The convenience of having the first email in "claim" the inbox sounds nice, but how do you stop bad actors from claiming other genuine businesses before you've done business with them? ex., one fast food company spamming all of their competitors' names for your accounts?
What's the difficulty in letting someone manually add more domains, or replace the existing domain explicitly without going through a "release inbox, and the next email can claim it again" dance?
I really like this idea, but only in theory right now.
The check isn't important; what's important is being predictable so the CPU can guess which way the check will go. I don't know exactly how it works, but after the first couple of loops, the predictor will assume it's always going to end up in the loop and make that the fast path. It may guess wrong the first couple of loops, and the last check wrong, but the other 997 will be correct.
There is a static branch predictor that is used if there is no statistic on a branching instruction yet, and it's really simple: Jumps backward are assumed to be taken (they usually are from a loop), jumps forward are assumed to be not taken.
So the jump that forms the loop will be predicted correctly for all executions but the very last (when the loop ends).
This is disgusting and unconscionable conduct by Apple. Your whole life is locked into your account (digital data and physical devices), and they either don't care or don't have the processes in place to fix it.
This is the kind of thing they need to be sued on a massive scale for to solve but it's too rare and too expensive for anything to ever happen to them for it.
> A state projection concluded that the connector collapse had cost $90 million, based on a $6 million per day economic impact estimate. This includes a $491,000 loss in toll revenue for the Oakland Bay Bridge
Sounds like $200,000 a day for bonus payments was nothing.
It also has to do with the ad networks. For example with Google adsense, they really encourage you to use responsive ads:
"You can use responsive ads to provide a great user experience on your pages. They look good on desktop, tablet, and mobile devices. "
But when you use a responsive ad, google can dynamically decide the height of the ad. They don't want you use use a fixed height container:
"The parent container has fixed or limited height. Responsive ads should not be placed inside containers with a fixed or limited height, as they may be taller on some devices or browsers. If you need to limit the height of your responsive ads, you’ll need to modify your code and use CSS media queries to set the height of the parent container."
Which is strange since Google will also penalize your site for shifting all the content after the initial paint. So they won't let you define a maximum width or height, but will also penalize you for having dynamic width and height elements.
It could well be naive A/B testing. "Oh, this configuration has really increased our click-through rates", not realising that it's because people are trying to click on something, and an ad jumps into the space that they're just about to click.
I honestly think that's the truth for the majority of cases like this, or at worst a kind of willful blindness. Of course there are the scammers, but I think they generally produce such terrible work that very few people use it on an ongoing basis. I'm sure there are examples between those two, but I reckon they're few and far between.
Also this is just weird, it tries to be EE but it just ends up being convoluted without applying the patterns correctly. E.g. all the logic is executed in the constructor of HelloWorld.java - I can't imagine that ever getting past code review.
Well it's on gh so why not fork and fake a PR with your code critiques (plus lots more, such as heretically not using a symbolic constant for zero) to make the satire perfect?
> “I decided it was probably not worth $7,000, [to sue Google]” he said.
This is a big part of the problem, technically you have a recourse, but the cost for individuals is a barrier to justice. Organisations have a lot of freedom to act behind the cost to litigate.
What's the difficulty in letting someone manually add more domains, or replace the existing domain explicitly without going through a "release inbox, and the next email can claim it again" dance?
I really like this idea, but only in theory right now.