But those levels are kind of bullshit. If a car is autonomously driving but needs an attentive driver in the seat for legal reasons you're stuck at what, level 2? Even if you never actually need to override/intervene?
Teslas running the latest hardware (manufactured 2023+) and software are actually nearly there, IMO. I used it for two months and never needed to intervene. It's not perfect yet but I believe it actually drives better than most people now.
However, the millions of Teslas on the road with older hardware are absolutely useless in comparison where you will need to intervene a lot. The latest FSD software only works on the latest hardware so these older cars are stuck on either old FSD versions (which are proven to be bad) or get slimmed down versions to fit lower specs (which we know wont be as good). It's unsafe and they really should disable it for all of the older vehicles and issue refunds for people who paid for FSD.
Is it a browser or like a browser? I've never actually used it but from what I understand WeChat's mini programs are like web apps but not something you can open up in a typical browser.
Alternatively, you could say browsers are the original super app.
I think the core issue isn’t what underlying technology is used, but rather the service providers. They package their services into mobile apps or WeChat mini programs, and restrict functionality on browsers. For many ordinary people, this provides convenience, but for those who care more about privacy, it’s quite problematic.
WeChat in China covers almost every aspect of life. Even someone like me, who doesn’t want to use it often, can’t avoid it. Some restaurants’ online ordering systems only support scanning via WeChat—that is, WeChat mini programs. People can pay utility bills, call taxis, shop, and make financial investments all within WeChat. Alipay offers similar functions as well.
WeChat is also one of the largest content platforms in China, similar to Medium. Countless creators set up subscription accounts on WeChat and gain more users through readers’ sharing and reposting.At the same time, government information is often released through the WeChat platform.
Medium is not one of the largest content providers anywhere, in any form that I'm aware of. There's no users sharing and reposting (arguably one of the drivers of network effects in modern social networking), no PSA, no apps or third-party extensibility, no taking over third party platforms in unrelated areas.
I can pay my bills in Chrome too. You really fail to understand my point that WeChat is just a browser for web apps - H5 as they are called here in China.
WeChat mini apps are called "H5" in China because they were enabled by the introduction of HTML 5. They are built on Tencent's WXML, which is an HTML derivative.
WeChat is a browser for mobile web applications, a small slice of the web universe gatekept by Tencent. WeChat was modelled after Gmail. So, it is very much like Chrome - you have your communications inbox, and your web apps, in the same app.
> What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care?
If Apple announced that they were going to allow installing apps like how you can install APKs you will have a whole group of people on here arguing against it because they want Apple to have control over everything. You could have seen those people in action on the Epic v. Apple and Digital Markets Act discussions.
Supersampling the entire framebuffer is a bad way to anti-alias fonts. Especially since your font rendering is almost certainly doing grayscale anti-aliasing already, which is going to look better than 2x supersampling alone. And supersampling will not do subpixel rendering.
> it's a perfect use of AI to build something that we couldn't before.
There's no reason why it couldn't have been built before. This is something that probably should exist as standard functionality, like what the Canvas API already includes. It's pretty basic functionality that every text renderer would include already at a lower level.
It does show open doors etc. but if not that then what would you show on the screen? You can already shrink it so the rightmost 3/4 of the screen is the map, leaving just 1/4 of the screen for the car visualization and indicators.
maybe it's the quasi-photorealistic nature of the car image that bothers me. it's not a photo, it's not a schematic, it's not a diagram. it's too artificial to look like a photo, yet too realistic to look like a schematic. or maybe the physically implausible lighting.
Currently, one is a surveillance company that is motivated to abuse my privacy in every possible way, in order to target ads (and, conceivably, Gemini). The other, currently, is a hardware company that's dipped it's toes in advertising and is motivated to sell me devices and services.
If, at some point, they converge, I will trust Apple as little as I trust Google, but it's absurd to pretend they're the same thing, today or to "what if" yourself into knots.
Google is absolutely an evil company, head to toe, that is aligned against you. Trusting them with anything is almost as stupid as trusting Meta.
Neither Google nor Apple have any real accountability at play. The same mechanisms that demand Google to surveil users are being accepted by Apple too. The "ad business" canard is (and always was) a distraction.
> The "ad business" canard is (and always was) a distraction.
Your position is that Google has not and does not differentially acquire data on its users (and non-users) because... Apple has shared some data with the feds? Is that a serious position?
Your position is that Apple meaningfully differentiates itself by copying Google's worst behavior? Lemming logic does not apply, Apple and Google can't blame each other for assenting to warrantless surveillance.
My position is that they differentially collect data and that their version of that data collection is worse.
It's almost like that's way I've been talking solely about that for the entire thread, in spite of your attempts to whatabout other things into the conversation that you think make Apple Bad. I'm not clear why you're finding this conversation challenging.
There is more to data collection than analytics. This thread is specifically discussing data which users voluntarily share by using Apple's services.
Yes, it's still hypothetical, but do you think it's that unlikely? You can't use Advanced Data Protection (full E2EE for iCloud) in the UK anymore. It was forced upon them but compare that vs. their malicious compliance of the EU's DMA. The first only negatively impacts Apple's customers while the second aims to empower customers, but negatively affects Apple.
> Google is absolutely an evil company, head to toe, that is aligned against you. Trusting them with anything is almost as stupid as trusting Meta.
You should never really trust a business with your information. At the end of the day all they care about is making money and most customers have no interest in the business making more money, so you're never really in alignment.
I trust a business to do it's business - I don't believe Apple is going to try to build a massive database of everything I do online, because that is not its business. I do believe Google has a vested interest in knowing everything I do online because that is how it makes money.
Thinking they're the same, or will do the same things, or playing slippery slope games is really silly and/or a complete waste of time and energy.
One annoying piece of Unity's CoreCLR plan is there is no plan to upgrade IL2CPP (Unity's AOT compiler) to use a better garbage collector. It will continue to use Boehm GC, which is so much worse for games.
They just haven't announced any plans to do so yet. They might one day.
They will not be using .NET AOT probably ever though. Unity's AOT basically supports full C# (reflection etc) while .NET opted to restrict it and lean more on generated code.
It's ancient. The latest version of Unity only partially supports C# 9. We're up to C# 14 now. But that's just the language version. The Mono runtime is only equivalent to .NET Framework 4.8 so all of the standard library improvements since .NET (Core) are missing. Not directly related to age but it's performance is also significantly worse than .NET. And Unity's garbage collector is worse than the default one in Mono.
The runtime is absolutely ancient, but I think the version number says more about C#'s churn than about how outdated the language version is. Take my opinion on C# with a grain of salt, though, I was an F#-er until the increasing interop pains forced me to drop it.
You can't really blame macOS for this one. Interesting to hear this isn't just a Windows thing though.
reply