentials for that account must then be entered before phone can be used after the reset.
Where prospective candidates can pick up a phone and discretely call a company or head hunter about a job. Then call in sick a week later to attend an interview.
I'm sure another scummy phone trade-in company will rise up in its place (they also do), so I propose customers send their phones in account-locked; iPhone = Find My Phone active, Android = Gmail account active. Even locked the company will still be able to evaluate the phone's physical condition along with seeing the LCD on and manipulating the touchscreen. Once you're given an agreeable quote and have been paid you can then remotely unlock the phone to complete the sale.
Yet one of them dedicated their lives to work that will lead to the inevitable destruction of mankind. So you might reconsider what you ultimately find offensive.
"I should have reacted to the damn added BUG_ON() lines. I suspect I will have to finally just remove the idiotic BUG_ON() concept once and for all, because there is NO F*CKING EXCUSE to knowingly kill the kernel."
While Jobs was alive I would comment to my tech friends that his influence on Apple and the industry was overstated. Five years after his death I've come to realize his influence was understated. We need someone like Jobs - not just to think big - but to be the person at the top who wont accept mediocrity and will drive thousands of employees to bring great ideas to the market.
Their business is all about collecting as much data as possible to 1) make more money with targeted ads and 2) provide more useful data-driven features to customers to keep them coming back to see more ads. Having new search features hat only work on their phones doesn't fit this model.
Actually Linus, there is a good excuse - when the failing of a logic assertion could silently lead to behavior that is worse than a kernel halt, specifically data corruption.
The devices' primary purpose is their namesake - to track the physical activity of the owner. Whether or not that encourages the owner to be more active is another story. It would be like saying a new automobile doesn't work simply because it didn't encourage its owner to drive more.
She lost of the company billions of dollars in shareholder value during her tenure, mostly through ill-conceived acquisitions. The only reason the stock price went up was due to the company's stake in Alibaba, a stake she inherited when she became CEO.
She ignored employees who wanted to continue the company practice of working from home, executives who wanted to take the site in a different direction, and shareholders who wanted her to be competent in her job and actually increase shareholder value in ways other than just ridding her inheritance of the Alibaba position.
The live stream started with a Google rep talking about how important it is for Google to be involved in both the hardware and software of the phone. I suppose the parallel being how Apple benefits from having control over both hardware and software. Yet everything in the stream after that was all about software that can run on any Android device, not just Pixel.
Do they mean the data generated by the estimated 20 million fake twitter accounts? Maybe they can use that data to feed the fake bots that are reported to be the next big thing. The utopian internet is emerging to be a huge pile of fake data moving back and forth for the sole purpose of generating fake ad revenue.
Taken at face value the CNET summary would imply that they were actually correctly stating views since their methodology was excluding shorter views. The full explanation from Facebook makes it clearer:
We had previously *defined* the Average Duration of Video Viewed as "total time spent watching a video divided by the total number of people who have played the video." But we erroneously had *calculated* the Average Duration of Video Viewed as "the total time spent watching a video divided by *only* the number of people who have viewed a video for three or more seconds."
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have to be known faults. I was speaking more about assertions to catch logic failures, which is especially useful to future-proof logic against subsequent changes that may violate assumptions built into the logic.
The company could require the user to reply to an email sent on the same email account active on the phone. That will address your second concern about users sending in stolen phones. As for assuring whether authorized users will actually unlock the phone after receiving payment, they company could either use Paypal with specific terms about cancelling transactions for owners who fail to unlock the phone (ebay always sides with the payer in disputes anyway) or they could use an escrow service.
I wonder what Microsoft will permit users to do next with their own system.
It doesn't prevent a factory reset but after a reset has been performed the original iCloud / Gmail account remains associated with the phone. The credentials for that account must then be entered before phone can be used after the reset.
Where prospective candidates can pick up a phone and discretely call a company or head hunter about a job. Then call in sick a week later to attend an interview.
I'm sure another scummy phone trade-in company will rise up in its place (they also do), so I propose customers send their phones in account-locked; iPhone = Find My Phone active, Android = Gmail account active. Even locked the company will still be able to evaluate the phone's physical condition along with seeing the LCD on and manipulating the touchscreen. Once you're given an agreeable quote and have been paid you can then remotely unlock the phone to complete the sale.
Yet one of them dedicated their lives to work that will lead to the inevitable destruction of mankind. So you might reconsider what you ultimately find offensive.
gave us the first smartphone that didn't suck, but really what else?
That's a nice equation Albert but really what else do you have for us?
I guess this quote from Linus threw me off:
"I should have reacted to the damn added BUG_ON() lines. I suspect I will have to finally just remove the idiotic BUG_ON() concept once and for all, because there is NO F*CKING EXCUSE to knowingly kill the kernel."
While Jobs was alive I would comment to my tech friends that his influence on Apple and the industry was overstated. Five years after his death I've come to realize his influence was understated. We need someone like Jobs - not just to think big - but to be the person at the top who wont accept mediocrity and will drive thousands of employees to bring great ideas to the market.
Their business is all about collecting as much data as possible to 1) make more money with targeted ads and 2) provide more useful data-driven features to customers to keep them coming back to see more ads. Having new search features hat only work on their phones doesn't fit this model.
Actually Linus, there is a good excuse - when the failing of a logic assertion could silently lead to behavior that is worse than a kernel halt, specifically data corruption.
So that I can live a lifetime where I never make a mistake and everyone in the world is a moron compared to me.
The devices' primary purpose is their namesake - to track the physical activity of the owner. Whether or not that encourages the owner to be more active is another story. It would be like saying a new automobile doesn't work simply because it didn't encourage its owner to drive more.
It's what that short Mexican guy used to say on Fantasy Island.
She lost of the company billions of dollars in shareholder value during her tenure, mostly through ill-conceived acquisitions. The only reason the stock price went up was due to the company's stake in Alibaba, a stake she inherited when she became CEO.
Her legacy of declining revenue, disgruntled employees, negative ROI, executive departures, strategic blunders, and oh, designer short-skirts.
If someone sells you a gold bracelet would you expect it to be made of gold or only gold plated?
Follow-up question: Were you born that way or did you have to work at it?
IMO she'll not only be remembered as one of the worst CEOs ever, they're going to rename the Peter Principle to the Marissa Principle.
She ignored employees who wanted to continue the company practice of working from home, executives who wanted to take the site in a different direction, and shareholders who wanted her to be competent in her job and actually increase shareholder value in ways other than just ridding her inheritance of the Alibaba position.
The live stream started with a Google rep talking about how important it is for Google to be involved in both the hardware and software of the phone. I suppose the parallel being how Apple benefits from having control over both hardware and software. Yet everything in the stream after that was all about software that can run on any Android device, not just Pixel.
It's akin to a deadbolt manufacturer including a Glock handgun with every purchase.
Do they mean the data generated by the estimated 20 million fake twitter accounts? Maybe they can use that data to feed the fake bots that are reported to be the next big thing. The utopian internet is emerging to be a huge pile of fake data moving back and forth for the sole purpose of generating fake ad revenue.
Taken at face value the CNET summary would imply that they were actually correctly stating views since their methodology was excluding shorter views. The full explanation from Facebook makes it clearer:
We had previously *defined* the Average Duration of Video Viewed as "total time spent watching a video divided by the total number of people who have played the video." But we erroneously had *calculated* the Average Duration of Video Viewed as "the total time spent watching a video divided by *only* the number of people who have viewed a video for three or more seconds."