The author of the app would rarely hear a complaint. They may see a download of a free app. What they wouldn't see is the uninstall or lack of use of the app and the competitor's app that gets downloaded as an alternative.

Who would hear about an app that didn't look or feel "right", or that lacked expected platform specific functionality? That would be friends, coworkers, classmates, etc. Rarely the author. As I said, its word of mouth that makes or breaks apps.

Numerous users of QT based apps say otherwise. Even when QT is using native widgets instead of emulating them.

Plus there is the whole issue of platform specific functionality and features that QT does not support.

Except that Uber is not asking to be serviced themselves, like the homeowner is. Uber is a middleman, an agent of the person asking to be serviced.

Again, fill out the form on the public side. Completely filled out. It doesn't need to got into the database until then.

(a) The people who need to access it can be on the air gapped side, analysts and such.
(b) One person's data can be extracted from the database, walked across the gap, and sent to someone who needs it. The point of the gap is to isolate the database with everyone's records, and the monitor/supervise data coming from and being sent to public networks. Individual records being worked on at a given moment can outside. Expose of data being minimized.

Such people can work on the air gapped side.

Again, I think the people doing the cross referencing, analysis, etc can be on the air gapped side. They can be a team with members from all relevant departments and agencies.

And does uber take note of things like that and react if it occurs "too often"?

Sounds like multiple part time employers.

Yeah, for a commodity product that competes on nothing other than price. However IOT devices may compete on functionality as well and/or start out as niche products not massively deployed products. I think your point may be more true of later generation devices than it is for initial generations.

I'm not so sure. What if an ultra-low-power ARM's cost is in the ballpark of an 8051? One might save on the software development and maintenance side by using a more modern and familiar CPU.

Look at desktop/laptop CPUs. They are grossly overpowered for many users. Why would iot devices follow a similar pattern if the costs are right?

Well bitcoin mining doesn't need much bandwidth. :-)

To be fair, low power embedded CPUs can be quite capable these days and are likely to only get more capable.

Is there a big advantage to going 8-bit 8051 over ultra-low-power 32-bit ARM these days?

Apologies for being not being clear but the fragment of a single file would be sent electronically via a network. The point is that the entire database does not need to be exposed and vulnerable to a single breach.

Entry occurs on the public side of the gap. An applicant's data gets transferred to electronic media and walked across the gap. The applicant's data then get merged into the air gapped database that holds *everyone's* data.

Remember, before cat-5 cables we had station wagons loaded with tapes and it worked quite well. :-)

Or someone does a malware scan of electronic media and if all clear they walk the media past the air gap.

Why is the entire file necessary for the interview? A relevant excerpt, only what the applicant claims with respect to Joe, can be walked back across that air gap and sent to the regional office. The interview results then get walked past the air gap and merged/appended to the file. Naturally what really gets walked across is a large number of excerpts and data to merge/append.

In short air gaps allow for electronic data input and output, just in a very controlled and monitored manner.

Not true. The agency can cut spending elsewhere to implement the requirement. Which is what Congress wants the IRS to do, while the IRS want to use the excuse of no new funding to maintain things as they are. It all just theatre.

Actually my criticism included that specific cliche, and my later examples referred to that specific cliche, and demonstrating a kernel of truth in that specific cliche refutes the assertion that the cliche is stupid. Its merely unimaginative.

Actually it seems a quite rare definition, possibly erroneous, buy hey its wiki. The wiki references include several dictionaries and they agree with the loss of impact. The wiki editor apparently lifted the definition from a literary device website. So we can go with dictionary, after dictionary, after dictionary, after dictionary, or some guy's literary device website.

Yeah, I really did check 4 dictionaries, I thought maybe I got lucky with the first but all 4 agreed.