The problem is, it's essential for businesses to focus on their core mission, the things they are good at, and pay others to provide supporting operations.

By your logic, if you're an app developer, you should also write your own operating system, to make sure you aren't at the mercy of someone else's. If you're a delivery service, you should also build your own vehicles, to make sure you aren't at the mercy of someone else's automotive decisions. If you're a restaurant, you should also grow your own crops and raise your own meat, to make sure you're not at the mercy of fluctuating market prices. While each of these scenarios sometimes happens, they are rare, and for most, not practical.

No, I disagree completely with your premise. If you're a software developer, stick to what you're good at. Leave the infrastructure to the infrastructure pros. Almost NO software companies are actually good at running and maintaining their own infrastructure.

Sure, I grant that it would be hard to run a large open source project without AI. That's a different problem. If anything, your objection is an endorsement of AI. We've gone from "AI isn't any good" to "We would be hard pressed to run an open source project without AI."

Indeed. There's no doubt that:
- AI wrote the code
- AI wrote the unit tests
- AI did the pull request review
- AI approved all of the above

What could possibly go wrong?

Not someone, some AI coding bot.

Here's the thing. Maybe many of the alternative app stores will do the same crappy stuff. But can you guarantee me that *all* of them will?

Think about brick-and-mortar stores. There are a whole lot of crappy stores, but there are also a lot of average stores, and some really good ones. Why wouldn't it make sense to believe that the same pattern would apply to Android stores?

Nobody's forcing you to sign up for these alternative app stores. But as it is now, you don't have a choice. I'd rather people be able to make their own choice, than Google make the choice for all of us.

You "refute" that alternative stores won't provide competition? Based on what? Your opinion?

How about economists put their heads together and propose some solutions, instead of just whining about problems?

They can't even agree on the problems, let alone what the solutions might be!

That's what you do in war.

We already send kids to school in the dark in winter. With permanent DST, we'd just do so a couple of weeks longer on both ends of the winter season.

What's the fun of using a tool to argue? It's much more fun to argue with no underlying basis at all!

Why?

The point of permanent daylight time, is that it gives the majority of people more daylight hours after they end their workday.

Do you have some actual reasons for not thinking time zones make sense?

Your argument makes sense as supporting getting rid of twice-yearly time changes. But it doesn't really favor permanent ST over DST.

Why would you think a "one size fits all" solution is best? When is it *ever* best?

The reality is, schools aren't going to adjust their operating hours twice a year, if this law passes. So you can relax about dealing with work hours conflicts (more than you already do).

This is specifically regarding Google Play Store, not Android generically.

Maybe not good, but better. Competition is a wonderful thing.

Remember when you had to sideload Amazon's video app? Now, Amazon (and other companies) will be able to set up their own stores, which will result in more choices for customers. I don't see how this isn't a good thing.

Why is malware distributed by third party app stores, worse than malware distributed by Google Play Store? You do realize malware is already rampant in Google Play, right? https://www.malwarebytes.com/b...