throwGuardian

> i don't think i have ever seen an effective protest app in the US

Twitter and Facebook serve protesters very well

Where is x86-64 mentioned? I assumed they were building ARM chips.

In any case, they don't mention any secret sauce. Intel has strong channels, fabs and the x86-64 ISA with massive software compatibility on the server side. Even with better performance/power, Intel can simply undercut the competition to drive them out of business. If Qualcomm's sales channels couldn't dent the server space, I am sceptical about upstarts, unless their [power, performance, cost] is significantly better than Intel.

Incredibly heart-warming story, glad everything worked well.

From a legal perspective, if a doctor makes a mistake on a flight, is he/she liable despite best intentions?

Ignoring the ad hominem suggestions of illiteracy and stupidity only because you are willing to listen.

1. Google is majority Democratic, at least by a spread of 40% (D:R) if you simply assume the employee pool to mirror Democrat:Republican ratios of the counties Google HQ and branches are located in the bay area. [1]. Further, this is only the lower bound, as Google's employee pool tends to be college educated with postgraduate degrees (M.S, PhD, ...), which leans 63% democratic [2]. Further, Google is legendary for it's recruitment of the activist left, and minorities, with an even greater proclivity towards the Democratic party. So yes - you are bike-shedding when you make a mountain of the 95% claim, because the spread between Democrats and Republicans is large, nay mammoth enough for it to be irrelevant. And I bet you knew all of this, but wanted to engage in trivialities anyways.

2. Google search suggestions show falsehoods on certain terms like "men can " precisely because of manually inserted political bias into training models that the AI is based on. Google has a whole ethics committee whose entire job is precisely this - play "judge" on what AI models are "ethical and fair", manually intervene with oodles of their own corrections & interpretations - never mind the facts behind the issue. Here is the AI ethics committee explaining manual interventions [3], and here [4] is the explanation on why Google search suggestions show what they do, with the AI engineer confirming it 6],despite having ZERO correlation on Google search trends for those terms (tsk tsk manually inserted political bias) . Also note that the contents of this video were the subject of a congressional hearing [5], in which Google confirmed it's veracity, but still maintained political neutrality blaming any appearance of bias on individual employees.

3. "why do you think it had anything to do with this announcement about political ads". It has everything to do with political ads, because Google has been repeatedly caught red-handed in acts of bias against conservatives on YouTube, search results, political ad-spend, ..... (my GGM comment cites some instances). They've confirmed that their news app has an editorial agenda (hint: left leaning), and senior employees have been caught on record stating they'll do whatever it takes to skew the system against a Trump re-election. So yes - in aggregate, Google has a massive leftist basis, and every iota of their business decision making imbibes these biases. My prediction is that they will not censor leftist political ads, but will put any right leaning ads through hell before letting them see light of day.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_locations_by_voter_...

[2]: https://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-af...

[3]: https://youtu.be/csP4z8dR6X0?t=259

[4]: https://youtu.be/csP4z8dR6X0?t=429

[5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX6LlEcJ4nw

[6]: https://youtu.be/csP4z8dR6X0?t=536

PS: The hubris in this statement!! -

> "haha, time to auto complete this with my liberal bias!!". How exactly do you think this technology works? And why do you think it had anything to do with this announcement about political ads? There is so much illiteracy to unpack in a short space.

> As for the rest of your post, you seem to be confusing search autocomplete with double click ads, which shows a gross misunderstanding of what is even being discussed

As for this nugget, if shows a gross misunderstanding of what we're debating: whether Google is biased towards one party.

But processing your full response - nitpicking on the exact % of Democrats is a masterful tangent from the crux - that Google is likely not going to censor fairly. And the only reason I can think of for this bike shedding [1] is likely because you know it's true.

[1]: https://bit.ly/2XA2wAx

While in theory, a total ban on all political advertising seems fair, the only reason this is a burgeoning issue for the 2020 race is that old media guard (NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC, ...) play second fiddle to democrat narratives and policies (even if unconsciously so). New media (Youtube, internet, etc.) cuts out the massive editorialization that the old guard is legendary for, and that does not work in favor of the democrats.

So no - this isn't some unbiased, conscientious objection to fake news/propaganda from the left, this is their move to retain control over media narratives, and I do not trust them or the mega-corps they deem kosher (new wave of internet companies) to act fairly. Like with most things in life, it is the individual's responsibility to dig deeper for the truth.

I was referring to Google USA, as the timing of this announcement right before peak political US ad-spend is quite clearly a stab at US politics.

As for political affiliation, in your estimate, what is Google-USA's make up? Also, if non-US employees are making political censorship decisions on behalf of Google, isn;t the foreign interference? All that intersectional talk from Googlers that has made it into unbiased AI truths(??) in their search autocomplete, like "men can have [periods, babies, ...]" really points to overwhelming Republican bent at Google. Right?

> Who their employee's vote for isn't bias

Oh the double speak here! Do you remember the ouster of Brandon Eich from Mozilla? Or the cancel culture plaguing Chick Filet right now? Why not apply that logic to companies led by conservatives?

Can you imagine the triggering on the matter if Google's employees were 95% Republican?

And all my sources are unedited Congressional testimonies. Feel free to source all 4 hours of them off C-SPAN/PBS. Also note that all claims hold: that Google reportedly gets caught with seemingly biased actions, and never denies the actions in testimonies, just maintains it isn't company policy.

Google will be totally neutral fellas despite:

1. Some 95% of employees being registered Democrats

2. 100% of senior leadership being Democrat. Heck, they even wept publicly after the 2016 elections.

3. They've never refuted contents of leaked tapes exposing bias - just keep denying that the said bias is company policy. [1][2][3][4]

[1]: https://youtu.be/CX6LlEcJ4nw

[2]: https://youtu.be/IzF7nBmwPso

[3]: https://youtu.be/SY82j7NUtCQ

[4]: https://youtu.be/ik_kzn3etsE

Yeah - Zuck should listen to team Warren, and only allow Democratic political ads on social media. Is it even a fair election without overt interference and collusion between big tech and the Democrats?

You should move to SF and open a restaurant. Maybe, just maybe, when your entrance has used drug needles and homeless camps, you'll figure out why the restaurant has break-ins. And then maybe this nonsensical rhetoric from the DAs will add up

Except BSDs have a 25+ year track record of production deployment.

What is Fuchsia's advantage over BSD? If anything, they have opinions on first-class language support for the user space (Dart). Do you dart?

P2P has miles to go before challenging the reliability, convenience and performance of the cloud.

That said, one area undervalued is Partially homomorphic cryptosystems[1], where the cloud never ever gets to see unencrypted user data.

I hope the future is fast-local compute on cached data, with the cloud holding a much larger, encrypted but permissioned data store, offering utility functions like search over encrypted data

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption

Cell Phone accessory with BLE, for certification across geos (US/FCC, EU, APAC,etc). Think Mophie case with BLE

The 50 cent cost is typically never the deal breaker, it's BLE certification/regulatory compliance testing for FCC and friends of the end product which is prohibitive for small/medium businesses.

If you ever plan on using a BLE in a cell phone accessory, regulatory costs may break the $1M mark by 2020. That's cost to certify the accessory for use in various territories

1. Has Android's fork of Linux proven to be necessary? Linux already supported an RTOS/low-power kernel config at the time of Android's inception

2. Is it time to discard backward compatibility and transition to a mainline kernel for future versions of Android? Apple does this every few years, with great technical and user success without much of an uproar

3. Is it time for kernel devs to acknowledge the reality on closed source drivers, and standardize an interface in the mainline kernel for the same. Those who want to open source can, but those who don't find a way to retain source even today, possibly at the cost of performance (forcing code into user space). Let's just allow an LGPL interface with looking exception for well known interfaces.

4. If Linux is unwilling to acknowledge industry trends, perhaps switching to a BSD kernel should also be evaluated. Oh the things BSD could do if it had the kind of funding that Linux does

> Speech is free regardless of the benefits and privileges granted to those who would speak.

You're copiously misinterpreting my comment. Of course free speech is an inherent privilege, nay human right, that doesn't require granting from any entity/authority figure. I'm very much questioning the logic behind their angst against Zucks' opinions on China. If anything, the free flow of information, free speech without retaliation and the general upliftment by being at FB should convince them to argue FOR free speech in China. I was hoping they saw the clear correlation between freedoms, free-speech, etc as the foundation for equitable wealth creation and prosperity, which they very much have experienced at FB.

I'm guessing their reaction is more visceral/emotional than logical. Most people tend to love their motherland despite it's shortcomings.

Puzzle me this - as an employee in the US, for a company paying well above market for your labor, with generous perks and the freedom to speak out against the employer (which is likely absent in China), the response of the Chinese workforce seems rather paradoxical - criticising an accommodating work environment, which, mind you, is only possible because of freedom of speech

Or, the press is out to make a mountain of a mole - most Chinese employees at Facebook are happy despite Zuks' tone against the govt.

Alternatives:

1. Webview: https://github.com/zserge/webview

2. Lorca (Chrome): https://github.com/zserge/lorca

3. Carlo (js/Chrome): https://github.com/GoogleChromeLabs/carlo

This response literally proves fanboys and employees will offer circuitous logic to substantiate Apple. iOS Safari W3C non-compliance is well known, a little googling will lay out the (intentionally) missing features.

You go to lengths to defend Apple, but do not have the guts to let the consumer pick a Google/Mozilla alternative engine. What is Apple so scared of, if not a level playing field.

This is the same company that retroactively modified it's store policies to substantiate booting steam off the app store. Courage in the face of competition, not!!

There are literally zero browser engines allowed on iOS, other than Safari/webkit, with a purposefully depleted feature set, to force developers and users to the app store.

It is astounding that overzealous Apple employees and fan boys will employ circuitous mental gymnastics to substantiate Apple policies, instead of simply allowing an open-market to thrive on iOS. It's as if open markets where consumers are allowed to choose works against Apple

Why allow competition when they can simply claim to productize.

I do not believe chronic bouts of performative outrage leads to anything creative, inside or out of the workplace. If one's "whole self" cannot meaningfully function without getting constantly triggered, the problem is with the normalization of such "whole self" concepts

Just about every employee ever late to work

What kind of development is feasible on Mobile? I hope it's on hobby projects though

To be honest, diff on mobile is a narrow use case. Also, given git's treatment of lines as atomic units of versioning, the data model didn't lend itself to mobile friendly views

They must've done some analysis on the percentage of free users that'll convert to paid. That analysis is valuable. Anyone here care to guesstimate an analysis, replete with the cost free users add?

What about Google employees looking for damaging data on adversaries? Or stalkers, looking for information on particular individuals without consent.

Why does Google get PII?

Most static site generators are just this a .md to html convertor, with refined error checking, some templating and routing support.

The multitude of comments here scream the same thing:

1. No one trusts Google to be an impartial judge of speed.

2. Increasingly, Google is inserting itself as a non-neutral third party between the end user and creator/developer. Power lies asymmetrically with Google, and threatens both creators & users.

If anyone from Google is reading, this incremental but definite appearance of a power grab by Google will only draw more regulation