I'm not sure why you were flagged. While the OP is responsible for a lack of version control, the distribution channel is very inflexible and something developers have to fight with.
Many other distribution channels provide multiple binaries or versions and let the customer choose which to install.
Apple and Google are very simple and primarily aimed at non-engineer consumers, so it makes sense that they wouldn't allow people to select a version. It doesn't mean that this doesn't suck.
Maybe things have changed now, but as far as I can remember Google Play does let you deploy older APKs. But it's just from the developer side, it's not like users can choose which APK to download.
which is the "workaround" to the gdpr the article badly describes (probably because brave upcoming ad network will do the same but more workaroundily)
now those are used to match a 3rd party id. you just need a gdpr_workaround schema in your data base with two columns user-id, google-random-id with N-1 records indexed both ways.
gdpr has restrictions on pin pointing a single person. this is effectively doing that, but claim it is not, because random ids. apple is just a little better with how device-advertiser-id works.
Well, the “right” workaround is an opt-in system. But that would drastically reduce the number of qualified ad prospects, reducing their wholesale value, killing the online ad business, drying up the websites themselves who exist for this revenue (some/many of which are trash, but not nearly all).
I don’t think we can have it both ways, or at least it is very difficult and we don’t have a great compromise solution.
I know that I'm not interested in "compromising" with the ad-tech industry. They've been spending too much time and money attacking my defenses against their terrible practices for me to treat them as anything but an attacker.
Not that I support the ad-tech industry, but those consumers probably are interested in having their favorite websites being kept alive. Which implies that they might indeed be interested in "compromising" with ad-tech industry.
it isn't about giving ad-tech any chance of anything, it is about websites that are liked and used by people (most of whom have either no means or no desire to support those websites with money directly) being able to sustain themselves in order to exist.
If only there were other models for ad sales, say ones that were successfully used for decades prior to the advent of the internet and ubiquitous surveillance, that could be used instead of said ubiquitous surveillance...
But no. The internet enabled vast, invasive user tracking, therefore vast, invasive user tracking is the only conceivable way to sell advertising.
That's pretty much a false dichotomy: a site must either support itself via ads, or cease to exist.
There are other ways to get money to support your work, and if those ways are too painful right now, that's just an opportunity for disruption. Even better, it's an opportunity to prove that disruption doesn't have to be exploitative.
There are entire markets that cannot be accessed by publishers unless they subsidize content with ads. That is not a false dichotomy, that is a market requirement.
Not every website is the WSJ or Bloomberg, which cater to markets that are willing to pay for content.
Not saying that it has to be ads only. If there comes a disruptive alternative revenue model that allows all those websites to self-support themselves, I will be one of the first people to jump the ship and advocate for the ban of ads in favor of that new model.
To be honest, that doesn't matter to me. I think that websites who inflict the ad-slingers on their readers are showing great disrespect to and disregard for their readers.
> but those consumers probably are interested in having their favorite websites being kept alive.
I'm one of "those consumers" and I'm actively looking for sustainable ways to pay content producers.
Here's what I do currently:
- subscribe to two newspapers in addition to the mandatory payments to the national news broadcaster.
- donate to the Guardian
- buy on Blendle
If there was a way to pay for single pay-walled stories I would probably use it a few times a week in addition to my current subscriptions.
I'm not interested in any more subscriptions (unless they are all inclusive like Spotify so I can cancel my current subscriptions, and even then I'm not sure since I actually want to support those two papers and think I do so better through direct payments than through revenue sharing through a huge international tech company. )
More generally, if enough people (including the author) think the content has merit, they will choose to support it (by which I mean “collectively supply all the resources it needs to continue”).
The cost of running a basic website to publish text is modest. Tools like [dat][] and [scuttlebutt][] make it completely free (once you have a computer and any internet connection) to distribute content to people who actually want it.
On the other hand, if you want to make a living out of producing content (rather than wanting to publish the content purely for its merit), that is harder — the content has to be that much more valuable to enough people.
As long as individuals can publish stuff, and others can see it and choose whether to support it financially (all without 3rd parties mediating/filtering), then I'm content. Our distributed tools make that possible; we just need to make them easier and more ubiquitous.
> probably because brave upcoming ad network will do the same but more workaroundily
AFAICT Brave's plan is to send a block of potential ads to the client and use a client-side machine learning algorithm to choose specific ads. So the claim is that none of client events, inferences from the algo, nor ad choices travel from the client to the ad networks. (But ad networks retain their crazy microtargetting which I guess is the selling point.)
Even if Brave were to choose the blocks of ads based on geolocation and other install-time/runtime data which they then sell to third parties, it's still significantly less data leaking from the client's browser compared to, say, a default Chrome install. But them storing/selling that would be a clear GDPR violation as well as going directly against all their explicit public claims so far.
What is your understanding of Brave's upcoming ad network that leads you to believe it requires a surreptitious GDPR violation?
Components of each of the three characters are in the constructed character. I think it's the top two components of the first, the full second character, and the left and right components of the third. The constructed character is in calligraphic style so the components look a bit different than in the printed representations.
you should re-read the article. the main point is that it will solve frameworks (not exactly what the author aimed at, this I am extrapolating) reinventing everything. all utils methods will live in the proposed repository in the sky with all methods. frameworks will just contain their higher level logic, until that becomes common enough to use standard types in the util repository in the sky.
i think the solution to this problem (module or not) will be the same solution to the shared lib problem.
npm is a dumpster fire, but the larger projects are usually fine (the /bin equivalent). the worst problem is that every large project pull in different versions of whatever libs they wanted to use (which the singleton util lib proposed in the article would solve)
Because everyone wants our taxes to crack down on every herb garden in the neighborhood that evades taxes! specially the heirloom tomatoes! those creates multi-generation lost taxes oportunities!
everything that is somewhat not-ilegal will have small scale informal market. Friends grown their own tobacco, roast their own coffee... and all sell a little on the side.
how dense you have to be to think a literal weed would be different?
I really wish I could understand what you're saying here, friend. Please revise your comment because your point might be interesting and I'd like to know what you're saying.
I can't fathom why you got a negative response for this comment. You seem to be precisely right.
Down the road from where I live, there is a family with a veggies stand in their front yard. They sell anything they grow in their modest greenhouse but don't manage to eat. Leave a few dollars in the jar and take a basket of tomatoes, cucumbers, etc.
When cannabis is normalized in your community and people grow it for personal consumption, there will invariably be some left over that gets sold to family, friends, neighbors, etc. These sort of small local transactions are totally outside the purview of any government. The family down the road from me doesn't have a license for their veggie stand, I doubt they pay taxes on the proceeds, and nobody gives a shit because this is the way it has always worked and it's a generally pleasant and agreeable arrangement.
same in brazil and crimea and before that arabspring.
the obvious fake content on youtube and facebook was reported and removed, but all it did was hide the traces of the content that flooded private whatsapp groups.
