>Usually when you get government "transparency" it is in the form of a PDF of poorly photocopied documents as images which are effectively useless from a analysis standpoint, unless you have many humans ready to read/transcribe.
Of the largest 20 cities in the US, all but one have open data sites where you can programmatically pull down datasets. I feel like this is more becoming the norm rather than the exception. Maybe it's just smaller municipalities that don't have open data sites?
I don't really understand this post. I'm a supporter of open source and free software and I can also understand wanting to avoid vendor lock-in. However I don't understand how this is Microsoft's fault for building closed source tooling. I'm upset with Microsoft's hypocritical stance on .NET and C# being open source without all tooling being open source as well but when it comes to useful tooling like Codespaces, Pylance, or the Java debugger in VSCode I don't see why Microsoft should be blamed them being closed source. Microsoft came into the Java and Python space and made tooling that is being accepted by developers.
The author does touch on why companies like Microsoft are able to succeed against open source software. It's because they have the money to pay their own developers to make good software.
Disclaimer: I work at Microsoft but not under DevDiv or Azure.
It is an App Store monopoly problem. Take Google Android as a counterpart.
Android Open Source Project = VS Code (MIT codebase(
Android at Samsung and dozens other = VS Code with Microsoft EULA
Enforced Play Store in vendor phones = VS Code Extension Market Place (not accessible to any other competition)
Google offering dominant services = Microsoft Language Packages (both proprietary => user lock in)
Google abusing it (eg by marketing, subscriptions, ...) = Microsoft abusing it
So what is explained in that article is how you run a monopoly on an open source project. Julia and the DevDiv is doing that. That is understandable (she has to make money to get her bonus) but not good for the rest of us.
A major material difference is that unlike phone world wherein a duopoly controls the market and supply chain is also similarly locked. We have a very functional ecosystem of competing products. I can choose to use IntelliJ, Eclipse, Vim, Emacs ... without completely disrupting my life.
Tomorrow Intellij may decide to launch paid LSPs for Java/Go/... and MS is already using same components for VSCode and Visual Studio. Or author of GitLens can port his plugin to Intellij or Eclipse
>The car opted to turn right — straight up the wrong way of a one-way street in San Francisco (around the 6:35 mark below).
Not sure where they got San Francisco from, this took place in Seattle. The video description they link to plainly says this
>Here's a vid of Tesla's FSD Beta driving through Seattle
Funnily enough this is the same guy who's Tesla lurched towards pedestrians crossing an intersection last year https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1542555188279517184 and once he started getting flak he copyright struck the Twitter videos and deleted the video from his YouTube account.
This is a really interesting breakdown of web3 (or as he calls it later on web2x2). I haven't dove into the world of web3 yet but it does seem incredibly ironic that there's already seemingly a large amount of consolidation around platforms to make web3 more accessible to people. This is good for early adopters and artists who are generating wealth during the gold rush but I don't think it's good for "web3 the idea" as a distributed protocol.
I assume it would be similar to how you sell an old computer with an encrypted hard drive. You unlock it, format it, and then sell it. If you have the credentials to unlock the PC you should have the ability to remove your encrypted state.
You're comparing two different things, the Apple and Android fees are to get access to publish apps to the store.
The developer toolkit which is used to build and test the apps (Android Studio or XCode) are free. The Microsoft comparison would be the $20 to publish in the Microsoft Store and Visual Studio Community which is free to build and test apps.
"MSDN" is a bundle of additional developer tools that you would use for a business (licensed Visual Studio, Azure DevOps, training, and support).
No you are not only paying to get access to publish. You're paying because upkeep of the entire App Store ecosystem is not free. You also get a bunch of tooling, code-level technical support, and more importantly a bunch of SDKs that are tremendously powerful and useful (Metal, ARKit, etc).
Yes Xcode and APIs like ARKit are free to develop (for obvious reasons), but Apple captures some of the costs at publish time (as it should be).
>... but Apple captures some of the costs at publish time (as it should be).
This forces you to pay 100$ a year when you just wish to use your own hand made app on your own phone if you wish it to work longer then 1 week offline. While using app of someone else doesn't require that.
100$ per year x 4 years = 400$ to use your own app.
What makes you think that this is how it should be?
If the whole idea that one should pay for ability to program his own device seems logical to you then perhaps some monthly fee for using your fingers to control the phone would seem logical too? After all finger touches use many features of the phone that "are tremendously powerful and useful" too.
The upkeep of the Apple store ecosystem is easily found within its margins on taking money from developers plus billions in profits. This page is telling you how they're classifying it for tax reasons. There is no need to charge $100 or even $20 like Microsoft.
This page is an excuse. There is no reason except greed and corporate accounting.
Yes. That page align with Apple Accounting. Since 2017 Apple has been putting iOS cost and development, SDK as part of their Services Strategy expenses.
In a sense Apple is now think you are buying iPhone just as Hardware ( with huge margins ), and you are paying for all the development of iOS, macOS through their Services Revenue coming from App Store and Google Search.
In Steve Jobs days Apple used to lump all those together as one product. But now you are basically renting the usage of iOS and Apple experience Hence from Apple's POV the user aren't even paying enough for the usage of iOS.
One can make a case that people learn to breath merely to prepare themselves to rent Apple services and not paying enough untill they do in Apple's POV.
But there is another POV. One that includes rights of a person to be a human being rather then income source for some company. One of those rights should be ability to install whatever software you choose on your own computer without any artificial restrictions.
Loves is a strong word. I think it makes more sense to say that the IRS doesn't have the budget or resources to go after the big players. Yes, people cheating only $2k probably won't pay for a lawyer but from the IRS side it's just much simpler to analyze and prove that person is in the wrong. See this article from ProPublica https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-irs-was-gutted
Of the largest 20 cities in the US, all but one have open data sites where you can programmatically pull down datasets. I feel like this is more becoming the norm rather than the exception. Maybe it's just smaller municipalities that don't have open data sites?