Yeah im not an apple fan. (My brother would have a heart attack if I didnt say that. He loves them).

But the fact they controll both hardware and software means they can run on lower specs. They dont use it as well as they could. But android having to allow others to develop hardware. Provides a bit more ability for manufactures to implement less efficient drivers. This is why some higher spec low value stuff seems so slow compared to equal speced cheaper Samsung stuff etc.

Well nowadays yes. But when the term smartphone was invented. Really not.

The 1st iPhone was way lower spec then many high end phones of the time. Mainly Nokia but others as well.

Early androids and others def had no specific specs that differed them from other high-end phones such as Symbian Win CE (as crap as the OS was but then so was the smartphone mareted version recreated later on)

Seriously, marketing was the only thing that differed them from phones like the N95 and communicator etc etc.

And as I mentioned, the locked store front. That really seem to be the main difference but really I still find non-advantageous myself.

been a long while so my memory is likely flawed.

But I’m sure I remember someone getting doom running on a 95 in the 2000s some time.

Had one for a good few years. Moved from US back home to UK with it so lasted a good while.

Loved the thing. Hated when I had to give it up due to lack of support for newer software.

I still find it bloody hard to see how modern smartphone are technically different. When you consider early some android etc had keyboards etc. Basically, it’s just marketing and a more locked in app/program store.

Thats easy.

Some folks are insane.

And thank fuck for them. Doing dumb stuff like this has led to so much of the useful stuff we see and use now.

“Can I make this dumb idea work” is the very source of inspiration behind science. Never underestimate its value.

–

My relative sanity can be so disapointing to me ;)

I will add as a narrowboater.

I found towpaths also have this issue with definition of surface.

I am legally blind. (Some vision but bad)

I have a few times tried to add more ditail to areas of towpath that will help the others like me know what to expect before mooring.

Seems anything that improves this will help in your issues as well.

Wow someone have enouth fuck about the fuck I gove. To write an app to monitor it.

Pity I dont give enouth fucks to install it.

Short term. The issue is going to be how to drill and inspect the water. While garrenteeing no earth organic contamination.

Untill folks are 100% sure no life at all exists. Any other considerationvwill be on hold.

And proving a negative is going to take ages before folks are happy.

The issue that layout containers are often unable to display large fonts on the widgets when certain restrictions are enforced in the layout. So, without giving time to try very large fonts. To Many developers never discover their applications just cannot be read by visually impaired people.

Unfortunately this is an issue for anyone visually impaired.

People just do not stop to think how difficult their UX is if people need very large fonts.

Yeah that is often the issue.

It is rare a single company owns all the IP on code. So its common that companies are not releasing code because they cannot.

Yeah any reverse engineering of closed source code takes time. It’s a huge job on its own. Adding the need to avoid actions that may lead to legal issues.

Well yep, It’s very likely this may never round to a perfect replacement product.

But it still has value. For starters, it will encourage new open source projects to use it rather than the propria try version, long before it’s a direct replacement capable product.

So the effort is worth some excitement. At least a pat on the back and free beer for some of the guys trying.

Agreed. Most of us really do not think about this shit as often as we should. I know I am guilty of assuming he when typing. I know because I make an effort not to be. And notice how often I need to correct text. Being older than many developers. I just grew up with the assumptions. So like many my age needed my attention drawn to the societal indoctrination.

People politely pointing it out is important. As is people volunteering to help correct older documentation.

The direct numerics of moors law may not be definite.

But the principal it defines is. In the future computers will have much more power then they do now.

The reason modern GPUs use things like shaders etc is to allow them to archive massive manipulation of data in more efficient ways specific for the task desired.

Honestly this is why I mention time scale as the main thing that will make this possible. How modern gpus or other specialised processers do the task is less important then what the game code is asking the gpu to achieve.

The idea that at a unknown future date. The CPU GPUs or what ever future tech we have. will never be able to run fast enough to read current cpu or gpu instruction sets. And generate the effect defined using future techniques is not viable as an argument. The only questions are how long and is anyone going to have the motivation to reverse engineer the large but finite instruction sets used by secretive hardware corps today.

Not so sure about that. When you consider time spans.

Currently we can emulate the majority of early games consoles. So theoretically with time and Moors law any hardware will be emulate able in a few decades. With enough information.

The advantage of open source software. Is it can be used with the original binaries to reverse engineer the instruction set even if the original manufacturer wishes to hide it. So with will and effort even the most complex hardware will be able to be emulated on future much faster hardware.

Sorry but those are assumtions based on the idea that the earth is unique.

It is now estimated thatt trillions of plannests wxist in the milky way alone. And abiur 2 million galaxies in the observable universe. We have absolutly no idea how common ir complex the start of life is. Ands assuming we are in anyway unique is not a scientific answer with the knowlesge we have. It is just an assumption.

If life is common and we habe no way of knowing that is not the case. Then we also have ansolutly no way of knowing how common intelegence is.

If intelegence is common. It is reasonable to assume with time radio is an easy invention. Cos lets face it. Based on our data the least intelegent civilization we know off. And the most intelegent discovered it withing 5k years of discovering what we call civalusation.

So again the idea that it is complex for a life to evolve and develop radio is nothing but an assumption. Admitadly a common one. But not one based on any evidence at all. Instead one that is common mainly due to arrogance of mankind assumeing earth must be unique. Just because we lack the tech to see any others.

As for the odds of us developing in time to hear others. Again. The number of plannets and variaty of distances throw that argumebt in the trash.

The estimated number is so great. That no matter when i. The last *estimated" 13.7 billion years we look at. Odd ate high that nillions of planetz exist at the correct distance for us to hear them at some point in the last 100 years of radio until we die as a race.

Again i want to repeat. I am not saying this is such. I have no idea.so to say it is woild be absurdly arragant. And i am far to pessimistic to think such will happen in my lifetime.

I am only sayiing when you remove the (scientifically unviable based on current knowledge) idea that the earth is unique for some reason. Abd add it to the evidence we have found of how many potential planets are in the universe.

Occams Razer is in no way valid to assume it cannot or is provably not alians.

The simplest explanation is NOT the evolution of an entire other species that survives all the way through to advanced tech to send radio signals.

That make a huge huge religion level assumption. That creats so much complexity to throw occam out ass a viable answer.

Is earth unique.

Without assuming the greatest abundance of evidence we have is unique. Then no occams razer is in no way able to make the existance of other planets having reached a similar status as complex.

I’ll repeat again. I in no way think it is. I just challenge that occam is a viable evidence it is not.

As assuming earth is more complex then any other phenomenon in space. Requires you to explain why earthonly happened once. In the huge amount of time astrology is able to see. And vast space.

Any answer that comes is almost paradoxical in its level of complexity. Without more evidence.

Hmm not so sure.

Hear me out. I am not actually saying it is alians. Just questioning that it is not is the logical conclusion of occams razer.

First remember we have 0 idea atm. So occams assumes the simplist explanation is correct.

But over the past couple of decades. The number of planets we have identified has grown hugly.

We only recently gained the ability to detect anything earth sized. But hav already found several.

Evidence is indication that the number of potential planets that are capable of housing life is far from low. Even if we are taking one in a million planets able. Most scientists interested in the field now agree life existing somewhere is more likely then earth being unique for some reason.

So complexity wise. Other life having evolved and developed radio. Is no more complex then some unknown answer. In fact the idea that it is impossible to be alian life is more complex then the idea that it is possible.

Once we have more information. Things will likely change quickly. And I lack the optimism to claim its likely alians.

But occams razer wise. We have evidence of life creating radio waves and transmitting them into space. As we do it a lot. Where as some totally unknown thing we have never seen up to now is a little more complex as a solution.

You can copy binary code. Just as easy as source code.

It is only when running on a different architecture it gets a bit more complex.

And give the binary is directly translatable by software. Not hugely more complex for any company of the size you are unwilling to fight in court over open source code.

Sorry but no you are wrong. Hading the source in no way makes code harder to copy. Its how most of us hacked into games in the 1990s.

After all binary code is just simpler instruction set that takes very very minimal effort to convert into assembly language. And can be read by many even without that effort.

Its hardly a secret encrypted format. (Unless you are also designing your own hardware and not letting anyone see that. )

Is it anymore the case with other licences though.

Obscurity is no security at all. If you have no ability to fight to keep tour copy right or patient. People will copy it open or closed.

Even direct machine code can be copied a reverse engineered fairly simply.

So non of this is purely a open source permissive licence issue. Its a big corperations acting like fudal lords issue.