Just add some UserMode Linux kernel, just to have the full GNU/Linux stack for extra geek points.
Seriously, that seems to be the extent of the logic some of the manufacturers use. Apple has/had an obsession with thin, Apple did well, therefore we need to have an obsession with thin.
Personally, I say fuck that. Phones have gotten anywhere from thin enough to too thin. I had a Note 3 for a few years, which I was completely fine with in terms of thickness. However I recently got an LG G5 which is just slightly thicker, and I actually like it better. The slight extra thickness, combined with rounded edged, makes it really comfortable to hold. Of all the smartphones I've had it fits in my hand the very best. I think they've got it pretty close to perfect in therms of thickness.
Oh and it manages to have a removable battery, headphone jack, and SD card so that's nice as well.
I get annoyed with the worship of the cult of thin. I understand the interest back in the day, I had an early Windows CE smartphone which was a massive brick and ya, I wanted something smaller. However we have gotten to the point where they are plenty thin enough and going thinner is less ergonomic, not more.
Hashes...? Darwin In Action. Your human evolutionary selection will faver bad speling from now on. No! We mean URLs! +#hastTagWarz ?Add=aField&Remove=uniqueIDpowerfjonrfoijnqrf&Remove=ArticleSelector free speech collateral damage resulting in, "An unexpected censorship error has occurred. No one is available to figure out why Life Sucks, but the suckage sure eats a lot of money an effort. Just like cell phones... swallow.
None of that makes alternate media any better. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the problems media has. Indeed it is healthy and necessary as the only way we can hope to improve it is to point out the problems and demand that they be improved upon.
The issue is that is not what many of the people who call themselves skeptical of the media are doing. Rather they seem to be taking the view that MSM is bad so that means whatever alternate media site they read is good and accurate all the time. They'll be critical of CNN or the New York Times often to an unreasonable degree, but then accept without question or analysis things from Brietbart or Infowars.
That is completely silly, of course. The idea that because a site is not "mainstream" they must do a good job reporting is bunk. Being "alternate" is no guarantee of any sort of journalistic standards, or any process to try and combat bias. On the contrary, many explicitly have a viewpoint they are pushing, to try and capture a certain part of the market.
That really is why most people like them, and dislike more mainstream sites. It isn't that they are actually critically evaluating the news's failures, rather it is they disagree with what they are saying. So they find another site that says things they agree with, and they decide that means they must be telling the truth. They aren't actually doing any critical analysis, just trying to find places that say things they agree with.
It is like a person who is skeptical of a diagnosis from a doctor, but will unquestioningly accept the diagnosis of a homeopath.
My phone (LG G5) supports it because it has a Snapdragon 820. That's great and all, but there aren't a lot of devices out there that are so new. So no real point in Netflix supporting it. They'd need to wait a few years for enough people to replace their hardware with new units.
I own all of them, but to be honest I haven't cracked any book at work since at least 2009. I work on a web services-based POS, a fairly advanced but typical piece of technology for the working world. My comment shouldn't apply to programming in a research environment, but most people aren't doing that type of programming. I'm talking about your average piece of software.
Most programming "in the real world" is maintaining other people's code and making incremental improvements.
The first art of computer programming is figuring out other people's mistakes and correcting them. The second art of computer programming is communicating the work you've done to the next person. The third art is writing code that is so straightforward that an inexperienced programmer can understand what you did so that he can fix your bugs and make his own incremental improvements.
The information in textbooks and books such as TAOCP has been available online for a decade. On the rare occasion that you as a programmer have to do a computer science-y thing, a Google search followed by research is your best course of action. Using books is just outmoded nowadays.
I've been programming since the 1980's so take this with a grain of salt. If you still use your dead tree library then more power to you. There is a different style of programming for every programmer. We have three full-time programmers here and we all have radically different styles but we barely write down anything and there isn't a single programming book in our current office. We barely use paper anymore. I personally write down no more than about 50 words a week.
There is a philosophy I subscribe to that if you can't explain something to your mother, then you don't understand what you're doing well enough. TAOCP is dense stuff. The information is there, and it is conveyed correctly. But that's the science, not the art, of computer programming. Sorry, Knuth.
I mean the newest devices support it in hardware, but it has to be a very new chip to have H.265 support. The vast majority of devices in use don't. For computers you could do it in software but that isn't ideal, since H.265 decoding is rather heavy so you'd hit the CPU pretty hard, whereas hardware accelerated H.264 would hit it almost not at all. For mobile/embedded devices though it just won't work. Too CPU intensive to do in software, so people need a new device.
In an emergency, you're supposed to be able to break a car's side windows.
I supposed the "sun-cooked" guy had passed out (alcohol ? heat shock, while he was asleep ?) before realising he should get out of the car.
I'm more surprised that the thief didn't try to break out of the car. But, on the other hand the lock has happened while he was napping inside the car, so he might not have realised what had happened and did not release he should run away as fast as possible before the police arrives.
I would be much more worried about the remote disabling of the car :
- was some form of owner's access required in order to do the disabling ? (i.e.: the owner's second fob is needed in order to validate the instruction to lock and ignore the stolen fob ?)
- or does any sufficiently high executive at BMW have the power to shut down any random car ?
Also : is the remote access limited to very simple instruction (locking doors and revoking fobs - which as mentioned above shouldn't be dangerous except under special circumstances) or can the car be remotely shut down while it is driving ?
Hence what I said about "overly literal geeks". You think so long as you can find something that you consider to be logically consistent, that'll work and you are out of trouble. I'm telling you that is NOT how it works in a court. They very much take the "reasonable man" approach and factor in intent. Doesn't matter how clever you think you are, what matters is what the law says and how the judge applies it.
You are inside the Democratic Party, a place of broken dreams.
There are some abandoned fireworks on the ground here.
There is a shiny brass collar nearby.
There are some tasty memes here.
There is a bottle of tears here.
Fair arguments but I think you are assuming that their means of getting around will be too much like ours. Forget space ships. Consider a plume of information laded bacteria squirted up out of the atmosphere into the path of an orbiting asteroid. They splat on to the surface, some survive and grow into a new spacegoing species.
You are inside a building, a well house for a large spring.
There are some keys on the ground here.
There is a shiny brass lamp nearby.
There is tasty food here.
There is a bottle of water here.
Yeah "to same the degree as the Aliens in Blindsight" .
The survey ranking of the top 3 winning technology leaders is no surprise whatsoever. One of them is revolutionizing the EV, energy, space and transport sectors with a large number of leading technologies and hence gives people great hope for the future, while the other two are best known for their profiteering and abuse of the public. It's hardly a contest.
If you want to be known as a technology leader then you shouldn't be a leeching middleman as everyone will hate you, and rightly so. And if you do something technical then you should do it well, instead of doing it absolutely appallingly on purpose because that gives you greater profit --- I'm thinking of Amazon product search here, which is undoubtedly the worst search system that has ever been implemented in online shopping (advertising unrelated things in disguise). Prime Video has a similar purpose, mainly a vehicle for Amazon to put non-Prime content in front of you and make you pay for the privilege of their direct advertising. Oh and Bezos, you really shouldn't be abusing your employees either, it's bad karma.
Regarding Facebook, there's not a lot to say in terms of technology because all the company does is provide a website which monetizes and hence abuses people, so you have to scrape the barrel to find anything technical at all to say about them. One example of FB tech is that their techies release some fine open-source packages behind the scenes (only programmers hear about this though), but this is incidental to FB's primary product which offers no technical leadership at all. In fact they've given us technical regression since FB has closed off much public communication into a walled garden. Zuckerberg offers no hope at all.
So there we have it, not really a contest among those three. I'm sure there must have been other worthy companies in the surveyed 700, but among these three corporate leaders only Musk deserves to be called a technology leader. The other two should be filed under "Abuse for profit".
"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics