Well AOSP doesn't run on a single phone on earth (not even the emulator) so you also have to take into account the reality of what Android is on the ground.
AOSP doesn't even include a functional keyboard nor a proper call manager nowadays
> So as well as being annoying at the moment of seeing them, ads in the AppStore are directly contributing to the general enshitification of apps.
You can even cut the word "apps" from the analysis here, the appstore just gets most of its money from games which are pretty much slot machines.
That's exactly why every time they promote the appstore somewhere, they put a productivity app as an example, they would like to avoid to be classified with gambling regulations, which is essentially what they are.
I'd say somewhat fine depending on the title, they broke a lot of backward compatibility recently
> You can buy Okta, Zoom, Slack, Gsuite, an EDR, an MDM but at that point you are paying a lot more for your stack...
I'd also say that's where they won, because it looks like an attractive option for the executive and people in power who can purchase these.
As if you're asking me, sure it's cheaper but these MS products are nowhere near as good as any of the alternatives you listed and you'd have to factor the productivity loss.
It's kind of a cheap all-in buffet, sure it's cheap but quality isn't there.
> the economics of nuclear power, which is already it's primary weakness.
That affects ~0.5% of the yearly production in France, it's not a "primary weakness", it's the opposite, it's so low of a problem that the state simply doesn't care enough to fix it.
They are saying economics is the primary weakness i.e. nuclear costs more than renewables even if you don't have fancy cooling methods that would increase the cost further.
For renewables (solar, wind) to work reliably you have to provide on-demand backup, invest in energy storage systems and increase investments in electric as renewables are often far away from consumers. (German offshore wind in north, major industrial consumers in south). So direct comparison of isolated costs of renewables and nuclear is misleading. You have compare the whole system.
"Germany has one of the most ambitious energy transition policies dubbed ‘Die Energiewende’ to replace nuclear- and fossil power with renewables such as wind-, solar- and biopower. The climate gas emissions are reduced by 25% in the study period of 2002 through 2022. By triangulating available information sources, the total nominal expenditures are estimated at EUR 387 bn, and the associated subsidies are some EUR 310 bn giving a total nominal expenditures of EUR 696 bn. Alternatively, Germany could have kept the existing nuclear power in 2002 and possibly invest in new nuclear capacity. The analysis of these two alternatives shows that Germany could have reached its climate gas emission target by achieving a 73% cut in emissions on top of the achievements in 2022 and simultaneously cut the spending in half compared to Energiewende. Thus, Germany should have adopted an energy policy based on keeping and expanding nuclear power."
Germany invested in renewables already at a time when they were very expensive. This created an economy of scale that brought prices down to everybody. Nuclear was never economical anywhere, so no, Germany should not have expanded nuclear. I think it could have kept them running a bit longer, but those decisions were made a long time ago and changing them also has a cost.
Isn't this the guy that double counted everything? Because he counted when something got bought and then counted the subsidy used to buy and added then together?
> Everyone jokes about the 20/20 hindsight of cost management. In Life-Cycle Costing, Jan Emblemsvag proposes to do something about it.
Here's a new approach to life cycle costing that brings activity-based costing, risk, and uncertainty into the forefront. You'll focus on future costs and learn how you can perform any type of cost management activity better than before by introducing uncertainty into models and exploiting them to the max.
Well no it isn't, this problem is so small that it's not even worth installing any additional cooling method. It's also the lowest consumption period of the year, making the problem even more irrelevant as some plants are already offline for maintainance anyways.
And since the poster didn't knew that, I'm not sure the cost analysis holds up.
The difference is that Germany's investments in renewables at a time when they were still expensive helped to create an economy of scale, which brought down prices for everyone and helped trigger a huge amount of investments worldwide. France build an unsustainable nuclear industry that was forced to sell electricity below cost and had to be renationalized to survive.
> it is virtually impossible for Europe to even begin to displace Apple or Google devices
It's hard for sure but they are not even trying, the non-duopoly alternatives are run by hobbyists in their free time and just get shit on by EU bureaucrats
What do you expect - the EU to centrally plan a phone OS? They are capitalist with regulations, you know, not communist. Someone has to actually make one themselves.
Most of the free hardware and software alternatives are already European, like MNT, and GrapheneOS. They just don't have market share.
Now that would be pretty good. I thought there was already an unlockable bootloader mandate but it seems I was mistaken. Most phone makers openly violate GPL and don't get punished, too.
Sonnet recently even suggested I root a three year old device and provided instructions. I suppose that is depends on use case. My use case was exporting data from an abandoned application running on an S24 Ultra.
The idea was that I could continue to use the application in the future and export the new data, not that I would be able to recover the extent data already in there.
AOSP doesn't even include a functional keyboard nor a proper call manager nowadays
reply