It would be less weird if there was any feasible strategy for releasing an app that Apple doesn't take a cut from. Unless you pay for 0 apps, you are supporting Apple with recurring service revenue.
I posted (about three years ago now) in a Who Wants to be Hired thread. Admittedly, it was kind of on a whim, since I’d just left a job in operations after feeling burnt out, and thought I might dip my toes in the water of software dev full-time. I was contacted by four or five companies, I interviewed with three, and landed a gig with the company I’m still with currently.
For what was a two sentence post I made thinking it wouldn’t really amount to anything, it turned out to be one of the best moves I’ve made. (For both parties, I’d say.)
You have a point, but that's also where you come off as indecisive. Since the question was explicitly about that that, presenting 3 options, one of which you have reasons against, when we're all busy and meeting time is constrained, is, in the abstract, a waste of everybody's time. If later on, someone comes up with objections; options A won't work because problem X, option B has issues Y and Z, then sure, bring up option C, which addresses X and Y but has other issues, for further debate, but unless that happens, that's time wasted. imo.
This does hinge on you knowing what you're talking about, and rejecting option C for unbiased reasonable logical reasons you're sure about.
If you’re referring to game dev specifically, there have been (and continue to be) concerns around the weight of C++ exception handling, which is deeply-embedded in the STL. This proliferated in libraries like the EASTL. C++ itself however is intended to have as many zero-cost abstractions as possible/reasonable.
The cost of exception handling is less of a concern these days though.
It seems a bit naive, given his list of business successes, to think that the positive things that happen at these companies under his leadership only happen because his employees overcame him as the obstacle to success.
I can understand not liking his politics or what have you, but logically speaking, what you’re suggesting doesn’t make any sense.
Would it be asking too much for you to argue in good faith? That would stop the discussion from derailing. If you can't then maybe don't comment at all?
You would have to be an utter idiot to believe otherwise given how strong their surveillance apparatus is and the type of equipment it took to break through the barrier.
Do you have any legit source to support that claim ?
It's really surprising indeed that they were not aware of the attack and that they could not defend their settlements. But that could also be explained by thinking themselves untouchable, leading now to an overreaction to hide their responsibility in this failure to protect their citizens.
There's plenty of circumstantial evidence to support this. Somehow Israel, which has one of the best spy programs on the globe, completely missed any and all planning of Hamas forces to... drive a tractor into a fence for several hours.... but they're perfectly capable of coming up with calls from Hamas militants after the fact. And their utterly superior military force was somehow unable to stop this supposed massacre for hours after it had begun? There's being drunk on kool-aid and then there's snorting the powder straight out of the package. And Hamas, which launched 36K projectiles from 2001 to 2023 at Israel and managed to kill less than 100 people, magically was able to kill 1400 people in no time flat, and just trust them because they're Israel. Hamas is able to list the names and ages and localities of every single person that Israel slaughters, but Israel somehow doesn't have the advanced capabilities to do the same.
It's an awful funny coincidence that Netanyahu, who had been under political and prosecutorial pressure, suddenly and magically found himself a new conflict to embroil himself in so that he could take additional powers for himself.
I don't think there is a legit source to support that claim. But, there is some precedent, the Israeli hawks need Hamas as much as Hamas needs them and in the past they have actually propped up Hamas because they couldn't stomach the likes of Abbas who might be able to successfully establish a Palestinian state. This whole conflict is kept alive by stupidity like that (and the continued settlement program, which is effectively an unofficial way to keep expanding Israel without directly being as accountable).
I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to argue that YouTube has an effective monopoly in the video sharing space. Yes, there are certainly other platforms — Vimeo, Rumble, etc. — but purely in terms of reachability, YouTube absolutely holds near-absolute reign here. Trying to effectively monetize video content on other platforms, from what I understand, is extremely unlikely for the vast majority of creators.
And while there’s a valid counter-argument in some of the numbers creators on X have put up (e.g., Tucker Carlson), those are really the exceptional cases.
I could see Brand going straight over to X, but I don’t know if that’s sufficient to really argue that YouTube isn’t effectively a monopoly in the space.
Getting the UI for that right seems like the real trick. We have checkboxes and radio buttons that are well-understood to give us the thing(s) that are selected or checked, but we don’t have anti-checkboxes.
We actually do. Thanks to the "indeterminate" state on HTML checkboxes (that one where it's sort of filled in instead of checked), you can use unchecked for "exclude" or "must not have", indeterminate for "don't care" or "both" and checked for "include" or "must have".
Unfortunately, in typical browsers there is no way for the user to set them back to indeterminate unless the developer implements that using javascript.
An interesting suggestion, but ‘indeterminate’ maps to nullish values, not to negative values.
If you have options such as “oak”, “teak” and “walnut”, and there are some options outside of those, how do you allow users to select neither oak, teak or walnut? It’s not through selecting one or all as indeterminate — it’s gotta be through some other mechanism.
In truth, it's something that the majority of people will never feel the need to use. So it could realistically be hidden/unlocked upon request. In fact, it would probably be better UX/UI to have it as a directive in an Advanced Search interface.
Just have boolean operators and a little tooltip how to write them. Abstraction here isn’t needed. You have to learn the ux anyhow, may as well have the users learn boolean operators so you don’t have to bother with a ux that might end up not being that optimal in the end.
Most filters don't work like that. If you check a box, it excludes everything without that facet. If you uncheck a box, that facet is ignored (it is neither included nor excluded.)
For example, if I want to search for size-9 blue Adidas shoes, I find the three checkboxes for "9", "blue" and "Adidas" in the shoe department. If I uncheck "blue" then the search will show me every size-9 Adidas shoe, whatever its color.
Since unchecked boxes are simply ignored, there is no signal I can use in such a filtered search to exclude facets which I specify. I have never seen a filtered-search interface which permits this in the sectors where I most need it.
For example, search for a therapist who practices CBT. Easy. Now try listing all therapists who do not practice CBT. Impossible!
