As phones became more powerful, applications were using more battery. So people were all over the manual ways to preserve battery life. Software development on the relatively new phone OSes matured, and thus was able to move on to tackle "later" generation features like power-saving and efficiency (and the hardware became more efficient too, like the BT and GPS chipsets.)
Users usually lag behind stuff like this, and end up with habits of things they used to have to do long after the problem has been largely addressed in software optimization and feature work.
The point was don't force quit apps to save battery life. If you want to force quit apps because you're paranoid, then go for it.
Might as well turn the phone off tho - how do you know force quitting apps actually stops it? How do you trust anything at all on your phone if you don't trust that an app does what the developer publishes that it does?
For apps you don't use. What's your insinuation here, that every app you have installed you use at least once during one powered on cycle of your phone?
Because then you'd be using resources to open every single app, many of which you may not ever end up using, which would also be wasteful of battery power.
Re-opening it takes more power than unpausing it from the background. Like, the difference between hibernating and rebooting your entire computer. Applications do a lot of work when they are booted from an initial state vs coming back from sleeping. I guess your argument is that they should be designed to boot from initial state as efficiently as possible. In general, that's going to be a goal of the developer, but it'll never be as efficient as coming back from a state when some of the work performed when starting the application is already done and cached somewhere.
A lot of other countries have single payer health care, and none of those laws exist in those countries. Preciously because we can afford to take care of people even if their health problems are their fault.
I don't get that slippery slope argument. Some Americans don't travel much, it seems.
I didn't say that any specific wars were a benefit to society. But having an actual national defense most certainly is. Are you saying that the military shouldn't exist in the first place?
Of course there is. There is. You're living in it. Sorry if you don't find life reasonable, but I'll conclude that's more a matter of your disfunctionality over objective reality.
Do you have teenagers? get one of them to go up to a homeless person and offer them the a few bucks and a few smoked to go buy them a pack of smokes.
You just described having to do additional work to get cirgarettes. Some teenagers don't feel comfortable doing that (nevermind having to give the homeless guy extra money just to do it.) - just as some kids don't feel comfortable sneaking into restricted movies by themselves.
The way some people talk, it's like no teenage on earth follows rules and laws out of principle, and that's just plain demonstrably incorrect.
nobody ever waited for their birthday to start smoking
Out of the millions and millions of people who have smoked, obviously, some people have. I know of several people personally. The same goes for drinking. Some kids felt comfortable doing something even if it was against the rules. Others felt uncomfortable breaking the rules, and thus didn't try smoking or drinking until they were of age.
I understand why they're linked - but you don't have the choice to do whatever you want. Certain choices are illegal, and sometimes it depends what age you are at when you make those choices. Do not make the fallacy that people fight in wars for the freedom to do literally anything you want free of legal consequence.
One thing is risky because it's dangerous to serve in the military to defend the geopolitical interests of your country, while the other thing is dangerous because it's a drug that carries significant health risks.
I don't see why you think you're being smart by appealing to treat these things the same way.
Vehicles are also very dangerous, but using vehicles provides a massive net benefit to society that cigarettes do not. It doesn't take a genius to understand why in actual fact, legally and socially, we view and legislate these activities differently.
Actual data on the subject says otherwise. And even common sense points out why this is true. When you make it more difficult for people to get something, it shouldn't be surprising that overall usage goes down a certain amount as for some people, the inconvenience of acquiring that thing outweighs their desire to acquire it.
Nobody thinks it will stop smoking entirely. But it will reduce the amount of people who start smoking.
Or in the real world of adults who don't poop their pants when discussing reasonable compromises on personal freedom, how about we set some reasonable compromises?
We collect some data, notice that when you raise the smoking age to 21, significantly less people start smoking when they're young, and call it a reasonable tradeoff on freedom to buy a product that is mostly known for being bad for you.
And we have laws on cars, extreme sports, and such. And those laws change over time, often times raising restrictions (and of course sometimes lowering them) when it's determined that it provides a benefit to overall safety and public health.
I doubt the purchase of a gas powered car will be impossible in France. There are basically no details at all at how they plan to ban gas powered cars, but chances are that there would be exceptions if you want to buy it for the purpose of putting it in a show room, or converting it to electric, or things that don't subvert the intent of the ban.
Point being, there are lots of rules about what things you can buy, and how you need to buy them. The barrier to owning things can be pretty high depending on what it is you want to buy. It's silly to assume in light of virtually no set details that the same won't apply to gas powered cars in France.
There are a million things you're not allowed to buy. Your freedom of choice is basically an illusion. For instance, you're not allowed to buy a car that violates all kinds of safety rules. You can't buy many dangerous chemicals. You can't buy a bazooka.
Also, that's a great story. I'm so happy for you. I have no idea what you're trying to prove with it. yard power tools are not a significant source of pollution, so they haven't been targeted. If the point is that the market sometimes eventually selects products that are better for everyone's well being, uh, okay. But it doesn't say anything with respect to if it selects quickly enough, nor consistently enough. Your faith in the market is just that - faith that it solves problems that it demonstrably doesn't always solve.
We've been having fun with it for decades and decades. The key is to be welcome to them, embrace their culture and contributions, and they turn into great Canadians of their own volition.
They use IP addresses (and other fingerprint stuff like browser agent, etc) - even if it's not always accurate, it's better than nothing. The worst thing they do is serve you an incorrectly targeted ad. You don't notice it, and those kinds of things just somewhat lower the effectiveness of targeted ad buys. There's an accepted, if difficult to accurately measure, margin of error in targeting that advertisers and ad publishers accept in media buys.
Slashdot Mirror
As phones became more powerful, applications were using more battery. So people were all over the manual ways to preserve battery life. Software development on the relatively new phone OSes matured, and thus was able to move on to tackle "later" generation features like power-saving and efficiency (and the hardware became more efficient too, like the BT and GPS chipsets.)
Users usually lag behind stuff like this, and end up with habits of things they used to have to do long after the problem has been largely addressed in software optimization and feature work.
Not really. But what's important is that you do whatever helps you *feel* good, because lord knows that users always know better. ;)
The point was don't force quit apps to save battery life. If you want to force quit apps because you're paranoid, then go for it.
Might as well turn the phone off tho - how do you know force quitting apps actually stops it? How do you trust anything at all on your phone if you don't trust that an app does what the developer publishes that it does?
Why have a non-frozen closed state at all?
For apps you don't use. What's your insinuation here, that every app you have installed you use at least once during one powered on cycle of your phone?
Because then you'd be using resources to open every single app, many of which you may not ever end up using, which would also be wasteful of battery power.
Re-opening it takes more power than unpausing it from the background. Like, the difference between hibernating and rebooting your entire computer. Applications do a lot of work when they are booted from an initial state vs coming back from sleeping. I guess your argument is that they should be designed to boot from initial state as efficiently as possible. In general, that's going to be a goal of the developer, but it'll never be as efficient as coming back from a state when some of the work performed when starting the application is already done and cached somewhere.
This is not rocket science.
A lot of other countries have single payer health care, and none of those laws exist in those countries. Preciously because we can afford to take care of people even if their health problems are their fault.
I don't get that slippery slope argument. Some Americans don't travel much, it seems.
I didn't say that any specific wars were a benefit to society. But having an actual national defense most certainly is. Are you saying that the military shouldn't exist in the first place?
There is no "reasonable compromise" on freedom.
Of course there is. There is. You're living in it. Sorry if you don't find life reasonable, but I'll conclude that's more a matter of your disfunctionality over objective reality.
Agreed, but it's a losing war to try and point out things in objective reality here. Not a lot of actual professional programmers around these parts.
Do you have teenagers? get one of them to go up to a homeless person and offer them the a few bucks and a few smoked to go buy them a pack of smokes.
You just described having to do additional work to get cirgarettes. Some teenagers don't feel comfortable doing that (nevermind having to give the homeless guy extra money just to do it.) - just as some kids don't feel comfortable sneaking into restricted movies by themselves.
The way some people talk, it's like no teenage on earth follows rules and laws out of principle, and that's just plain demonstrably incorrect.
nobody ever waited for their birthday to start smoking
Out of the millions and millions of people who have smoked, obviously, some people have. I know of several people personally. The same goes for drinking. Some kids felt comfortable doing something even if it was against the rules. Others felt uncomfortable breaking the rules, and thus didn't try smoking or drinking until they were of age.
I understand why they're linked - but you don't have the choice to do whatever you want. Certain choices are illegal, and sometimes it depends what age you are at when you make those choices. Do not make the fallacy that people fight in wars for the freedom to do literally anything you want free of legal consequence.
Maybe I should rephrase - the majority of the population doesn't see any benefit to society from smoking.
One thing is risky because it's dangerous to serve in the military to defend the geopolitical interests of your country, while the other thing is dangerous because it's a drug that carries significant health risks.
I don't see why you think you're being smart by appealing to treat these things the same way.
Vehicles are also very dangerous, but using vehicles provides a massive net benefit to society that cigarettes do not. It doesn't take a genius to understand why in actual fact, legally and socially, we view and legislate these activities differently.
When you say something, it doesn't make it true.
Actual data on the subject says otherwise. And even common sense points out why this is true. When you make it more difficult for people to get something, it shouldn't be surprising that overall usage goes down a certain amount as for some people, the inconvenience of acquiring that thing outweighs their desire to acquire it.
Nobody thinks it will stop smoking entirely. But it will reduce the amount of people who start smoking.
How about we forbid people ALL unhealthy behavior
Or in the real world of adults who don't poop their pants when discussing reasonable compromises on personal freedom, how about we set some reasonable compromises?
We collect some data, notice that when you raise the smoking age to 21, significantly less people start smoking when they're young, and call it a reasonable tradeoff on freedom to buy a product that is mostly known for being bad for you.
And we have laws on cars, extreme sports, and such. And those laws change over time, often times raising restrictions (and of course sometimes lowering them) when it's determined that it provides a benefit to overall safety and public health.
Because one act contributes to society while the other is costly to society.
I doubt the purchase of a gas powered car will be impossible in France. There are basically no details at all at how they plan to ban gas powered cars, but chances are that there would be exceptions if you want to buy it for the purpose of putting it in a show room, or converting it to electric, or things that don't subvert the intent of the ban.
Point being, there are lots of rules about what things you can buy, and how you need to buy them. The barrier to owning things can be pretty high depending on what it is you want to buy. It's silly to assume in light of virtually no set details that the same won't apply to gas powered cars in France.
There are a million things you're not allowed to buy. Your freedom of choice is basically an illusion. For instance, you're not allowed to buy a car that violates all kinds of safety rules. You can't buy many dangerous chemicals. You can't buy a bazooka.
Also, that's a great story. I'm so happy for you. I have no idea what you're trying to prove with it. yard power tools are not a significant source of pollution, so they haven't been targeted. If the point is that the market sometimes eventually selects products that are better for everyone's well being, uh, okay. But it doesn't say anything with respect to if it selects quickly enough, nor consistently enough. Your faith in the market is just that - faith that it solves problems that it demonstrably doesn't always solve.
We've been having fun with it for decades and decades. The key is to be welcome to them, embrace their culture and contributions, and they turn into great Canadians of their own volition.
> motorcycles and scooters, they are much more environmentally friendly
Uh, no.
Not much of a dis coming from an AC.
Read the ruling, dumbass.
They use IP addresses (and other fingerprint stuff like browser agent, etc) - even if it's not always accurate, it's better than nothing. The worst thing they do is serve you an incorrectly targeted ad. You don't notice it, and those kinds of things just somewhat lower the effectiveness of targeted ad buys. There's an accepted, if difficult to accurately measure, margin of error in targeting that advertisers and ad publishers accept in media buys.