namingthingsiseasy

Sounds to me like these tech workers could really use a good union to protect them.....

Agreed. Objects are nice and a great way to program. Composition is great. Traits/interfaces are great. Namespaces are great. Objects are a really nice way to reap the benefits of principles like these.

But then there are aspects of OOP that absolutely suck, like inheritance. I hate inheritance. The rules get very confusing very quickly. For example, try understanding overriding of methods. Do I need to call the superclass method or not? If not, does it get called automatically? If so, in what order? How do these rules change for the constructor? Now repeat this exercise for every OOP language you use and try not to mix them up... Java, C++, Python, etc.

Fortunately, it feels like we rely on inheritance less and less these days. As an example, I really like how Java allows you to implement Runnable these days. Before, if you wanted to run a thread, you needed a separate object that inherited Thread. And what if that object needs to inherit from another one too? Things would get out of hand quickly. (This is a very old example, but with lambdas and other new features, things are getting even better now.)

Anyway, long story short, I think OOP is a complicated way to achieve good principles, and there are simpler ways to achieve those principles than a full OOP implementation.

Those documentaries are great findings (and really really interesting). I would highly suggest posting them to the channel (or I would be happy to if you don't mind)

And ofc, Microsoft is well aware and is not interested in letting that happen.

This is true, but there are only so many times that they can pull off what they did in Munich. If enough cities keep trying at this, there's no way they're going to be able to hold the floodgates back forever.

I'm usually a pessimist, but stories like this actually do get my hopes up

Agreed, Linux is quite popular in academia, particularly in any technical field. A lot of scientific software has to run on Linux because of supercomputers, and especially a lot of open source software is Linux only. So a lot of students run Linux for convenience, and a lot of computer labs run Linux as well. Of course, there's also the fact that lots of people just think Linux is better than the alternatives, and they're more likely to try new things when they're at a university student's age.

So I feel like that would probably be a significant contribution to the 2% that's being reported

Just updated on void and saw the same thing

Not only that, what about the downtowns where people actually live? This is basically just picking winners here, saying those downtowns don't matter, but the ones in major cities do. Pretty shameless exhibition of picking winners and losers here...

Hmm... I'm starting to get the impression this Doug Ford guy is a bit of a hypocrite....

There's room for both in my opinion. Keyboards are good for accuracy. Touchscreens are good for custom inputs and slightly faster to type on. In an ideal world, we'd have both.

To be frank, I find touchscreens so abhorrently useless that I just use my phone less than I'd like to - for example, I'm much more likely to just flat out ignore messages because of how tedious input is on phones. I don't know if a keyboard would make a huge difference for me since I think mobile devices are garbage in more ways than one, but the lack of a keyboard is by far the biggest issue.

Even without the DMA, the EU and US have very different judicial systems. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really understand the specifics, but if I had to describe it in a very hand-wavy fashion from my anecdotal, non-scientific experiences, US courts are more likely to favor preserving individual/personal freedoms over the common public good, and vice versa in the European system.

Right - they say that they're just going to use it to defend their "property rights". In practice, they're going to use it for a whole lot more than just that....

Of course! I hope you didn't read my comment as hostile. I read yours as sort of a devil's advocate type of argument and was just trying to point out the logical flaws in it. I'm glad that you didn't hesitate to voice a contrary opinion. The points that you raise are interesting... and it's always good to consider both sides of the argument, even because it just helps us hone our own arguments. You could certainly argue that this is just another enforcement mechanism. It's just that it comes with a lot of unintended consequences, which most people will overlook, and they'll inevitably be used in ways that we didn't anticipate, long after the fact that these kinds of mechanisms become commonplace.

Regarding the reduced cost of lending: sure, in theory they could lower the prices. In practicality, will it? Any time we see cost-reducing developments, it usually ends up resulting in higher profits for the vendors moreso than better competition and lower prices for consumers. Look at how car manufacturers are just letting electric vehicles sit in their lots because they refuse to accept what buyers are willing to pay. The corporate types really, really hate to lower prices on anything for any reason. So I would be surprised to see something like that happen, even though it's still theoretically possible....