boff

As much as technologists like us wish we could prioritize efficiency and use the latest and flashiest tools all the time, that's just not practical. When you say you want each company to have an objective set of technical requirements when choosing a toolset, you also have to have a set of practical requirements. What is the cost of friction of adding a new tech stack to the company?

Adding electron means just learning electron. Adding Tauri means learning Tauri and Rust.

It's like the saying goes, "the best camera is the one you have with you". It's true with any business decision.

If I'm a company and want to bring something to production quickly, what should i choose:

1. A relatively new tool that has seen barely any production use and thus could have a bunch of unanticipated problems. Also nobody uses it so every new engineer you bring onto the project has to learn something entirely new before they can start really contributing. You also have no idea how long it will be supported by its developers into the long term future.

2. A battle hardened, production tested tool that has a huge community, has been around for a long time, and that a lot more developers already know how to use.

Sure #2 might be slower by a few fractions of a second, but if I'm in charge of the business i know which option I'm going to choose 100% of the time.

Why do you think everyone cares to optimize every single ounce of their ram memory. There is a lot more to UX than that.

I would rather an imperfect choice than none at all

User experience is not just about optimizing every little bit of your RAM consumption. They're are plenty of other factors as well

Same thing happens to me if I were to open each of those apps as chrome tabs.

The apps you listed provide a web version also. Adding choice to the customer experience is a good thing!

Because many users often enjoy using a dedicated application than a website. Plus it gives developers access to even more customization than browsers normally provide.

If they customers didn't like using it, companies wouldn't keep making these apps.

Personally, I'm a techie guy but I get exhausted with the number of tabs i have open at any time. I don't need to have more dedicated to just slack, Spotify, discord etc

Genuine question, why does it matter? Why shouldn't a project choose a production ready method of creating cross platform compatible code to avoid duplication of efforts and cost?

The issue isnt really the color, it's that all images and video are degraded in quality. That means android users are excluded from iphone group chats. This is a bug deal in America where iphones are incredibly popular.

I think it's fair to be excited that people are working on ways to bridge the divide. Especially when the technical aspects of the reverse engineering is pretty cool. Not to mention the proof of concept was originally made by a high school student!

Why did you frame this data discussing Israel? Almost all of these deals were to support Ukraine's defense via Poland.

I've certainly seen and heard of Google modifying results or puting punishments on users because they broach topics that violate their terms of service.

I will absolutely agree that the rules of their ToS are heavily determined by the desires of advertisers and written laws.

But just because they may restrict the content based off of advertiser's wishes or because they are legally required to do so doesn't mean that Google is in bed with the government and willing to do anything to prop up the government's power so they can keep making money from them.

That's a really big and important jump you can't just hand wave away just because a company as large as Google works with the government on some things. That's just conspiracy theory and detracts from the very real, evidence based criticisms we can and should be focusing on.

In order to make a claim like that you need two different evidences: one showing that they did remove content critical of the US and one showing that they removed it because they intended to use the removal to make more money

Just because they've done some things wrong doesn't mean they have done everything that's wrong. I would rather base my criticism on companies (or people or ideas) on true facts.

That means sometimes there's an uncomfortable situation where an otherwise evil organization isn't always evil in every situation, and that is ok.