Developing technology to improve audio quality would be useless, but improving the vinyl manufacturing process to reduce cost and increase capacity would be worthwhile, as it could expand adoption.
Oh please. Apple, and most of big tech is extremely socially liberal, and easy to implement or not there was no need to spend time implementing it except to cater to the trans community.
If ease of implementation was the sole driving factor then why are all the handshake emojis skin tones that actually exist, stands to reason it would be just as easy to flip some color codes and have every possible skin tone from green to orange shaking hands. Where's my alien-shaking-hands-with-oompa-loompa emoji dammit?
I personally don't care, and Apple is more than welcome to promote whatever messages they want on their private platform. But let's not pretend it's apolitical.
I'd rather say that corporations are amoral, not political. They are only seemingly political to the degree that it benefits the business the most. On a broader scale, you can observe that they behave differently in different regions, and behavior also differs on a larger time scale, often molding to the current times.
It should be there, because it enables expression just like all other emoji. It would have been a deliberate, discriminatory choice to not include it. If someone doesn't like that emoji, guess what: They don't have to use it!
The whole point of Unicode and emoji in Unicode is to support and enable free expression for the whole world. It makes sense to lean inclusive.
While I have no personal opinion on this topic (it hardly affects me in anyway); the emojis were most definitely added for conscious and political purposes:
Speaking of range, ebikes today vary a lot, some do 100 miles but some can only do 20 (which wouldn’t even get me to the office on the shortest route).
Tough to say “most”. You’re probably right but a non-zero amount of people who pay luxury cars like Mercedes/BMW want a) status symbols but b) the time they spend in their vehicles as enjoyable.
This seems poorly argued. There's a lot of emphasis on technical minutiae, but the question is whether the way the model embeds and reproduces the features of the input images infringes on copyright. I would think that is more dependent on the capabilities and functions of the models, not the specific mechanism of implementation.
Also, the Jevon's paradox bit is a tangent. AI image tools may become widespread, and their use may expand the art market, benefitting artists who make use of them. That is not a relevant point, because the lawsuit is not about the legality of image-generating neural networks; It is about whether using an unlicensed image to train such a model infringes on its copyright. If it was found that it does, then AI art could still transform the art market; All that would change would be that images would need to licensed for training.
That's worse. If companies are unable to adjust salaries to match increases in overall costs without fulfilling their primary purpose, then it suggests that the entire economic system is dysfunctional.
If 'Oumuamua is a probe, it appears that it would be a fairly simple one. To a sufficiently advanced civilisation, it would probably be relatively low-cost. If an alien civilisation has a reasonable degree of curiosity, sending a cheap probe to examine another star system is likely worthwhile.
I would imagine there's also a universal drive of life to try and spread. a probe that can parachute microbes to earthlike planets as it 'buzzes' them would seem worthwhile on its face to me. I rationalize it as a way to 'pay forward' the debt we owe for the current mass extinction, but on some level it's probably also an abstraction of my sex drive.
Swift only uses reference counting when working with objects; Structs are optimised using copy-on-write. There's currently work on implementing move and ownership semantics, similar to Rust, but opt-in rather than by default.
Swift structs are just like C structs (from a memory perspective). The copy-on-write thing is implemented manually by storing a private refcounted object in your struct. See the implementation of Array for example: https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/main/stdlib/public/core/...
There’s no magical copy-on-write mechanism at the language level.
I don't know why this is downvoted, it's true. There is no automatic copy on write optimization in Swift. It's a manual optimization that expensive types like Array implement manually.
