The old style material field which were mentioned that are just an underlined text instead of a box were absolutely terrible too. It's disgusting that someone would actually think those were a good idea.
Also, what he calls out in the end, use high contrast guys! The old material design grey text on grey background was terrible to read. GCP used to be full of this.
> Also, even though Oracle engages in horrible unethical business practices, I hear that their database product isn't bad.
It's not a terrible DB to work with. I'd go with something like Postgres > Oracle > MSSQL > MYSQL.
And, mind you, if you care about ease of use/maintenance rather than performance, I'd swap Oracle and MSSQL on that list in a heartbeat.
But also need to say... Every year when the Oracle folks came by, all of the managers would get super antsy/nervous. They would always find 'something' that we had done wrong to warrant an additional payment on our contract. Their shenanigans were so bad that we weren't allowed to install ANYTHING downloaded from Oracle without checking with someone first.
It's a big world. A lot of businesses are only marginally viable already, and a lot of business owners are only marginally ethical. Many already sell user data.
I think it likely that squeezing such businesses even harder from the top might have negative consequences for the people at the bottom.
This title is complete bs, and the court ruling (linked in the article) only mentions monopsony very briefly.
The question addressed by the court is regarding who is the cause of any overcharging to the customer. The opinion argues that because Apple is exclusively dealing with the customer, it is able to sell on whatever terms it wants to the customer, so any overcharge is their fault. The dissent argues that because the developer has the power to dictate the price of the app on the store, any overcharge the customer pays is directly caused by the developer, because the developer could have chosen to sell the app at a fair price.
It is true that the ruling mentions that developers may sue apple, but that was never in question. Both the opinion and dissent agree on that fact.
This is an unfair treatment of the decision. The question addressed by the court isn’t “who is the cause of supracompetitive prices?” but rather “if Apple is the cause, can consumers sue?”
Apple’s defense argued that only the app developers could sue under a certain view of the precedent where Apple’s role as a pass through is essentially transparent to the law. Their argument attempted to shift who the customer was ultimately doing business with: Apple or the app developer.
One of the theories underpinning the precedential rule is that not stopping impacted downstream parties from suing may potentially subject Apple to multiple liability. Apple argued that they were already liable to app developers so shouldn’t also be liable to consumers. The Court is saying here that that theory does not hold water because Apple, as a middleman, may be liable to both upstream and downstream parties (damages from app developers and consumers, respectively).
Off topic: I like your nickname. In that vein, here are two variations of the same sequence of keypresses shifted up and down respectivelly: "erweriotuout" and "cvxcv,.bm.mb".
While something like "4694372" is motorically meaningful to a person typing it on the keypad, or to someone watching him do it, it translates to the screen space as gibberish. Another way to put it is that when typed it has an obvious structure, but when read on the screen, the structure is prohibitively difficult to discern. That's interesting, because it's all too easy to forget that the computer as we know it today can interface with only a very small portion of our faculties.
In this video, the tech lead had a similar problem with browsers acting worse on windows than mac. (even the same browser) I've never seen anything like what he showed in the video, so it could be a bug affecting certain hardware configurations or software versions.
The old style material field which were mentioned that are just an underlined text instead of a box were absolutely terrible too. It's disgusting that someone would actually think those were a good idea.
Also, what he calls out in the end, use high contrast guys! The old material design grey text on grey background was terrible to read. GCP used to be full of this.