Users get a service, so it can be argued they are paid in kind. That’s the price of their “free” services.
Whether you agree with that or not, websites are unlikely to pay users to use their services (unless they’re at least providing content) any more than a coffee shop would pay its customers to drink their coffee.
One of the first things I did when I started experimenting with SD was a series of “the Muppets attack paris” images, with explosions, crumbling buildings, police and military response, fleeing citizens… The cheeky gleeful looks on those muppets as they flee scenes of devastation are hilarious and some of my favourite images I’ve produced!
Correct me if I’m wrong
Well actually, yes, I’m sorry to have to tell you are wrong. Shannon-Fano coding is suboptimal for prefix codes and Huffman coding, while optimal for prefix-based coding, is not necessarily the most efficient compression method for any given data (and often isn’t).
Huffman can be optimal given certain strict constraints, but those constraints don’t always occur in natural/real- world data.
The best compression method (whether lossless or lossy) depends greatly on the nature of the data to be compressed. Patterns and biases can make certain methods much more efficient (or more practical) in some cases, when they might be useless elsewhere or in general. This is why data is often transformed before compression, using a reversible transformation that “encourages” certain desirable statistical characteristics in the data, so the compression method can better exploit them.
For example, compression software (e.g. gzip) may perform a Burrows-Wheeler transform and other encodings before applying Huffman coding to get a better compression ratio. If Huffman coding was an optimal compression method for all possible data, this would be redundant! Often, E.g. in medical imaging, audio/video data, the data is best analysed in a different domain to better reveal the underlying patterns and redundancies in the data so they cam be easily exploited by compression. E.g. frequency domain instead of time/spatial domain.
You don’t need to draw a line for this case. You just need to decide if 9 years is too long.
In the latest version of the emergency broadcast specification (WEA 3.0), a smart phone’s GPS capabilities (and other location features) may be used to provide “enhanced geotargeting” so precise boundaries can be set for local alerts. However, the system is backwards compatible – if you do not have GPS, you will still receive an alert, but whether it is displayed depends on the accuracy of the location features that are enabled. If the phone determines it is within the target boundary, the alert will be displayed. If the phone determines it is not within the boundary, it will be stored and may be displayed later if you enter the boundary.
If the phone is unable to geolocate itself, the emergency message will be displayed regardless. (Better to display the alert unnecessarily than to not display it at all).
The relevant technical standard is WEA. Only the latest WEA 3.0 standard uses phone-based geolocation. Older versions just broadcast from cell towers within the region, and all phones that are connected to the towers will receive and display the alerts. You can read about it in more detail here.
I understand the concerns about Google owning the OS, that’s my only worry with my chromebook. If Google start preventing use of adblockers, or limiting freedoms in other ways that might sour my opinion. But the hardware can run other OSs natively, so that would be my get-out-of-jail option if needed.
I’ve not encountered problems with broken support for dev tools, but I am using a completely different tool chain to you. My experience with linux dev and cross-compiling for android has been pretty seamless so far. My chromebook also seems to support GPU acceleration through both Android and Linux VMs, so perhaps that is a device-specific issue?
I’m certainly not going to claim that chromebooks are perfect devices for everyone, nor a replacement for a fully-fledged laptop or desktop OS experience. For my particular usage, it’s worked out great but YMMV, my main point is that ChromeOS isn’t just for idiots as the poster above seemed to think.
Also, a good percentage of my satisfaction with it is the hardware and form-factor rather than ChromeOS per se. The same device running Linux natively would still tick most of my boxes, although I’d probably miss a couple of android apps and tablet mode support.
People who use Chromebooks are also really slow and aren’t technically savvy at all.
Nonsense. I think your opinion is clouded by your limited experience with them.
ChromeOS supports a full Debian Linux virtual machine/container environment. That’s not a feature aimed at non-tech-savvy users. It’s used by software developers (especially web and Android devs), linux sysadmins, and students of all levels.
In fact I might even argue the opposite: a more technically-savvy user is more likely to find a use case for them.
Personally, I’m currently using mine for R&D in memory management and cross-platform compiler technology, with a bit of hobby game development on the side. I’ve even installed and helped debug Lemmy on my chromebook! It’s a fab ultra-portable, bullet proof dev machine with a battery life that no full laptop can match.
But then I do apparently have an IQ of zero, so maybe you’re right after all…
Open source software is also notably lacking from the impact assessment documents, but I suspect this is because it was intended to not impact open source software at all. It seems the legislation intends to exclude open-source software, but doesn’t clearly and unambiguously exclude open source software that is developed or contributed to in a commercial setting (e.g by paid contributors).
I think the wording seems clear enough to determine the intent, but the ambiguity surrounding the “commercial activity” part might necessitate trial (which nobody wants to risk), or might lead to poor implementation of this directive in the laws of member states. I think we should be campaigning to improve the wording, not reject it outright.
Ah, OK. So it seems it’s a case of the spirit of the text not matching the precise technical wording used. IMO, the legislation clearly intends to exclude freely-distributable open-source software, but the issue lies with what constitutes a commercial activity. (I’ve not yet checked the rest of the document to see if it clearly defines “commercial activity” in relation to the legislation.)
TBH, it seems that what is needed here is a clarification and tightening up of definitions, not wholesale rejection of the legislation.
Why is everyone up in arms about this?
The legislation specifically excludes open source software. Has nobody in this discussion actually read the proposed legislation?
From the current proposal legislation text:
In order not to hamper innovation or research, free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity should not be covered by this Regulation. This is in particular the case for software, including its source code and modified versions, that is openly shared and freely accessible, usable, modifiable and redistributable.
There is also a clause that states those using open source software in commercial products must report any vulnerabilities found to the maintainer.
deleted by creator