People fail to understand that our system of checks and balances are not some magic potion - or some Boolean flag - that flips on when a violation occurs; its just the power that is given to certain government bodies and people. The failure to use them is not much different than if they didn't exist in the first place.

Some of us are professionals and like to understand our systems and how they work. I don't write assembly instructions by hand either, nor do I design CPUs much, but I want to - and likely need to - know how they work to make the best judgements.

XBOX brought in 5 billion, and after all development costs, marketing, operating expenses, investment in research, etc., they are STILL left with 200 million dollars.

What's the problem here? Shareholder value? (as in the mythical/speculative value of MSFT, because OF COURSE they don't want/care for part of the profits/dividends)

If the money being invested in research has a good return - i.e. a great product/service is created - then you will grow.

Chopping down the employees here is a horrible move. Besides crashing employee morale into the ground, losing hard-to-replace developers/staff, it also generally gives off shitty vibes to consumers.

People will think why invest more into a failing entity? I can see people worried about the future of their "purchases" (if you can call them that these days).

This announcement so soon after XBOX had to start yelling "we are not shutting down" from the roof tops doesn't look good.

that said: still a nice write up, learning about some of the architectural choices that AMEX makes is definitely insightful (and relavent/useful to what i am working on right now as well!)

what gives you that impression?

Google is spends millions of dollars researching and implementing SynthID [0]; ensuring all videos generated have a watermark to ensure they can be detected. As well as using SynthID to detect AI-generated videos, which is what I am guessing they are using @ YT to detect and label the AI videos.

I am far from a Google or AI fanboy, closer to an admiring hater, but I just don't see how they are making AI generated video impossible to detect if they are going out of the way to ensure SynthID /AI watermarks are present in any video generated on the platform.

unless you mean impossible to detect by human eyes; but if that's the case, so is everyone else. except everyone else is NOT spending resources on research for watermarking and keep the detection algorithms ahead of the curve.

C'mon, I'm not even apart of the movement to move away from GitHub, but that's not really a valid argument. Sure, they CAN download the source code, but its not nearly as automatic. They don't get to download it all, en masse, from copying hard drives/databases they already own. They have to go over the internet. They don't get automatic notifications when new code gets pushed. And finally, if one wanted, they can make it harder for bots.

I certainly believe that these companies do get away with a lot more than the average Joe - see: Facebook downloading Anna's Archive, every pirated eBook - but that doesn't mean you have to hand it to them on a silver platter.

Plus, even if your code is private on GitHub, you can guarantee that they can't train there models on it anyway; unlike if you host it yourself, or somewhere else.

Does anyone else find it ironic when closed-source GitHub claims it's some super hero for open source?

FAANGS love to give away money to get people addicted to their platforms, and even they, the richest companies in the world, are throttling or reducing Opus usage for paying members, because even the money we pay them doesn't cover it.

Meanwhile, these are usable on local deployments! (and that's with the limited allowance our AI overlords afford us when it comes to choices for graphics cards too!)

transportation government operations natural resources community development education & social services agriculture international affairs science & space and energy

...anxiety rises.

Pretty cool to see all 6 layers, paste layers, and adhesive layers as well. I've always wondered how the cake was made and if big projects do/could use KiCad. Seems like a lot more work relative to those Single Layer PCBs on YouTube for things like emulators and custom PCBs. Glad I now know for sure, that I can't do this.

IMO, rounding for cash purchases only sounds worse than keeping the pennies.

But with 5 trillion dollar companies these days that are "worth" more than the entire GDP of Germany, why not. It's not real. It's just a number on a computer at this point.

I'm going to say this because I think you might not know this, but also because I think many others might not have thought about this:

Almost always, a programming language is UI agnostic. Swift SDK for Android means: You can now write Android Apps in Swift. This doesn't magically include Apple's components / SwiftUI. When you write code for a platform, specifically an SDK for an OS, all you do is expose that platform to that language.

So, as long the SDK/bindings are there, a new "Window" means whatever a the OS thinks is a Window. A Button is what is defined (or exposed/binded to) as a Button in Android.

Swift was sorta released for Windows: a new Window looks like a generic Win32 Window. The same one you would get if you used C, C++, Rust, etc..

All your examples are GREAT examples to explain how this works: - Flutter has "Cupertino" to allow people to use Flutter to make Apple apps, and not have to learn names/methods/interface of the native Apple UI. - React Native: A LOT of work was put in to make/bind Apple native objects to a React component. And the same for Android.

So again:

The Swift SDK for Android means you can write your Android apps in Swift. The same apps you might of wrote in Java or Kotlin, you can now use Swift. Meaning whatever it looked like in Java/Kotlin (using native api's), it would look like in Swift.

The SwiftUI, Apple's component library written/exposed to Swift, is something completely different.

1) The code that is running is not what's presented; it executes (non-transpiled) vanilla JS.* Why not just show that?

2) Removing the box shadow massively makes the two closer in performance.

3) The page could just be one sentence: "Reflowing the layout of a page is slower than moving a single item." GPU un-related.

---

*Code that actually is running:

```js

        , u = t => {
        h && clearTimeout(h),
        l.forEach( (e, s) => {
            const {top: o, left: n} = m[r[s]];
            t ? (e.style.transform = "translate(0px, 0px)",
            e.style.opacity = "0.7",
            e.offsetHeight,
            e.style.transform = `translate(${n}px, ${o}px)`) : e.style.transform = `translate(${n}px, ${o}px)`,
            e.style.top = "",
            e.style.left = ""
        }
        ),
        t && (h = window.setTimeout( () => {
            l.forEach(e => e.style.opacity = "1")
        }
        , 500))
    }
        , d = t => {
        y && clearTimeout(y),
        l.forEach( (e, s) => {
            const {top: o, left: n} = m[r[s]];
            e.style.top = `${o}px`,
            e.style.left = `${n}px`,
            e.style.transform = "",
            t && (e.style.boxShadow = "0 14px 28px rgba(239,68,68,0.45)") // REMOVING THIS LINE = BIG DIFFERENCE
        }
        ),
        t && (y = window.setTimeout( () => {
            l.forEach(e => {
                e.style.boxShadow = "none"
            }
            )
        }
        , 500))
    }
           

Honestly, the "could of" is more of a "sometimes I write how I sound" thing, but anything else, is more of a middle of the night brain mush.

I actually re-wrote that bottom part at least twice because I had a lot to say, but didn't know how to say it concisely. As I was writing it, I kept having less and less confidence that any readers would have prior knowledge about I was writing about (ex: Plex, HDHomeRun, TiVo Edge), so I kept defining or explaining things in parenthesis and re-ordering the sentences; so at one point I just had to say, good enough, click reply

I hate lengthy/wordy comments that coulda' () been just a couple of sentences, but I also love to explain things in a way that a wide range of people can comprehend, so it's a battle at times. (this reply is a good example...reply)