Git is perfectly capable of having a repo that is considered the "single source of truth". All you have to do is tell everyone which repository to consider the "main" one.

The reason it's fine to use any random developer's git repository to restore is because the data's integrity is guaranteed by git's design. Let's say you had some disaster and lost your repository. Suppose you found a random developer (that you don't necessarily trust) who has a git repository that is a clone of your old, destroyed repository. You can safely and confidently restore from his copy so long as they have a commit id (hash) that matches exactly with a known hash from the original repository. If the hashes match then his copy at that commit is guaranteed to exactly match, bit for bit, your original repository. Compromising that integrity would be extraordinarily hard.

Of course you shouldn't rely on random developers having copies, just out of pure luck. Make your own backups and keep them safe.

Ever actually watch the closed captions? The data isn't as accurate or consistent as you may hope.

If such were the case, Google surely would have been sued to the brink by its shareholders by now.

This permission grouping is the exact opposite direction that Android permissions should be heading. There are a number of permissions, such as "Read Phone State and Identity" that should be broken up because they aren't even strongly related to each other.

You're not a real coder unless you write your own OS, processor microcode, support libraries, network architecture and programming language before you make your application. Otherwise, you're just letting other people do the hard work for you!

Do see what a bad place this line of thinking takes you? If you want to get anything done, you have to reinvent the world. Imagine if everybody did that... how slow development would be and how slightly incompatible everything would be.

Go ahead and proceed with your elitist worldview. If you need me, I'll be over here, being productive and shipping actual products.

So JQuery doesn't support your esoteric, out of mainstream, unnamed browser, but it works just fine for 99% of the world who do use mainstream browsers. Therefore JQuery is a bad solution? JQuery only has the developer mind\time resources to support only so much stuff. They just can't support everything, as that draws time\attention away from making the mainstream use cases work (read: use cases that are important to everyone else).

Faulting JQuery for not supporting your oddball browser is like faulting Adobe for not bringing Photoshop to FreeBSD; there are precisely 6 people who would use Photoshop on FreeBSD, so they choose to spend their time on other things.

Who says you have to query inefficeintly? Just query once and save the result somewhere. Just because it's possible to do something the wrong way doesn't mean JQuery is bad. There are ways to shoot yourself in the foot on every platform ever made.

You can always search with the word "near". "Pizza near Anytown, USA"

Git is a great system, but it relies on SHA1. If SHA1 has feasible attacks, is git going to stay on SHA1 or will it move to something more secure? Can it even do so without breaking compatibility?

It's perfectly ok to sell Android and Linux according to the GPL, the license used by Linux.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney

The lightning connector is nice, but it's limited to only Apple products, thus its usefulness as a technology is limited. To reduce waste and for convenient charging, I wish everyone would agree on a nice reversible connector that is an industry standard, charges quickly regardless of manufacturer, and "just works". I somehow doubt Apple would go for that.

Micro USB is fine except the cables are always upside down (as they seem to exist in 4 spacial dimensions) and the cables break easily if you charge the phone while they're in your pocket, such as when using a portable battery.

Seriously bro? Any miniature benefit that digital audio signals would have given you is completely blown away by using speakers that are integrated into your monitor. Integrated speakers are just universally bad, full stop. I'm not talking about an audiophile's definition of bad, either; I bet my grandma could hear the difference.

I'd wager that given the same sound source, a stereo analog signal going into standard desktop computer speakers will sound better than your pure digital setup through your computer monitor.

If this was a troll, well, you deserve a beer, cause you got me.

Why do these assholes care so much?