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?

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

But the rich are the ones buying a lot of the art! Who will pay the artists if you eat the people with the money?

Thank you!!

Has the hacker group given any proof that they actually have anything? All of the articles I’ve read only say the hackers have claimed to have 80GB of data.

Archive link: http://archive.today/2023.06.19-061857/https://www.wired.com/story/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle/

That’s definitely an ideal benefit of decentralization, but as the OP correctly pointed out, the reality often works out differently than the ideal.

I don’t think most customers really care about their privacy.

I’m not entirely sure Apple is way too much better. They still mine a ton of days from you, they might just not sell as much as blatantly as Google.

they took what was almost certainly a profitable service and abandoned it

They oftentimes make a decision like this when their internal math tells them that the resources they put into domains could make them more money if they were put in another product. If you consider the opportunity cost, it could make sense to Google to make a change like this.

From our perspective, it’s crazy, but it’s easy to forget the huge scale of the money they are dealing with.

services like Gmail and Maps which can’t be profitable

They aren’t profitable, neither is Photos, but they are considered essential applications that keep users bought into the google ecosystem and are necessary for android to remain competitive.

You are absolutely right with your description. One thing to note since OP was looking for the distinction: most mods are power users. It’s usually the most active and enthusiastic users who have the desire to become a moderator.

Unfortunately, I can’t think of any way you could implement a voting feature for mods that wouldn’t be abused. There are bots that would be inevitably able to vote in anyone they want

Also being a mod is difficult and you will have to make unpopular decisions. Sometimes the person you took action on will misrepresent what happened or outright lie to sway public opinion against you. People will take advantage of that to vote a mod out.

Do you have some way to prevent abuse like that happening?

No i think they do get it, it’s exactly like how subreddits work, if you don’t like how /r/technology works, you can always create a new tech based subreddit moderated anyway you like. The issue isnt that there are multiple communities.

The problem, as always, is discoverability of all of these disjointed communities. I’m still new to Lemmy, but it seems like you have to rely on an external 3rd party tool like https://browse.feddit.de/ to find any of them.