I don't understand, why is a QR code a dark pattern?

Edit: I have now read the entire Wikipedia page on dark patterns, I didn't find one that would match.

I agree it's gambling, but where is the line? Is killing a boss in World of Warcraft not gambling? You also have various chances of getting random rare items, which you can then sell for real money on third party sites.

Where is the line between random outcomes being part of the game, and it being gambling? CS:GO is really obvious, but what if they didn't have the box opening thing, you just got the random skin directly after winning a match, without having to explicitly open the "loot box"? Would it still be gambling then? Feels like it should since the end result is the same, but then every game with loot has gambling. I genuinely don't know.

Your QR code scanner showns you the URL before you choose to open it, right? So I don't really get the comparison to short URLs. As with any normal link, you get to see the link before you choose to "click" the QR code after you scan it.

Nice crop to hide the fact these are rows 11,12,13... not 1,2,3 and there are probably in fact numbers above so that it does sum up to 15.

I don't like AI but this is fake

I watched it live, they did respond to his direct questions, but at some point Trump went into a monologue that didn't end in a question, and they didn't say anything back, keeping a silence going for an awkward amount of time until Houston asked if they are still on the line and they confirmed that yeah they heard everything. And said nothing else.

"because that's the only way to use it without being harassed online"

I disagree with his reasons for removing it, but they are pretty clear.

Why do you say it's an amazing project? Looks to me like someone copied vim, and according to the commits did nothing useful other than changing some text in a few files. The author's comments are all about coming up with a cool name for it, and what "cool" new features to add. I don't see any plan on actually making this a viable competing project. I don't see the author having much credentials in leading a project of this caliber either.

Before anyone misunderstands my comment, yes anyone not liking AI should stop using vim, I very much agree. And there are two viable ways forward:

• Switch to a different editor
• Talk to the maintainers of vim to remove AI

This project is not one of them.

Where is the author's plan to tackle the 1600 issues that vim has open? How do they address the fact that vim has hundreds of commits each month, and literally had 68 contributors in just the last month? In the past month they closed 66 issues with vim. Half of vim's codebase is written in vimscript, and the other half in C. The new lead maintainer, I quote: "thankfully i know some C, but not vimscript". They know some C and no vimscript? So how do they plan to develop this project?!

Another quote: "removing old targets, stripping away graphical stuff (who uses this in graphical mode anyways? everyone uses it in the CLI...", and they already plan to drop Windows support. Already ignoring user's needs and removing functionality. Now, they are perfectly entitled to do whatever in their fork. But how is it a viable competitor to vim in any way?

Even assuming the worst case scenario on what damage AI can do to the progress of vim's development, who can seriously suggest that 1 person who doesn't even know the relevant programming langagues can make a better project than hundreds of experienced contributors that are doing it for years, AI or not?

And again, all the power to them, they can have some fun with their fork. But it's ridicoulus to suggest it as an alternative. Two years from now, vim will have fixed ~1500 issues at the current rate. And will have a bunch of new ones due to AI. Meanwhile this project will be dead, and the latest version will have 1500 unfixed issues that are all fixed in vim.

Taking a stance again AI in vim? Do it, campaign for it, talk to the maintainers, effect change, review PRs and comment about the AI mistakes you see, submit bug reports for bugs caused by AI and make a case for forbidding it's use. You have my full support. This fork? It's obviously going nowhere, it's a waste of effort that could be used to actually stop AI.

Yeah, it is. It's such an extraordinary claim.

One requiring extraordinary evidence that wasn't provided.

"It's doing amazing hacks to access everything and it's so good at it it's undetectable!" Right, how convenient.

I'm sure Temu collects all information you put into the app and your behaviour in it, but this guy is making some very bold claims about things that just aren't possible unless Temu is packing some serious 0-days.

For example he says the app is collecting your fingerprint data. How would that even happen? Apps don't have access to fingerprint data, because the operating system just reports to the app "a valid fingerprint was scanned" or "an unknown fingerprint was scanned", and the actual fingerprint never goes anywhere. Is Temu doing an undetected root/jailbreak, then installing custom drivers for the fingerprint sensor to change how it works?

And this is just one claim. It's just full of bullshit. To do everything listed there it would have to do multiple major exploits that are on state-actor level and wouldn't be wasted on such trivial purpose. Because now that's it's "revealed", Google and Apple would patch them immediately.

But there is nothing to patch, because most of the claims here are just bullshit, with no technical proof whatsoever.

It lets you have analytics in your game (how many players do X, use y feature), without the backlash of analytics.

Of course it makes sense, the code does pretty much nothing. The point is that the tutorial does not teach you about how to remove a background. It's like a "how to cook X" article that just tells you to "order X online" and that's it.

The confusion stems from the fact there no APIs in Android that let apps use RCS. Only Google can use it on Android and no other apps can use it. Anyone can make an SMS app. Only Google can make an RCS app.

It is an open standard, meaning you are free to create your own operating system for phones that implements RCS. But Google doesn't let you use it on Android, so in practice it's closed.

Plus, Google's implementation of RCS adds extra features (like encryption) that aren't part of the standard. So even if you create your own operating system that implements RCS, it will still be incompatible. So that's another reason it's not really open.