I believe that both the US and Chinese governments would see Google entering the Chinese market (in a censored form) as a benefit to each of their respective countries. Who said anything about other governments? The US gains visibility this way.
All extensions are open source. Just download the xpi/crx and decompress. Doesn't help much unless you are willing to read all diffs, or never update them (and be exposed to bugs which could lead to other security issues.)
You could (and should) minify JS for builds, which essentially renders it useless for editing purposes. Heuristically you could still find parts that phone home and disable those but getting further than that is going to be a pain.
You're confusing 'source available' for 'open source'. Source available is where you can look at the source but don't have any right to do anything with it.
>Whites officially commit suicide more than blacks because blacks who are even slightly inclined to self-destruction find it all to easy to get into situations that produce death by means that won't officially be viewed as suicide.
We all know what you're implying but you're making that statistic up.
Implying? I was being explicit, if general because I was referring to a broad class of phenomenon. If you think I was using code for something narrowly specific, you are mistaken.
Yes, you're saying that suicide rates for blacks are lower because they are killed by means that aren't seen as suicide at a higher rate. That's a statistic. Please back it.
>usually decreeing that a true winner would at all times play in the manner of a big tough macho caveman who has no need for nuance and no time for thought
Sounds like this was written by someone with a grudge.
Nobody actually paid for WhatsApp. At least, nobody I know off. They supposedly required you to pay 1€ a year after the first year, but everybody kept using it for free forever. I'd say they never made any money.
> Nobody actually paid for WhatsApp. At least, nobody I know off.
People did pay. Its just that the charging was somewhat selective. Obviously you and your friends weren't in the group that was selected.
Originally, it was a paid app ($1) on the iPhone. Eventually, that was dropped in favor of using in-app billing to actually charge the $1/year on Android... but this was only enforced in a few selected countries at first. Once the Facebook acquisition happened, this effort was dropped. If it hadn't happened, then charging users would have expanded gradually over time.
I mean, let's be honest, it's just a chat application. It is almost trivial to build and maintain. And since it uses your phone number, there is no friction to switch to another app--if they decided to charge for it, Telegram would eat it alive in months.
I find it amusing just how many people make this assumption up-front. Probably because its one of those "problems" that seems simple on the surface, until you start digging deeper. This gets especially true once you take into account offline delivery, presence management, delivered/read receipts, group/broadcast use cases, efficient use of the network, complexities of reliable/efficient cross-platform media transfer across a variety of formats, and... robust end-to-end encryption.
Depending on how you define "properly written." It was easy to write seemingly proper code that assumed TSO and worked for x86 but does not work on architectures with weak memory consistency.
Code that assumes TSO is likely broken on x86 as well. The use of the volatile keyword doesn't really change that in any meaningful way either, given that part of the language is a bit under-specified. Basically, C compilers are free to do a lot of non-obvious optimizations which can reorder around volatile accesses.
Put another way, there isn't anything in the base C spec which can provide a guaranteed memory ordering barrier, which is why you absolutely have to depend on 3rd party specifications to get those guarantees. For example, if a program is using pthreads or openMP, their synchronization primitives must be used as well to assure portability.
That isn't to say that given a particular piece of code and compiler/switches/version the resulting program is wrong, just that its quite possible changing compilers/flags may result in "incorrect" code generation.
True, but outside of memory ordering, x86_64 and ARM64 are probably among the easiest to port between. Endianness, alignment and type sizes are the same, for example. Plus a lot of code already has been ported to both.
If you support what I don't like, you're receiving paychecks from other governments.
Yeah right.