Wow, Cox's original Objective-C book? Interesting historically, but it's hard to imagine it was of much pragmatic use, even if you're working in Obj-C as your day-to-day. Still, it's an interesting artifact of the early OO age, and the metaphor of libraries of objects as integrated circuits was interesting.
Yes! And I wouldn't have picked it, but I went along with it when someone else wanted to read it.
The "software IC" metaphor may not have caught on, but these artifacts of early experimentation, competitors against what evolved into mainstream OOP, are many times more interesting to read than the Nth "OOP sux" article.
EDIT: I just went back over some of my notes... Cox predicted that companies would compete to provide different implementations of common interfaces ("software ICs"). In restrospect, that didn't happen but Cox's prediction was wrong in such an interesting way: software orgs rather than customers assumed control over interfaces.
What would you like them to do? They already force apps to ask for permission, give user control over when the app can even access the location (including just once), tell the user when the app has been accessing the location repeatedly over time, and allow the user the shut off location services for each app individually whenever they want. So aside from shutting off more and more possible sideband sources of location information, what else are they supposed to do?
Unless you're saying Apple is selling the location information they may have directly?
Answering my own question, they need a way for users to grant location permission only to the primary app and not any of its dependencies, as once you grant it, it's available to all code in the app. It would be great if there was some way to separate those.
They could also better enable network traffic inspection on device, so we could tell where data is going. LittleSnitch on iOS would be great.
IP is often enough to correlate things.
LittleSnich or whatever is no help - oftentimes data is collected by the app/site directly, and then funneled to various systems via kafka-like brokers. In this case you always have only cobbections to something like cool-application-domain.au
LittleSnitch also does filtering, so it's both parts of the solution: it allows inspection of outgoing connections, at least by domain, and filtering of those connections you don't want, allowing you to block ads and most data networks.
Swift's concurrency story is what happens when a multi-year project meets Apple's fixed six month Swift release timeline. And being written by highly knowledgeable but low level engineers who've never written an iOS app in their life, means that there was a huge approachability hole they've only recently worked their way out of, but even that has major issues (MainActor default on in Xcode but not Swift itself).
I think it's largely supported by the rural/agriculture community. I have zero emissions controls on my diesel engine because it's more reliable out in the middle of nowhere and it lets you fall back to gloriously almost purely mechanical engine without ECU which is easy to work on. For the same reason, the government themselves exempt themselves from emissions controls which is why most the diesel trucks you can buy from government auctions are 'deleted.'
I think the idea that vehicles with emissions controls are inherently less reliable in any statistically meaningful way is highly suspect.
In addition, the most common failure points of vehicles are usually not related to the engine being unable to operate.
It’s usually accessory and wear issues: batteries, belts, tires, alternator, etc.
As a counterexample for you, the third generation Prius (2009-2014) has about the most bulletproof powertrain imaginable. Every UberX on the road is driving one with 300,000 miles on it and complete neglect-level maintenance.
eCVT transmissions in plug-in hybrid vehicles are simpler and more reliable with fewer wear parts (basically no wear parts) than pretty much every other transmission type, including manual transmissions.
I will also point out, being in the middle of nowhere should be ideal territory for electric vehicles if rural society had a little bit more imagination. They need minimal maintenance compared to any sort of combustion vehicle. You can avoid trucking gas and oil to remote locations, instead installing solar panels/batteries once (lord knows you’ve got plenty of land), set and forget it. Panels are dirt cheap and last 25+ years, batteries last 15+ years. Your oil deliveries are used once and depleted. Even without solar and battery, rural locations are far more likely to have electric utility service than any other utility.
Some examples that come to mind: EGR (exaust gas reciculator) valves tend to get stuck in older vehicles, I know I've had a couple old beaters with this tech die and the solution on a budget is to close the pipe and ignore the check engine light.
Diesel engines went from crude mechanical fuel pumps to higher pressure (better atomization) but then the $1500 pump becomes a wear item that needs a rebuild several times over the life of a vehicle, back pressure from DEF systems takes some efficiency away and I've seen claims that they significantly shorten the usually long life of a diesel engine. I'm all for electric that's less mechanically complex, we've been going towards it, but a lot of funny stops along the way (a 12v lead starter battery in a hybred car with a sizable EV battery pack etc.)
300,000 is a joke compared to what most (non-hybrid) diesel engines last. Those are the ones that are most impacted by DPF and SCR systems that reduce reliability (in case of SCR, also DEF fluid you have to have accessible and add). Gasoline engines are not nearly as much impact by emissions controls IMO since as you say even the best case they normally not last past 300,000 (Toyota Tundra an exception that might even curb stomp the Prius, non-hybrid though) and emissions controls for those are more likely to last the life of the engine. It seems based on your comments that gasoline engines must be what you were familiar with but perhaps limited experience with [the usually more reliable] diesel engines.
The other bit about electric I see as a red herring. Obviously electric is superior if you have capacity and grid or battery for it, but it's a sideshow from emissions controls on outputs of petroleum engines. It's not an emission control on the output of the engine but rather displacing much of the work the engine is doing. It's still far from ideal for many rural/ag purposes. I've ran ag machinery in places where there isn't even roads let alone power panels or a place to hook in, either you haul diesel or you are fucked, and in fact it is often there so you can establish infrastructure in the first place.
I have owned a diesel passenger vehicle, if that makes me sound more qualified ;-)
I didn't realize we were talking about this level of heavy equipment, this level of remoteness (e.g., you're basically playing SnowRunner in real life), so yeah, obviously electric doesn't really make any level of sense there. For my comments on electric, I was really thinking about some of the farmer-types I know who are close enough to civilization to have electric service but far out enough to have no piped natural gas, no city water/sewer, etc.
From what I read/understand about SCR and DPF systems, you do your maintenance properly and follow your service manual and there shouldn't be that much of a longevity difference.
And what I gather, SCR in particular can improve engine longevity.
As a generality, I'm highly skeptical of the motivation to disable things like this. A lot of times it's done just because it's the new fangled thing, not really because the person is actually benefiting by disabling it. Or it's just groupthink, people do it because everyone they know swears by it. Do I take the little safety thing off my Bic lighter because I really need to or is it because someone showed me how and it felt good to do it?
And, I dunno, maybe after all of this, you’re still right as I’m wrong, but maybe more of us should believe that sacrificing some reliability is worth it to reduce NOx emissions by over 95%? NOx is a horrible emission from diesel engines.
I do realize there are technologies worth rejecting, like the cylinder deactivation on the V6 Honda Odyssey which is worth disabling.
The nuances of criminal procedure may not apply, but the fundamental constitutional rights still do, as well as human rights. Indeterminate detention violates both.
A distinction without a difference, and it's questionable whether deportation is actually the goal here. If that were the case they could put him on plane today.
Basically, the guy admits that he overstayed the terms of the Visa Waiver Program, but is arguing that the fact INS started processing his adjustment of status application gives him the right to stay in the U.S. until it's resolved:
> Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10. But he argues that because USCIS accepted and began processing his adjustment of status application, he is entitled to due process protections in its fair adjudication. Id. at 9. The Fifth Circuit has foreclosed this very argument, reasoning that the VWP waiver includes a waiver of due process rights. See Mukasey, 555 F.3d at 462. And “[t]he fact that [Culleton] applied for an adjustment of status before the DHS issued its notice of removal is of no consequence.” Id.
Remember that the whole point of the Visa Waiver Program is that you're conceding up front that you're just visiting and aren't making a claim for asylum or whatever. The idea is that the U.S. makes it easy for you to enter, in return for you agreeing that the U.S. can easily deport you if you overstay.
That applies to those who step across the border as part of a border crossing or rescue. The court decision applies it to all aliens, which is the never before applied part of GP.
The whole point of subsection (a)(1) is to treat all aliens similarly to those who cross the border for purposes of the chapter. Subsection (a)(1) is titled "Aliens treated as applicants for admission."
Subsection (a)(1) then says that "[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States ... shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."
Who is covered by the phrase "an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted?" What else could that phrase possibly be referring to?
They're great if you're in a populated area. If you're tracking pets in the country, you'll never see them, as there aren't any relay devices out in the woods.
reply