>Most of what they do isn't under the name Cargill. They actually resemble an old conglomerate
> There is really no danger of Cargill impacting your life [...]. There are other strong players in everyone of their markets.
Cargill actually owns most of the players on the other markets.
Just recently, the Amazon fires benefited a Cargill branch so much, some think it was all a ploy to plant more soy. Even Nestle (another borderline unethical company, e.g. water rights) announced they will stop buying from Cargill Brazil because of that one. Yet, nobody in south America knows the name Cargill.
So they can barely be profitable (assuming they don't die overnight if they reduce marketing spending) during the out-of-this-world perfect scenario for their business caused by the social isolation? ...notice that the article didn't even bring the "perfect" situation 2020 brought them to also be able to squeeze the restaurants for insane margins.
Did you forget any disclaimer about being involved in the deal? because that was a stretch to paint it in a good color.
Now only if they published "The Lonely Work of Writing for Hacker News, only to be shadow banned or sent away with a Typing Too Fast Message After You Put in the Work"
Google sells you a pocket computer with a locked down OS, not for your safety but to control the ability to run ads.
If they cared about user security, they would provide updates, no matter how "slow" (their excuse) the device gets.
If they didn't want full control to show ads (ads are downloaded by the GooglePlayServices, which is pretty much the kernel of all your android experience) then it would be trivial to install other android distributions like replicant.
hence, both a reasonable and google is evil. They want full control and do not care about (your) security updates.
That is a lie and you know it. Google updates the OS, but they are also directly responsible for many products they sold themselves with their brand. And those have as much updates as any other company, well maybe one or two more.
I happen to have two devices bought directly from google. One is stuck on android 2.3 and another on 4.0, both full of security holes, not updated because "it would be too slow" when in reality i can't even install replicant et al because google never worked with the component providers to offer compatible binary blobs for the hardware.
Yeah, android itself is opensource (mostly because it is built on top of GPLed linux code so they do not have an option) but 99% of what makes your phone run is a proprietary binary-only code provided by the likes of Qualcomm etc. And why phone manufacturers, google included, use the options with closed source binary blobs? To save $5 or so from the BOM cost in production.
But that model is flawed, and it's been more than a decade to learn that.
The interesting thing is: We already have a model that works much better, and it's been around for longer. If you buy a computer with Windows it is completely normal that you still get your updates from Microsoft, even if your computer is built by a company that may no longer exist by the time you install the update.
(That's not to say Windows and Microsoft don't have their own security issues - but the idea that "we provide an OS and we add a middle man for OS updates that by all experience doesn't do his job" is a good model is at this point preposterous.)
Most of them are. :) Except for Huawei, I haven't seen an Android user not using Google Play Services. There is probably statistically-insignificant number of users just having F-Droid on a LineageOS who do not use Play Store, Push services or don't consume their ads. So most Android users are indirectly also Google users.
I'd wager that's untrue. Anyone who buys an app, or in app purchase, is directly a Google customer.
I'd also argue that even if someone uses Play Store services, but doesn't pay a penny, they're still a "customer" in a looser sense of the word. They're engaging in the market-place, likely using free apps subsidized by advertising. Even if you want to argue that they're the product instead of the client (and I'd be inclined to agree), they're still revenue-generating users.
Writing tests without fixing the lack of understanding first is even worse.
Now the next cycle will have to understand not only the code, but why some test is validating some unused endpoint with data you never thought possible
That’s where comments come in. I tend to do a brain dump around the code I wrote in comments: why does this code exists and in particular why is it doing it in this horrible, convoluted, suboptimal way. I also wrote small functions and pick my variable names carefully.
My colleagues think I’m an idiot writing too many comments and being too careful.
We can’t ship any feature in less than 3–4 weeks, most of the codebase is an inscrutable mess, and we introduce regressions all the time (unit tests are for losers)
Or maybe he published it himself to divert from the DMCA bad press? :)
I am going to believe that. Github CEO wanted a reason to open source it, and used a rogue leak in a win-win situation.
Why he didn't sign it to prove it was him? because the desktop client doesn't even have this basic git feature implemented ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ...and everyone knows managers only uses GUI, Q.E.D.
git downfall is the "smart" features that prevent people from understanding what git really is.
Instead of making conflict messages clearer and easier to work with using local files, contributors keep thinking the users are too dumb and adding (and changing) merge resolution hacks.
This boils up to github, as can be seen by teams who do not understand the very basic about git commits, and enable "squash commits by default" on their repos. With these teams, git commit history cease to be bit sized changes in a larger changeset, and become useless displays of the author interacting with the remote server while they upload small changes to tests to make the continuous builds get green.
> There is really no danger of Cargill impacting your life [...]. There are other strong players in everyone of their markets.
Cargill actually owns most of the players on the other markets.
Just recently, the Amazon fires benefited a Cargill branch so much, some think it was all a ploy to plant more soy. Even Nestle (another borderline unethical company, e.g. water rights) announced they will stop buying from Cargill Brazil because of that one. Yet, nobody in south America knows the name Cargill.