Quality media sources do not report that someone is "an attempted murderer" unless they have been convicted. If you are reading from a media source that does not characterize this as alleged at this time, you are reading propaganda.
Edit: Okay, I see, you're differentiating between the charge and the action of "shooting in the face." My point still stands; this case has not gone to trial, and so everything the defendant is accused of remains alleged.
Anecdotally, my neighborhood seems to be 70% manicured “perfect” suburban lawns vs 30% natural yard. Our little neighborhood also has a LOT of thick wooded areas and tall grass. Guess which houses look and feel like they truly belong?
Also, we have native plants and wildflowers in our yard (haven’t gone full clover yet) and the amount of bugs and cute little critters around are incredible. So much life all bustling about. The bees love it, we had 6 different bumbebees across our 2 echinacea plants at the same time! So friggen cool to see.
If the Justice Department pushes ahead with a breakup plan, the most likely units for divestment are the Android operating system and Google’s web browser Chrome
Hell yes. If Android is divested from Google, that would significantly reduce Google’s attempts to lock down the OS, and would probably make alternative app stores more popular as the Play Store becomes just one of many options for manufacturers that would no longer be required to provide it on all Android devices.
And as for Chrome, about damn time. A browser with that much marketshare shouldn’t also be owned by the largest search engine and ad network. That’s just a recipe for monopolizing internet standards and access.
Another option would require Google to divest or license its data to rivals, such as Microsoft’s Bing or DuckDuckGo
More competition in the search engine space? Sign me up. Google has too much control over the quality of search results simply due to their size.
I think Google would definitely pay to be the default search engine for Chrome, and if Android was also split, then they would probably charge Chrome to be the default installed app.
Regardless though, I’m sure they’d be able to generate revenue from services akin to Google’s new AI features, where more “advanced” functionality is a subscription, that some users would be willing to pay, subsidizing the development cost for all the non-paying users.
Most likely the opposite would happen. With Android divested from Google, it would lose access to huge amounts of its R&D options. This means it’ll need to generate more money to be able to sustain itself and future growth. Companies aren’t going to want to pay more for Android and will start to spin off Android into their own custom versions that will more likely be more locked down, not less (for their profit maximization).
In the end, it would hurt Android and the smartphone market as a whole because this could cause Android to collapse, leaving iPhone the only option. No one could be able to compete because no one would buy a different smartphone. Smartphones are bought because of the apps they have (think of how many functions you use that need an app and can’t be done on a web page. Banking, delivery apps, taxi apps, discount programs, government, etc…). Now, try telling people they could buy a different smartphone but won’t be able to use any of those functions. No sale, one of the biggest issues to happen with the Windows Phone, the Sail OS phone, Firefox OS and why they fail. And companies won’t make apps for those phones as there aren’t enough users to justify the cost of making (chicken and egg problem).
A break up wouldn’t help the market, and would really be handing Apple a monopoly for smartphones on a silver platter.
spin off Android into their own custom versions that will more likely be more locked down, not less
I disagree. I agree they will make the user experience more locked down, but nobody will buy a phone which is only compatible with 6.73% of apps from whichever, as you correctly say, which means there’s no profit motive to lock down app compatibility.
Companies already spin off android into their own custom versions to maximize profit. Look at Samsung, for example, with all of their additional bloatware.
Android is open-source. Closing the source code for android would be so devastating for the platform’s app development, independent security researchers, and manufacturer customization, that it would probably hurt them more to lock it down than to keep it open.
If an alternative, entirely community-supported fork of Android were to be copied and maintained from the main branch of Android, it could still use every single APK that was available on the Play store, and every alternative app store, with no issues.
Sure, Android would likely lose some of the Google R&D money, but what has Google used a lot of that money for? AI features nobody asked for, benefits that only come from the use of Google’s entirely separate apps on the system, and system improvements that could be worked on with relatively similar speed by outside alternative ROM teams.
Plus, Android uses the Linux kernel, which is already supported by outside developers, and often gets security fixes that are pushed to Android without any involvement by Google in the development of the fixes.
Think less Samsung, and a whole lot more Amazon Fire OS. And if you think Google hasn’t been doing R&D for Android except for “useless” AI and something that could be done a small outside time… I don’t know what to say to you then. I guess modern Bluetooth stacks, newer technology support and functionality, embedded encryption, etc… must be easy? A lot of R&D is done on the not very flashy things as well.
I never meant to claim that Google hasn’t been doing any R&D that wasn’t those non-requested features. I was just stating that, for a company independently maintaining the OS, it would cost substantially less than what Google currently spends, since they would likely cut out more bloat, (and anything that’s Google-integration specific about Android development) and instead leave that to third-party developers, Google or otherwise.
Issue is, cutting bloat takes time and money that a smaller company would more likely view as taking away from new features which isn’t viewed as a good thing. Look at reviews for versions of Android and iOS that were more focused on cutting bloat and improving code vs versions that add to the OS. You’ll notice that focusing on code bloat and trimming gets at best “ho-hum” reviews with people complaining that “we’ve been waiting for a year for nothing” and “what’s the point of updating to this?”
Do you use Android? AI was the last thing on their minds for AOSP until OpenAI got popular. They’ve been refining the UIs, improving security/permissions, catching up on features, bringing WearOS and Android TV up to par, and making a Google Assistant incompetent. Don’t take my word for it; you’ll rarely see any AI features before OpenAI’s popularity: v15, v14, v13, and v12. As an example of the benefits: Google and Samsung collaborating on WearOS allowed more custom apps and integrations for nearly all users. Still, there was a major drop in battery life and compatibility with non-Android devices compared to Tizen.
There are plenty of other things to complain about with their Android development. Will they continue to change or kill things like they do all their other products? Did WearOS need to require Android OSes and exclude iOS? Do Advertising APIs belong in the base OS? Should vendors be allowed to lock down their devices as much as they do? Should so many features be limited to Pixel devices? Can we get Google Assistant to say “Sorry, something went wrong. When you’re ready: give it another try” less often instead of encouraging stupidity? (It’s probably not going to work if you try again).
Google does a lot of wrong, even in Android. AI on Android isn’t one of them yet. Most other commercially developed operating systems are proprietary, rather than open to users and OEMs. The collaboration leaves much to be desired, but Android is unfortunately one of the best examples of large-scale development of more open and libre/free systems. A better solution than trying to break Android up, is taking/forking Android and making it better than Google seems capable of.
Columbus Dispatch - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Columbus Dispatch:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Internet Archive:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
There are tons of statistical methods to get reasonable conclusions without an RCT. Some things can not be detected with an RCT, because the experiment is just impossible to run, so sometimes you need methods to do causal identification with observable data. Here you do not even need causal identification methods for observational data. You just need to do some descriptive statistics for a large group of people well to find interesting patterns. Whether this aging pattern in the mid-40s is causal it coincidental is not important at first. The pattern itself is interesting.
So, are they.eschewing religion becase of the mysogny but still believe the god bullshit ? Or because of the patently obvious bullshit about the god thing, ?
Miami Herald - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Miami Herald:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Internet Archive:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Texas Tribune - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Texas Tribune:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Internet Archive:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for NBC News:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Internet Archive:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
ABC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for ABC News:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Environmental Protection Agency - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Environmental Protection Agency:
> MBFC: Pro-Science - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Our memory is so unreliable. I have some very clear memories from my childhood that I can prove to myself couldn’t have happened the way I remember.
I have no reason to doubt this happened, especially since repressing memories is a trauma response, but proving it in court without good corroborating evidence is going to be nigh impossible.
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.