Open source is about standards. If for example USA uses chinese algorithms or whatever, if China discovered some drawbacks in it and did not disclose it originally - it can be used as a weapon.
C++ has much more bigger inertia. It is like the "default" for all the areas where it is being used. So when learning a language people would rather go to C++ first and then to Rust, if they are really planning to work in corresponding area (game dev etc.). Or even go to C.
Rust will probably replace C++ in some areas where it is a legacy app (or part of the app) that is not changed frequently anymore.
I wonder how much of it goes into "pension funds".
As long as Mercedes (and any other old car companies) as not cutting their staff and pipelines, they will never be competitive with Tesla or Chinese companies. They have a lot of inertia but their development processes are too outdated at this point.
It also does not help that Google is often seen together with various left leaning initiatives - like Google is one of the big proponents. Plus there was some backlash on Twitter over Youtube hiding Joe Rogan video and so on.
Is it bad that I want Google to totally collapse all the internet infrastructure that relies on them if they lose this case? Sick of people treating the only companies really pushing tech forward like a piñata.
Google has to be dismantled in parts one way or another - too much control over search and Youtube to the point where they are able to enforce Chrome standards that prevent adblocks from working.
> Youtube to the point where they are able to enforce Chrome standards that prevent adblocks from working.
Youtube needs to profitable somehow, and advertisers are the best way to do this. If Youtube couldn't generate the revenue through advertising, what else can they do?
It's insanely expensive to do video streaming, hence why Google invests a lot in the new compression formats today, WEBP, Brotli, AV1.
Do you just expect them to just do all of this for free?
No, but with big market share comes big responsibility.
Video streaming is extremely unprofitable sure, but in its care it tries to leverage its market share with Chrome browser to benefit. And you are not allowed to do that when your market share is big.
Even if that’s true, it’s irrelevant from the user’s perspective. Regardless of the underlying reason, the result is a user experience that’s enough of an improvement that users feel motivated to migrate.
If Bluesky becomes dominant, it will likely eventually degrade too, at which point something will take its place. Such is the fate of social media apps. The only variable is how long the app can stave off that decay.
Can you explain how any of these are due to it having less users, or being cheaper to run?
>An advantage of Bluesky over Twitter that’s valuable to a lot of people is the degree of control it gives. Algorithmic feeds are more precisely tunable so it’s easier to get them to show the things you want to see, starter packs make it easy to follow entire circles at once, and moderation tools are robust, which helps tamp down on spam, trolling, harassment, etc.
Your statement appears completely illogical without a good deal of explanation connecting these concrete statements to yours.
Twitter algorithmic feeds are designed to promote engagement even if you don'like something. It is important because more engagement with various content, means more clicks, more reactions and so on.
You get something you like, you get something don't like, click bait, then begin to argue etc. It is basically like a flea market with ads floating around and retailers promoting their stuff. All for the engagement.
But BlueSky creates isolated tables - like in a cafe. Sure they have more than 5 chairs, but it does promote engagement and closer to weekly clubs.
