Nuclear bombs are a problem because it’s something just a fucking insane genocide will use. Isn’t about it will do a lot of damage it’s cos it kills everyone in a big radius WO distinguish if they civilians or army.
yes. they should be tried for beating the man and looting his car.
whole situation was avoidable. who chases down a gang of hyped up teenagers over littering? one of the kids threw a bottle and now this guy has injuries, severe property damage and a bunch of his possessions stolen. he chose to escalate the situation. don’t escalate. move on with your life. especially if you have all your belongings in your car because you’re moving.
Anyone who looks at a situation where nobody died, and thinks it would have been better if people had been killed, is a violent person and a danger to others.
Look, there are literally two sides here. The situation that actually happened, and the situation you think would have been better.
Nobody died in reality, but your solution involves death, so I guess the real issue here is that you picked a side, and it’s a morally reprehensible one.
He escalated by getting out of his car? I agree that was stupid, he should have kept moving and not stopped for lights or stop signs, but it’s pretty crazy some cities are at the point where getting out of your vehicle is considered “escalating” and leads to your car being destroyed and being viciously beaten by a group of 40 children.
correct. assuming malice from the kids, Mr Uulu got out of the car to confront literal children. this is escalating a trivial incident to a confrontation. over a plastic bottle hitting his car.
I think it is unhinged that we allow people to drive tank sized SUVs and pickups in the first place so I don’t fault the teens for hating cars.
What a colossally dumb take. I’m sure this was totally an anti-car protest gone wrong. 🙄 Putting aside the fact that his car was literally a small sedan, which looks like a Toyota, I would pay good money to watch you go create “solidarity” against cars with this group of kids.
Then there’d be two idiots recovering from a severe beating.
I would concede that my comment was a tangent, but cars are destroying the planet and could potentially cause the extinction of our species, and yet you think hating excessively oversized cars makes me the dumb one? Interesting.
A friend from college got a job as an ER nurse in a not so nice city I grew up by…
She didn’t really explain to anyone who knew the area where she worked, and she didn’t tell co-workers she wasn’t familiar enough with the area. But like, she was an ER nurse, she knew people were getting shot constantly. But she wanted to seem cool and like she could handle herself.
So like a month in of 3rd shift she’s sitting at a red light a few blocks away from the hospital and a sketch all black tinted car flashes their high beams at after pulling up behind.
She doesn’t know what to do, so she just sits there in here car.
Luckily it was a cop who then turned his lights on. He assumed the only reason a car would stop at a red light was because the driver fell asleep drunk, and rather than the cop wanting to stop and get out of his vehicle, he was trying to wake a drunk driver up so they’d leave…
TLDR
He told her to never stop at a red light around there. Slow down, look, and then run the red light.
I’ve heard of that in Detroit. My jujitsu instructor told a story of driving through there somewhere and he stopped at a red light. A police officer pulled him over and explained that he would get robbed if he stopped at lights, and that everyone would know he was clueless and from out of town.
Detroit is exactly what came to mind for me as well. Years ago I was driving back from downtown to Ann Arbor and the interchange I needed was closed so I had to exit in the middle of downtown Detroit. It was pre smartphone days and I was lost at night by myself. I stopped at a red and an unhoused person walked into the middle of the road and threw a coke bottle at my car. Luckily it was plastic.
I was terrified that he was going to come closer and attack my car and me. Luckily that’s all he did. When I got back, everyone asked me why I stopped at the light and I said it was red. They told me never to stop at a red in Detroit. Wild city.
It was my first summer driving in a big city and I was there for an internship so want aware of how bad it was - I was also young and afraid to break any rules. Ah to be young and naive.
I lived in Cleveland for a few years, never heard of/seen anything like that there. Some sketchy neighborhoods, yeah, but so bad police advise you not to stop at red lights? nah.
I mean, Ohio cops are the worst, so even if it was the safe thing to do, they’d pull your ass over for running the light, and then leave as a crowd gathered around your car lol
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.
Big difference between the original atomic bombs he’s talking about and current (or even decades-old) thermonuclear weapons. This is just ignorant rambling from someone that wants to be “smart”.
Meanwhile, Annie Jacobsen has a recent book on exactly this subject that has been making the rounds these past months. Those two have to be living in a small bubble to not know about this book.
Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Associated Press:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
CBS Los Angeles (KCBS) - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for CBS Los Angeles (KCBS):
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
CBS News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for CBS News:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.