What Apple is asking people to do is stuff they have been asking people to do since forever - to build using auto layout, or at least respecting margins the system asks for.
You mean like you would do for television with overscan, because the television marketplace is so fragmented, you never know the next time a cookie television manufacturer is going to take away one of your margins, but leave you with the three others.
1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited.
Personally, I think that the Myers-Briggs studies he brought up were awful, but I don't think that was his fault. Have you actually read them? If he made mistakes, or if his information was outdated, you correct him. That's how we resolve differences. Some people can't be corrected, that's true enough, but honestly, I don't think that was the case for him
2. The use of softening language / disclaimers like "not all women" and "on average" don't help him.
No, those were quantifiers, not disclaimers.
And unlike President Trump for instance, Damos used quantifiers pretty well actually. Many feminists could learn a thing or two from him instead of using absolute quantifiers, or instead of using no quantifier at all.
3. He distributed the memo himself initially, expanding its audience, and should have known that such an inflammatory document would be more widely distributed once circulated.
He distributed the memo inside an official working group of ~8 people. He didn't expand the memo behind that. Others did it for him.
4. People complained and actually withdraw from job opportunities as a result. Snowflakes or otherwise, there was measurable damage done to Google's workplace.
Not to mention men.
I guarantee you that far many more men stopped applying to Google than women after their reaction to Damos.
I have no experience with SMS-based 2FA on Google to see whether or not it continues to send SMS even after TOTP has been set up...
Once your phone number has been confirmed (to avoid spambots from creating new accounts), you enter your email address and corresponding password. And once that email address/password combo is deemed correct, it gives you the choice of which 2nd-factor method you want to use. And no, if you don't choose the SMS option, you won't get the code through SMS. I swear to you that's how it works. In fact, the next time you use 2FA, just click on the little black triangle next to your default method of authentication, and you'll be given a bunch of choices (this is in case you ever put your phone's sim card into a non-Android phone, or in case you don't have your phone/tablet on you).
That kind of outdated information about SMS came mostly from pissed off Apple fanboys that were upset that Android users told them that it didn't matter how secure their iphone/iPad/Macbook were if their iCloud/Apple account didn't even have 2-factor authentication in the first place.
They sort of had to. If they had hired Chinese hackers, they would have used Google Translate to generate the content of their reviews. Plus just like with the Russians, their usernames would have been strangely stereotypical.
$150k is only for the removal of those cameras. The original cost was $3.6 million (paid by a grant from the DHS). However, the article doesn't say if the contractors removing the cameras get to keep them. If they were to keep them, I would expect some companies would be ready to offer to do that removal work for free.
Because Google requiring a cell phone number with a working SMS for an initial set up, which can be changed afterward to TOPT, HOPT, or a recovery email address (all of which Google allowed you to do in 2010 from pretty much any platform by providing the source code, even before the RFC for TOPT was officially out of draft) seems to be a very far cry from what you initially wrote:
Another problem is sites that send SMS for every login attempt even for users who have a TOTP app set up as a second factor. [...] Google used to require SMS for 2FA but now appears to allow authentication using an Android device logged into Google Play Services.
In fact, I would argue that Google was a pioneer in providing this kind of convenience with 2FA. And it should be applauded for doing that, and not be put in the same category as Twitter for not even supporting that feature in the first place.
But some companies that offer 2FA appear to just not care
I'm not going to defend Twitter. If that's what they're doing, then they're idiots.
But I drive for Lyft (I used to drive for Uber). Lyft forces SMS 2FA for almost everything (but Uber doesn't, honestly, I'm not sure what Uber does from the consumer's perspective). And I believe that frequent SMS 2FA verification is a huge plus for Lyft.
As a driver, I need to have a valid cell phone number to SMS or call when I pick up someone. Data works, but not always. For instance, if someone's phone inadvertently connects to a Starbucks free hotspot but the user doesn't sign in, the data wouldn't be working. Or let's say, the user's cell provider gets too congested for some reason and they throttle his data connection, then that could mean a serious delay in that person getting the update that I'm parked in front and that I'm waiting for him/her.
So the solution is to use both data and sms when notifying a passenger that the car is there. And that's what Lyft does. And for that to work, that's why Lyft requires SMS 2FA frequently. It makes things so much easier and so much less stressful for the driver that way.
Of course, if you're traveling and only using a wifi tablet to call a car, then you're not going to like Lyft (you'll use Uber instead). And as a Lyft driver, I actually don't have a problem with that. And for other non-taxi/non-delivery apps using SMS-only 2FA, then they're just being stupid (probably for the sake of gaining as much accurate advertising data as possible). Consumers need to call them out on it.
Google used to require SMS for 2FA but now appears to allow authentication using an Android device logged into Google Play Services.
You're completely incorrect.
Google already had it and was even allowing you to port their code to your own TOPT 2-factor authentication client (in addition to HOPT) to use with their service since 2010!
That's right, 2010. That is not a typo. At the time, the official RFC was still being drafted.
In the context of business, this was non-obvious (nobody did this during the years and years of many e-commerce stores)
But that's the thing, that's not the case at all.
The one-click patent did have prior art in e-commerce, but it just took time and effort to uncover, prove, and file the paperwork (including paying the $2,520.00 filing fee!).
And yet, I've seen many reports/documentaries/reviews over the years that have objectively compared SatNavs with London cabbies, and the cabbies always win, sometimes by a comically wide margin.
And yet, that's not how real people use cabbies. Many of us need to be taken across Central London, not just within Central London (which is the only knowledge they're actually tested on).
This is not that I begrudge London cabbies for being more knowledgeable in general and for having lower turnover. I think that's great! But I also think they should drop the attitude and carry an internet capable phone with Google Waze or Google Maps on it. After all, their A-to-Z guide can only take them so far. That guide doesn't even contain business names. And it doesn't know about traffic conditions or special events either.
Having tried to navigate central London using a top-of-the-range SatNav, including all the whizzy new real-time this and traffic report that, this result does not surprise me in the slightest.
And that's your mistake right there.
Saying that you used a "top-of-the-range SatNav" instead of Google Maps or Google Waze proves to us that you're already out of touch with the state of the art mapping technology. Either that or that tells us that you're a truck driver and that you need a non-Google SatNav system only because your truck/caravan is oversized and you don't want the top part of your truck to run into a bridge (which is fine also, but it's also a different use case than having to use cabbies or Uber).
Fully humanoid looking robot nurses will be cool, but that's not what I'm advocating for in the short term.
In the short term, there are many simpler problems and low hanging fruits that robotics could help with that do not require the robot to have a full human-like body.
That's a good point, dead weight can be extremely difficult to lift. Add to that someone who has massive pain because their cancer has reached their nervous system and any slight movement in the wrong direction can throw them into agonizing pain.
And frankly, I don't know how nurses can do this as a career. It's grueling work. And it's super easy to become permanently injured doing it. I did this for my mother, but I would never be able to do it for perfect strangers, day after day. It's just too difficult.
Just being able to lift seniors in and out of bed, or readjusting the sheets, (without hurting the caregiver's back) would be a real boon to caregivers.
I'm a big guy myself, I know how to lift properly, but I still hurt myself taking care of my elderly mother (even though, home hospice care lent us a motorized hospital bed). And I can't imagine nurses doing this kind of work for very long if they hurt their lower back or get carpal tunnel syndrome after just a few weeks.
Hopefully, the app will work as a widget on the lock screen.
By the way, a lockscreen widget is what you want to use when you're video recording police officers, make sure your phone can still be locked when it's recording video (I'm only speaking about Android phones, I don't know if the iPhone has the same capability).
Eric was telling me about this newly coined phrase "Open Source".
That's probably not what happened. No one ever says: "We just came up with a totally new term to describe what we're doing."
No, it usually goes more like: "Hey, we're thinking of replacing 'free software' with 'open source'. What do you think? Do you think that term is going to be more understandable to people?"
And then someone else probably chimed in and said: "Yes, it makes perfect sense! I also love the fact that former government officials and CEOs will be thinking of 'second sourcing' when thinking of 'open source'. It sure beats thinking of 'free lunch' or 'free beer' everytime someone mentions 'free software'. It also helps that 'second sourcing' is credited for having jumpstarted our computer revolution by incentivizing Intel to share some of its trade secrets with AMD."
A pension plan is a safety net for your twilight years. In the US, not everyone gets one. To my lay knowledge, a pension is the only asset that can not be lost during bankruptcy proceedings. Repeated brain injuries can lead to a serious disability later in life. In my opinion, the one who suffered those injuries while married is the one who should receive most of those payments.
And I would be saying the exact same thing if, for instance, an NFL player's wife was more prone to get early dementia than her husband. In such a case, whether due to genetics or to a serious car accident, I would allocate more of that pension to her if I thought that was the case.
But I suppose, it's also a question of fairness. Since those brain injuries are directly related to the NFL career and to the NFL pension. And the couple wouldn't be receiving that generous pension without the husband receiving those brain injuries in the first place, I think the allocation of the pension during a divorce would need a more reasoned approach (instead of a simple blind 50% split).
I agree, but your approach may only help with a fraction of swatters. Many of those swatters are underage, or their families are already so deeply in debt, that an additional bill they don't pay won't do anything to them. No, in addition to all of what you're suggesting, I think that if you swat somebody (regardless of age):
* You should automatically lose your xbox (even a family one), any other gaming console, your computer (if it's in your room), your tablet (if any of your accounts are on it), your smartphone, your TV (if it's in your room), etc. (Confiscated by the police, but given to a non-police related charity) * You're only allowed to purchase a dumb cell phone, that has gps tracking and navigation, but that has a pre-recorded outgoing message on it (similar in function to the outgoing messages prisoners have when they're calling from a prison's pay phone). Incoming phone calls come unaltered, but that's in case you need it for a job interview. And texting works, but everything would get logged through your carrier (for parental and police supervision). * For school work, you're only allowed to own an electronic typewriter, or a non-networked dumb computer (from a pre-approved list). If teachers want you to do research on the internet, they'll have to give you printouts instead, or have you use the computers at the public library instead. * You lose your right to privacy. It's like you'll be on parole. Cops will be able to visit your place, go through your stuff, and confiscate items anytime they want. * If you have siblings, things can get more complicated. But if they're younger than you, they will also lose access to their smartphone, or other electronics in their room. If they're older, they'll be required to have those devices locked-down from you and physically locked away from you. But if there are gaming consoles anywhere in the house, or anywhere in the apartment, you're in. They get confiscated permanently and everyone in the family loses access to them (until your parole period ends). * (Please feel free to add anything else you think I may have missed.)
Did Amazon really do that to you? Or was it one of their affiliates? Do you think it was done on purpose so they could sell the item to someone else at a higher price? Or did that item have many returns for quality defects?
The bad news: Your relatives, the younger ungrateful ones that have been mooching from you for your entire career, will be the only ones left to take care of you until you're 80 or 90 years old.
The good news: You'll have early Alzheimers and you won't remember a thing anyway.
The light blue is Nougat (v 7) 20.6%, NOT Gingerbread.
Gingerbread (v 2.3) is only 0.6% (it's a slightly different blue). Here, take another look at the original link you referenced.
And here is a less confusing graph with an even earlier date.
I'm not blaming you though, the Business Insider purposefully altered the original graph so it would tell the story they wanted to tell. And it took a while to figure it out myself, even though I knew that 20.6% of single-processor phones couldn't possibly be correct.
Google is not a player in this game, and be honest I really doubt they give a damn what gets developed as a "standard" Googles stance has EVERYTHING to do with attacking Apple and Microsoft.
No, Google is trying to prevent fragmentation by trying to reign in Samsung. At this point, it couldn't care less about Apple or Microsoft. HTC is the second player in the Android space which has a pressure sensitive pen. Google already owns HTC (the mobile part). But even before Google purchased HTC, HTC had already adapted its pen API to work with the standard Android API.
And despite the fact that Samsung is using Wacom technology for its pen technology, Samsung is still insisting that developers use its proprietary pen API. Samsung is doing this because it knows it has the largest market share of pen-enabled devices among Android manufacturers, so it knows that app developers are not going to ignore it in favor of the so-called "standard" one offered by Google.
Slashdot Mirror
What Apple is asking people to do is stuff they have been asking people to do since forever -
to build using auto layout, or at least respecting margins the system asks for.
You mean like you would do for television with overscan, because the television marketplace is so fragmented, you never know the next time a cookie television manufacturer is going to take away one of your margins, but leave you with the three others.
1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited.
Personally, I think that the Myers-Briggs studies he brought up were awful, but I don't think that was his fault. Have you actually read them? If he made mistakes, or if his information was outdated, you correct him. That's how we resolve differences. Some people can't be corrected, that's true enough, but honestly, I don't think that was the case for him
2. The use of softening language / disclaimers like "not all women" and "on average" don't help him.
No, those were quantifiers, not disclaimers.
And unlike President Trump for instance, Damos used quantifiers pretty well actually. Many feminists could learn a thing or two from him instead of using absolute quantifiers, or instead of using no quantifier at all.
3. He distributed the memo himself initially, expanding its audience, and should have known that such an inflammatory document would be more widely distributed once circulated.
He distributed the memo inside an official working group of ~8 people. He didn't expand the memo behind that. Others did it for him.
4. People complained and actually withdraw from job opportunities as a result. Snowflakes or otherwise, there was measurable damage done to Google's workplace.
Not to mention men.
I guarantee you that far many more men stopped applying to Google than women after their reaction to Damos.
I have no experience with SMS-based 2FA on Google to see whether or not it continues to send SMS even after TOTP has been set up...
Once your phone number has been confirmed (to avoid spambots from creating new accounts), you enter your email address and corresponding password. And once that email address/password combo is deemed correct, it gives you the choice of which 2nd-factor method you want to use. And no, if you don't choose the SMS option, you won't get the code through SMS. I swear to you that's how it works. In fact, the next time you use 2FA, just click on the little black triangle next to your default method of authentication, and you'll be given a bunch of choices (this is in case you ever put your phone's sim card into a non-Android phone, or in case you don't have your phone/tablet on you).
That kind of outdated information about SMS came mostly from pissed off Apple fanboys that were upset that Android users told them that it didn't matter how secure their iphone/iPad/Macbook were if their iCloud/Apple account didn't even have 2-factor authentication in the first place.
They sort of had to. If they had hired Chinese hackers, they would have used Google Translate to generate the content of their reviews. Plus just like with the Russians, their usernames would have been strangely stereotypical.
TexasCowboy928989, FatRichAmerican2949234, VanDamn192281, Schwarzeneger1292, McDonald9892, EvilAmericanEmpire3324, TonySoprano2134, BigMacAndFries90324
$150k is only for the removal of those cameras. The original cost was $3.6 million (paid by a grant from the DHS). However, the article doesn't say if the contractors removing the cameras get to keep them. If they were to keep them, I would expect some companies would be ready to offer to do that removal work for free.
Is that an admission that you were wrong? Or are you just moving the goalposts?
Because Google requiring a cell phone number with a working SMS for an initial set up, which can be changed afterward to TOPT, HOPT, or a recovery email address (all of which Google allowed you to do in 2010 from pretty much any platform by providing the source code, even before the RFC for TOPT was officially out of draft) seems to be a very far cry from what you initially wrote:
Another problem is sites that send SMS for every login attempt even for users who have a TOTP app set up as a second factor.
[...]
Google used to require SMS for 2FA but now appears to allow authentication using an Android device logged into Google Play Services.
In fact, I would argue that Google was a pioneer in providing this kind of convenience with 2FA. And it should be applauded for doing that, and not be put in the same category as Twitter for not even supporting that feature in the first place.
But some companies that offer 2FA appear to just not care
I'm not going to defend Twitter. If that's what they're doing, then they're idiots.
But I drive for Lyft (I used to drive for Uber). Lyft forces SMS 2FA for almost everything (but Uber doesn't, honestly, I'm not sure what Uber does from the consumer's perspective). And I believe that frequent SMS 2FA verification is a huge plus for Lyft.
As a driver, I need to have a valid cell phone number to SMS or call when I pick up someone. Data works, but not always. For instance, if someone's phone inadvertently connects to a Starbucks free hotspot but the user doesn't sign in, the data wouldn't be working. Or let's say, the user's cell provider gets too congested for some reason and they throttle his data connection, then that could mean a serious delay in that person getting the update that I'm parked in front and that I'm waiting for him/her.
So the solution is to use both data and sms when notifying a passenger that the car is there. And that's what Lyft does. And for that to work, that's why Lyft requires SMS 2FA frequently. It makes things so much easier and so much less stressful for the driver that way.
Of course, if you're traveling and only using a wifi tablet to call a car, then you're not going to like Lyft (you'll use Uber instead). And as a Lyft driver, I actually don't have a problem with that. And for other non-taxi/non-delivery apps using SMS-only 2FA, then they're just being stupid (probably for the sake of gaining as much accurate advertising data as possible). Consumers need to call them out on it.
Google used to require SMS for 2FA but now appears to allow authentication using an Android device logged into Google Play Services.
You're completely incorrect.
Google already had it and was even allowing you to port their code to your own TOPT 2-factor authentication client (in addition to HOPT) to use with their service since 2010!
That's right, 2010. That is not a typo. At the time, the official RFC was still being drafted.
Here is the PROOF:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100915000000*/http://code.google.com/p/google-authenticator/
In the context of business, this was non-obvious (nobody did this during the years and years of many e-commerce stores)
But that's the thing, that's not the case at all.
The one-click patent did have prior art in e-commerce, but it just took time and effort to uncover, prove, and file the paperwork (including paying the $2,520.00 filing fee!).
Why is Google taking an equity stake in a company that promotes such a toxic workplace?
This could be a way to ensure that Travis Kalanick and his co-founders cannot take back control of the company.
Right now, they still have way too many shares.
And yet, I've seen many reports/documentaries/reviews over the years that have objectively compared SatNavs with London cabbies, and the cabbies always win, sometimes by a comically wide margin.
And yet, that's not how real people use cabbies. Many of us need to be taken across Central London, not just within Central London (which is the only knowledge they're actually tested on).
This is not that I begrudge London cabbies for being more knowledgeable in general and for having lower turnover. I think that's great! But I also think they should drop the attitude and carry an internet capable phone with Google Waze or Google Maps on it. After all, their A-to-Z guide can only take them so far. That guide doesn't even contain business names. And it doesn't know about traffic conditions or special events either.
Having tried to navigate central London using a top-of-the-range SatNav, including all the whizzy new real-time this and traffic report that, this result does not surprise me in the slightest.
And that's your mistake right there.
Saying that you used a "top-of-the-range SatNav" instead of Google Maps or Google Waze proves to us that you're already out of touch with the state of the art mapping technology. Either that or that tells us that you're a truck driver and that you need a non-Google SatNav system only because your truck/caravan is oversized and you don't want the top part of your truck to run into a bridge (which is fine also, but it's also a different use case than having to use cabbies or Uber).
I agree, but I'd like to stress the following.
Fully humanoid looking robot nurses will be cool, but that's not what I'm advocating for in the short term.
In the short term, there are many simpler problems and low hanging fruits that robotics could help with that do not require the robot to have a full human-like body.
That's a good point, dead weight can be extremely difficult to lift. Add to that someone who has massive pain because their cancer has reached their nervous system and any slight movement in the wrong direction can throw them into agonizing pain.
And frankly, I don't know how nurses can do this as a career. It's grueling work. And it's super easy to become permanently injured doing it. I did this for my mother, but I would never be able to do it for perfect strangers, day after day. It's just too difficult.
Just being able to lift seniors in and out of bed, or readjusting the sheets, (without hurting the caregiver's back) would be a real boon to caregivers.
I'm a big guy myself, I know how to lift properly, but I still hurt myself taking care of my elderly mother (even though, home hospice care lent us a motorized hospital bed). And I can't imagine nurses doing this kind of work for very long if they hurt their lower back or get carpal tunnel syndrome after just a few weeks.
Hopefully, the app will work as a widget on the lock screen.
By the way, a lockscreen widget is what you want to use when you're video recording police officers, make sure your phone can still be locked when it's recording video (I'm only speaking about Android phones, I don't know if the iPhone has the same capability).
Eric was telling me about this newly coined phrase "Open Source".
That's probably not what happened. No one ever says: "We just came up with a totally new term to describe what we're doing."
No, it usually goes more like: "Hey, we're thinking of replacing 'free software' with 'open source'. What do you think? Do you think that term is going to be more understandable to people?"
And then someone else probably chimed in and said: "Yes, it makes perfect sense! I also love the fact that former government officials and CEOs will be thinking of 'second sourcing' when thinking of 'open source'. It sure beats thinking of 'free lunch' or 'free beer' everytime someone mentions 'free software'. It also helps that 'second sourcing' is credited for having jumpstarted our computer revolution by incentivizing Intel to share some of its trade secrets with AMD."
A pension plan is a safety net for your twilight years. In the US, not everyone gets one. To my lay knowledge, a pension is the only asset that can not be lost during bankruptcy proceedings. Repeated brain injuries can lead to a serious disability later in life. In my opinion, the one who suffered those injuries while married is the one who should receive most of those payments.
And I would be saying the exact same thing if, for instance, an NFL player's wife was more prone to get early dementia than her husband. In such a case, whether due to genetics or to a serious car accident, I would allocate more of that pension to her if I thought that was the case.
But I suppose, it's also a question of fairness. Since those brain injuries are directly related to the NFL career and to the NFL pension. And the couple wouldn't be receiving that generous pension without the husband receiving those brain injuries in the first place, I think the allocation of the pension during a divorce would need a more reasoned approach (instead of a simple blind 50% split).
I agree, but your approach may only help with a fraction of swatters. Many of those swatters are underage, or their families are already so deeply in debt, that an additional bill they don't pay won't do anything to them. No, in addition to all of what you're suggesting, I think that if you swat somebody (regardless of age):
* You should automatically lose your xbox (even a family one), any other gaming console, your computer (if it's in your room), your tablet (if any of your accounts are on it), your smartphone, your TV (if it's in your room), etc. (Confiscated by the police, but given to a non-police related charity)
* You're only allowed to purchase a dumb cell phone, that has gps tracking and navigation, but that has a pre-recorded outgoing message on it (similar in function to the outgoing messages prisoners have when they're calling from a prison's pay phone). Incoming phone calls come unaltered, but that's in case you need it for a job interview. And texting works, but everything would get logged through your carrier (for parental and police supervision).
* For school work, you're only allowed to own an electronic typewriter, or a non-networked dumb computer (from a pre-approved list). If teachers want you to do research on the internet, they'll have to give you printouts instead, or have you use the computers at the public library instead.
* You lose your right to privacy. It's like you'll be on parole. Cops will be able to visit your place, go through your stuff, and confiscate items anytime they want.
* If you have siblings, things can get more complicated. But if they're younger than you, they will also lose access to their smartphone, or other electronics in their room. If they're older, they'll be required to have those devices locked-down from you and physically locked away from you. But if there are gaming consoles anywhere in the house, or anywhere in the apartment, you're in. They get confiscated permanently and everyone in the family loses access to them (until your parole period ends).
* (Please feel free to add anything else you think I may have missed.)
Did Amazon really do that to you? Or was it one of their affiliates? Do you think it was done on purpose so they could sell the item to someone else at a higher price? Or did that item have many returns for quality defects?
It's time we start ending school sponsored football programs.
It's also time we stop awarding half of a player's NFL pension to a wife who divorces him.
If you don't want to take care of a husband with brain damage, I completely understand.
But you better leave his pension alone.
Or for soccer, just change the rules if that's the case.
In other words, if you're an NFL athlete.
The bad news: Your relatives, the younger ungrateful ones that have been mooching from you for your entire career, will be the only ones left to take care of you until you're 80 or 90 years old.
The good news: You'll have early Alzheimers and you won't remember a thing anyway.
The light blue is Nougat (v 7) 20.6%, NOT Gingerbread.
Gingerbread (v 2.3) is only 0.6% (it's a slightly different blue). Here, take another look at the original link you referenced.
And here is a less confusing graph with an even earlier date.
I'm not blaming you though, the Business Insider purposefully altered the original graph so it would tell the story they wanted to tell. And it took a while to figure it out myself, even though I knew that 20.6% of single-processor phones couldn't possibly be correct.
Google is not a player in this game, and be honest I really doubt they give a damn what gets developed as a "standard" Googles stance has EVERYTHING to do with attacking Apple and Microsoft.
No, Google is trying to prevent fragmentation by trying to reign in Samsung. At this point, it couldn't care less about Apple or Microsoft. HTC is the second player in the Android space which has a pressure sensitive pen. Google already owns HTC (the mobile part). But even before Google purchased HTC, HTC had already adapted its pen API to work with the standard Android API.
And despite the fact that Samsung is using Wacom technology for its pen technology, Samsung is still insisting that developers use its proprietary pen API. Samsung is doing this because it knows it has the largest market share of pen-enabled devices among Android manufacturers, so it knows that app developers are not going to ignore it in favor of the so-called "standard" one offered by Google.
Atomic bomb? I think you meant to say Chernobyl, Long Island, and Fukushima. Those were not atomic bombs.