I’ve done it because work is ✨desparate✨ and required I try it to learn it for some reason. I’m at a senior level. Generally I instructed it on the exact architecture and patterns I wanted, along with the broad classes and algorithms required. That meant it was left to do the individual procedure implementation that I might have instructed a junior developer to do while I managed more macro level concerns. It did surprisingly well, but this was on a greenfield project, so It would probably become excessively slow and error prone on a sufficiently large project.

Hmm interesting, thanks for the link!

You and every other conspiracy theorist can express your unevidenced beliefs how you like, this conversation clearly isn’t worth my time.

Do you actually have any evidence Waymo staff can remotely drive their vehicles? Or are you just tilting at windmills? I don’t really appreciate the insinuation that I am some rube by someone evidently unaware of basic cybersecurity concepts.

There are real problems with this arrangement that should be focused on rather than vague speculations - i.e. the exploitation of developing nations by the machine learning/tech industry.

They’re running red team hacking scenarios, an extremely standard, common, and good practice in the cybersecurity industry. Any device, especially one connected to the internet, is at risk of being hacked - it would be naive to assume otherwise, so they’re hiring professionals to penetrate their security before someone else does. This is actually a sign they’re taking security seriously.

Also, from the article: “they do not remotely drive the vehicles”.

What is it with the far right and school girls?

Considering you can turn off telemetry and never need to connect it to the internet after activation, I’m assuming that - like how Adobe uses cheap education licenses to on-ramp people onto their platform - this is largely intended to drive professionals towards Canva and their various other products. They take a loss on this product to become the de-facto standard image/vector/publishing application.

Still no Linux support. As someone who purchased the Affinity Suite, I’m not sure I like this shift in model. If they keep to just fencing off AI in premium and keep investing in the whole app, fine, but I don’t have my hopes up.

Yeah, someone has looked at the spreadsheet and realised that basically no one uses the desktop app I’ll bet

This is awful. One of my favorite differences between Android and iOS, as both a user AND developer is sideloading.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for Google to provide extra support and exceptions to parts of their guidelines to certain parties, including themselves. No one is claiming this is a consequence-neutral decision, and it’s right to not inherently trust these exceptions, but it is not a black and white issue.

In this case, placing extra barriers around sensitive permissions like MANAGE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE for untrusted parties is perfectly reasonable, but the process they implemented should be competent and appealable to a real support person. What Google should be criticized for (and “heavily fined” by the EU if that were to happen) is their inconsistent and often incorrect baseline review process, as well as their lack of any real support. They are essentially part of a duopoly and should thus be forced to act responsibly.

Oh yeah for sure. Google, extremely large companies, and government apps essentially have different streams and access to support than the rest of us mere mortals. They all receive scrutiny, and may have slightly altered guidelines depending on the app, but the most consequential difference is that they have much more ability to access real support. I just don’t think it was an intentional and specific attempt to be anti-competitive, this is better explained by incompetence and the consequences of well-intentioned but poorly implemented policy.

I’ve experienced this exact issue with the Google Play Store with some clients and it’s just the worst. This kinda thing happens because Google is essentially half-arsing an Apple-style comprehensive review of apps. For context, Apple offers thorough reviews pointing to exactly how the app violates policy/was rejected, with mostly free one-on-one support with a genuine Apple engineer to discuss or review the validity of the report/how to fix it. They’re restrictive as hell and occasionally make mistakes, but at the end of the road there is a real, extremely competent human able to dedicate time to assist you.

Google uses a mix of human and automated reviewers that are even more incompetent than Apple’s frontline reviewers. They will reject your app for what often feels like arbitrary reasons, and you’re lucky if their reason amounts to more than a single sentence. Unlike Apple, from that point you have few options. I have yet to find an official way to reach an actually useful human unless you happen to know someone in Google’s Android/Developer Relations team.

I’m actually certain that the issues facing Nextcloud are not some malicious anti-competitive effort, but yet more sheer and utter incompetence from every enterprise/business facing aspect of Google.