And any time a dependency breaks, there's a chance that the external fix will not come timely, or that whatever fix is right for you will not be compatible with that dependency's overall goal, so you'll end up maintaining an internal fork anyway.
I don't think there's a way around it. Professionals don't shy away from taking responsibility for all the code that goes into their product.
your post is FUD. that issus was solved immediately and the actually bug listed had nothing special to do with graphics and is just a bug like a bug in javascripy or the browser in general. a bug that was fixed. If you're going to off WebGL based on that bug then you'd better turn off your entire browser
Chrome itself doesn't have these issues. In particular it doesn't support features that would raise these kinds of issues. For one it's not supporting all of desktop opengl it's only supporting the subset that needed for WebGL. All of if is massively validated , shaders are rewritten, bound checked, memory cleared, clamps added, etc...
first they had fake reviews. Amazobn required actual purchases so companies would pay people to purchase and return. you can't ban returns otherwise there would be no negative reviews.
how can this be solved? some kind of reputation system? how would you lose rep?
I actually wish it was the default to have to ask for permission for mic and camera everytime. one extra click doesn't seem overly burdensome to me. I'd even prefer that for native apps.
This topic brings up the issue of wrapping in Japan. Japan is notorious for having excessive wrapping. Individually wrapped cookies in a box with a plastic tray to hold each cookie. The bottom half of the box is sealed with a plastic tear off cover. The top of the box slides over. Then the entire box is wrapped in paper. If you purchase if they will then put it in a branded paper bag. If it's raining they will then put that paper bag in a plastic bag to protect it from the rain. That's 6 levels of wrapping.
It's a cultural thing AFAICT. Sure people speak out once in while but it seems unlikely to change without some major major concerted national PR effort against it, getting celebrities, politicians, etc all on board pushing for months or years and possibly even organizing boycotts until things change. But, if someone wants to do their part of make a small dent here well, here's a project you can try to take on.
In the 1970s, I remember being out of town and buying a bag of doughnuts at a grocery store. I walked to the cashier who promptly asked me if I wanted it in a bag. There was a pause and I didn't know how to reply.
Eventually I said, "It's already in a bag."
On another note, there's a hilarious scene of Archie Bunker (All in the Family, also from the 1970s) in the kitchen making hiimself a sandwich and trying to unwrap a single cheese slice. These were relatively new then I believe.
>Individually wrapped cookies in a box with a plastic tray to hold each cookie.
When used in cases where an item should be consumed sparingly anyway (as with sweets), I don't see the individual wrappers as excessive. It helps keep the food from spoiling due to exposure, thus prolonging the useful life of the product.
Exactly. In Japan you're not expected to buy a box of cookies and stuff your face with all 1800 calories at once. You take out a couple of them when you have guests over, maybe someone takes one or two, the rest go back in the cupboard until next time.
In Japan major supermarket chains now give you a discount if you choose to refuse a bag, but it's on the order of 2 yen, and it's an "opt-out" thing rather than an opt-in thing.
In SA, you pay for any plastic bag that is bought at a supermarket or similar store. If it contains a product which is not perishable (like clothes), then you usually get a different type of paper or plastic bag with it without charge.
I think I said this in a funny way, because this slightly differs from store to store—I am not sure whether the regulations are applied uniformly. (Takeaways, for instance.) But yes, if it is perishable, then usually you pay for the bag.
> some major major concerted national PR effort against it, getting celebrities, politicians, etc all on board pushing for months or years
Why do you need PR when the parties responsible for all this wrapping are corporations? It’s not the dagashi down the street giving you six layers of wrapping.
When big corporations are doing something you don’t like, you don’t use PR to fix it. We’ve had plenty of PR about recycling in the US and it’s affected consumers plenty and corporations not—at—all (except where the responsibility ends up in the hands of individual consumers, like office managers.)
No, the way to make corporations change their behaviour, is to just make a law about it. For example, a “consumer waste reduction corporate tax incentive.” It’s the bottom line that says that extra wrapping is good (for some reason); so it’s the bottom line that needs to be convinced otherwise.
> When big corporations are doing something you don’t like, you don’t use PR to fix it.
> No, the way to make corporations change their behaviour, is to just make a law about it.
But for example society in the UK and US (not sure where else) has basically just decided that plastic straws are not acceptable, and major corporations have made huge changes in a matter of months to remove them. That's much faster than implementing a law.
It's not altruism, they're just getting ahead of changes in the law.
The EU announced[1] they were looking at banning single use plastics. It was after that announcement that lots of companies annoucned they were making changes. By getting ahead of the law they can brand it as doing something they didn't need to do. (Much like how UK phone companies announced they were "abolishing roaming charges" because they did it a few months before it was an enforced law.
They get to advertise their 'green' credentials while not moving themselves to an uncompetitive position in the long term.
All of what you're describing sounds like PR to me. The fact of the matter is Starbucks are reducing plastic straws and there is no law telling them to do so.
It's partly PR, and partly the ability to do things on your own terms. You do not want regulations forced on you, that is bad for the bottom line. You need to be in control. This is the story with self-regulation across industries.
> You do not want regulations forced on you, that is bad for the bottom line.
Also, self regulation can be safer in terms of come-back.
Where under an external regulatory pressure a misstep might result in some form of fine or at least a public outing. With self regulation many things can be more easily wrapped up with "oops, butter fingers! sorry, won't happen again" and all that might be more readily kept internal rather that having some form of issue reporting requirement enforced by the regulations.
But it is the companies creating positive PR by getting ahead of expected pressure.
I think what the earlier poster was talking about is using the relationship the other way around: the public using their relationship with the company to say "I could always vote with my feet/money you know, you might want to consider...".
It amounts to the same thing in the end (the pressure they are trying to stay ahead of is created by governments reacting to social change and environmental issues) but the earlier post was talking about more direct action. The more direct route can be quicker, but it requires more effort (well, some effort from more of the public) to be truly effective.
>We’ve had plenty of PR about recycling in the US and it’s affected consumers plenty and corporations not—at—all
That pile of used tires, cardboard, scrap metal, pretty much anything that's even slightly cheaper to recycle (into the same product like in the case of paper or something else in the case of vulcanized rubbers) than to make from scratch gets recycled wherever possible because there's a profit to be skimmed off of doing so.
Taxing people or corperations into doing what you want is a messy solution with all sorts of negative externalities (e.g. cost of compliance prevents competition and innovation). If all you care about is that the negative externalities not occasionally litter the side of the highway then I guess it's a win but I'd rather pay someone to clean up trash than drive extra business for people who make their living dealing with taxes.
the issue is culture. customers want this. it seems fancy/nice/luxury/high-class. so companies are not going to gut their own sales. If you want it to change imo you need to change the customers' minds so they actually want less wrapping.
corps have changed by PR. no demand = no sales = change.
> Why do you need PR when the parties responsible for all this wrapping are corporations?
Consider this from the perspective of the person in charge of packaging. They propose a change requiring costly re-tooling. It also changes the product's appearance and user's experience.
What is the benefit to this cost and this risk? Could the decrease in packaging give advantage to a competitor? If you deploy the marketing dollars to promote this trend, could a competitor piggyback on that by making the switch but not incurring the associated marketing costs? If they can't answer these questions--which itself costs time and money--the proposal is D.O.A.
> the way to make corporations change their behaviour, is to just make a law about it
How do you think one builds a coalition for getting a law passed?
How does block chain solve this problem any more than a plain old text file with your medical history?
IIUC the only thing keeping bitcoin's blockchain trustworthy is millions of people mining new coins and therefore distributively verifying the blockchain. Who would be doing that for your medical records and what would their incentive be to do it?
You need that text file signed by your previous doctors, and your new doctor needs to be able to verify the public keys of your previous doctors using some type of PKI. You also need to locally manage your health records data, its storage can't be easily automated and paid for. Blockchain solves all of those problems in one nice bundle, it provides PKI, signed log of changes, and distributed automated storage. That's one hell of a feature set.
As far as I understand the point is supposed to be the blockchain is distributed trust. The longest chain = proof of most work = the truth. The only reason someone can't basically change the entire history of the blockchain is because no one has 51% control of the chain. The only reason no one has 51% control of the chain in bitcoin is because so many people are mining it to earn coins.
But, for medical records there is no such incentive. Therefore anyone can easily change the records or add new ones and claim everyone else who has a shorter chain has the wrong chain (which will be like no one since there is no incentive to mine).
So I'm probably just informed how blockchain is supposed to help here. Without the distributed trust there's no plus to blockchain. And without the incentive to mine that generates millions of miners there is way to have the distributed trust.
I'm happy to be wrong but I haven't see an explanation how this issue is solved for all these non virtual currency uses cases.
Using bitcoin(I know less about how to store data into bitcoin transactions) you can execute a transaction and store a small piece of data that would be a reference to a larger blob of data, say an IPFS hash to an encrypted MRI image and the doctors notes. You use bitcoin to store the log of changes using reference to some type of immutable data store. It's imperfect, but can be built. The value add of the bitcoin here is it's extremely hard to create a false history and tell that as the real story.
Ethereum would be easier to understand and see what's going on because we have a reasonably readable contract language. You'd still likely need to store larger blobs of data using an external immutable data store, and those blobs wouldn't be automatically distributed and backed up. But you could pay for distributed backups in an automated way using ether. Lots of people working on this last part, which drastically reduces the potential size of the blockchain because it will only be afordable to log blob references and numerical values.
I was thinking in term of player base size. But now that I think about it more, player base size makes no difference in the context of this conversation.
Essentially, all software has a end of life. I'll grant that Apple has done work to maintain their software across major processor and operating system changes, but at some point that support is dropped.
Yes. Well, since 2002 some old versions aren't, but v7 onwards is. macOS is based on XNU and NeXTSTEP, which are based on Mach and BSD, but macOS is not solely a Unix system and few use it as such. In fact, if you were to make a program using only the FLOSS unixy parts of macOS, porting it to other POSIX systems would likely be trivial. I hardly even count that as "macOS software" in the exclusivity sense.
macOS being unix-based doesn't make it less proprietary. z/OS is Unix certified and proprietary as balls.
People forget that actual Unix descendants are really mostly proprietary. Linux and BSD are what we often think of today, but those are really more "Unix-like's" and many of the "true" Unixes tend to be proprietary systems like AIX, HP-UX, IRIX (now deceased), z/OS etc.
The bare core of macOS (Darwin) is open source, but pretty much everything people identify with macOS is proprietary code built on top of Darwin. You used to be able to get standalone distributions of Darwin (maybe you still can?) that people built from Apple's source and they were almost completely unrecognizable.
Right, that's my point. What most people associate with "macOS" is actually the stuff layered on top of Darwin, which is mostly proprietary. It's not just the GUI, it's also a lot of the frameworks and libraries as well.
Doubt it. There are still dozens of frameworks that still link to OpenGL, and Apple’d need to drop or update them all in a year. Most likely it will remain on the system for at least a couple years.
