It's a nice part of the modern ecosystems, but I'm not sure the slight convenience of centralizing my subscription options would save me that much.
If the fee is for Apple to curate the ecosystem and verify apps are safe, this looks an awful lot like they're using it to drive up revenue instead.
There's evidence too that these practices are done hastily too, when you use IAP, but the app expects you to create a secondary account as well.
Sliding scale microtransaction growing pains, I suppose. Things were nicer when apps were inexpensive commodities. People aren't able to run business analysis like this and it makes the market opaque which is good... for Apple.
Uh, in order: live in a society bottlenecked through a trashy parasitic exploitative dump of a communications tool, be subjected to psychological experimentation, be in a market where technology is constantly locked away and consuned by behemoth new megalodons whose sole purpose it to appreciate 400% every 10 years, live in a society malleable enough to be purchased, still haven't woken up from the nightmare.
Back in school I remember my most effective drive to learning was my desire to develop video games. It reinforced physics, vector math, and systems design.
I've been working slowly towards a nebulous design I have for a quantum puzzle game, that maybe I can help myself and others develop the intuition needed in this budding field.
Nothing to show for it, but it's a long road I'm a few steps down, and I'm enjoying the scenery.
I personally applaud Valve for braving to support as much hardware as they do. Even having built their own VR headset, they support a wide variety for their latest software a tacit show of support for the relationship of their customers and the VR ecosystem.
Perhaps this is anticipating Apple's upcoming move to a potentially new micro architecture that's been reported on -- I suppose if Apple thinks they need a software moat, they'll find a place to trench one up.
The main reason I haven't dumped my XZ2 Compact for a Palm Palm is my paranoia around owning a Chinese designed device.
Largely the same story for those waves of Android Lollipop "smart watches".
I'm very unhappy with the market for mobiles, it seems manufacturers have no balls, and are clueless about what I want / sensitive to what carriers are willing to sell en masse.
In a phrase, the stupid shitty financing options carriers provide seem to define the market for devices (supply, credit, marketing), not what actually makes a good device.
A lot of decent smaller phones are available in the developing world. The silliness is the market segmentation with frequency band restrictions that could all be handled in firmware.
It's an implementation of a single qubit, tested through several transformations (one of two critical parts of a quantum computer) using a quantum dot. A useful qubit can be placed into a superposition state, say with a probability, on measurement, of being found up or down. A quantum dot is an area of a semiconductor that acts like an atom, but doesn't have a nucleus. The paper focuses on a novel implementation where the electron of interest is in a higher shell than other implementations, and quantifies the performance, finding higher shell electrons perform better than lower ones.
Finally they claim they may be able to implement coherent entanglement (the other critical ingredient for quantum computing) but it is only mentioned as a foot note, with a nod to another paper which analyzed quantum dot electron spin qubits under entanglement, but not with the higher shells.
> Remember when Microsoft sued OpenOffice for building a functional free competitor? Or when Sun sued Python?
They never did. They never did.
Both companies did some evil things in the 90s and 00s (Microsoft arguably much worse than Sun) but not what you described here. There were some worries from words that Microsoft might sue OpenOffice users. Sun never sued "Python" (you cannot sue a programming language, for starters).
..and why specifically Ubuntu Touch? There are other FOSS options available. Ubuntu Touch never took off, and is now a community project. Even Windows Phone failed. I put my money on Sailfish OS as platform #3 (if we ignore KaiOS) which is partly FOSS. Why SFOS? Because it will get adoption in non-Western markets such as Russia and India. Countries don't want to be dependent on US proprietary code because it isn't auditable, and these companies in the end do what the US government asks or demands them to do. I'm also curious what is going to happen with the Chinese Android fork led by Huawei.
Sailfish is definitely my next phone OS, and even though walking away from Google / Apple tentacles is one incentive, by far the biggest for me is that it runs Linux, complete with terminal etc. Oh the joy of just being able to grep, rsync, ssh...
I always felt like that wasn't a lot to ask, but evidently, I couldn't be further away from the truth.
I haven't looked much into it yet, but I really, really like what they do with Pinebooks. Heard only good things about them. Looking at the announced specs[0], the phone is very promising to me.
I'll probably wait for a general release (apparently the "Brave Heart" edition is for devs and very-early adopters). It's definitely on my radar.
It's a result of things getting worse. In an effort to stop abuse and increase drive to sponsored creators, YouTube committed a cardinal sin with respect to their discovery algorithm. They made things worse.
Discovery on YouTube is now comically difficult, getting out of your filter bubble means making bizarre searches and filter edge cases, otherwise you see the same 15 videos weekly.
They've failed to filter the hate content they intended to eliminate, they've failed to improve their curated content volume, and discovery remains bound and gagged in the back of Ad monetization's sedan.
If you were here in 2010 it's worse now. Privacy / safety / predictability, I guess, but the magic is all gone.
YouTube could use an [adult swim] concept. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. YouTube.
There's a very intuitive inductive argument that places quantum computers ahead of classical computers.
Basically that quantum interactions are more fundamental to the universe than more terse ones, stochastic randomness or presence/absence.
If a computing device (in a universe) is built to compute using more fundamental substance (to that universe) it should stand to reason it is more efficient.
If you model a photon, does your model ever move as fast as the photon?
I would like to understand what you mean but I can't, could you rephrase / exemplify?
"Basically that quantum interactions are more fundamental to the universe than more terse ones, stochastic randomness or presence/absence."
What does more fundamental means? Presence, absence and randomness are included in the set of quantum interactions they are not of a different nature.
" If a computing device (in a universe) is built to compute using more fundamental substance (to that universe) it should stand to reason it is more efficient."
What does fundamental substance mean?
I don't understand this paragraph.
"If you model a photon, does your model ever move as fast as the photon?"
My model does not move.
If you meant that my mental visual simulation of a photon moving is slower than a photon moving, yes obviously, it's slowness and lack of accuracy is just a limitation of my brain.
How is that related to quantum speedup?
Help me understanding you, I would really like to believe in quantum speedup but the explanation needs to be sound.
I'll reiterate that I was just hoping to share my intuition behind the subject but I'll try and point you in the right direction.
I mean that the relationship between Newtonian mechanics and Quantum mechanics is such that the matter described by Newtonian mechanics is composed of matter whose precise behavior is exclusively described by quantum mechanics, that is that underlying matter is fundamental to the macro behavior.
I'm by no means a physicist, but a formal treatment of this kind of relationship (and predicted consequences) is captured in Constructor Theory (as David Deutsch who may have been early in identifying this was able to formalize this in the much more precise language of physics)
Intuitively, if you took a whiffle ball (or pair of whiffle balls, or some other ensembleoof whiffle balls sufficient to represent a system's state) in your hands, and a little obstacle course representing, say, beam splitters, and with each in your hands somehow made these classical implements behave like photons, you would have little hope of doing this at light speed.
In general I have issues understanding many QM explanations as I disagree with all interpretations of QM except the statistical one.
You might be interested to read this Nobel prize paper with test the limits of quantum mechanics and refute in a sound manner, common interpretations.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
If the fee is for Apple to curate the ecosystem and verify apps are safe, this looks an awful lot like they're using it to drive up revenue instead.
There's evidence too that these practices are done hastily too, when you use IAP, but the app expects you to create a secondary account as well.
Sliding scale microtransaction growing pains, I suppose. Things were nicer when apps were inexpensive commodities. People aren't able to run business analysis like this and it makes the market opaque which is good... for Apple.
(Meta: figures)