Yes, it’s terrible in Latin America. For example, in many areas of Santiago, Chile, you can’t take your phone out on the street without risking snatching.
I agree, I've been developing for iOS since 2011 and the only unpleasant change that has happened is the growth in number of screen resolution. Doing pixel-perfect UIs just for 640x960 and 1136x645 was much more comfortable.
Android, on the other hand, is a dumpster fire. The worst SDK I've worked in my life, building UIs there is incredibly frustrating.
macOS has decades-long technical debt as well (NSCell can still be found in the UIs you see), yet it remains incredibly robust aside from the years when Apple shake it with big visual updates.
Funny, for a lot of the functionality you get with Windows you have to pay some random dev for with MacOS. Window management alone feels like it's baby's first computer.
Last time I checked Windows still did not have anything like Quick Look, so for me it's the opposite. The only macOS enhancements I've been using since 2011 are Karabiner for keyboard customization and f.lux for warm colors at night.
of course, but that's on the feature completeness axis not on the stability (robustness), right?
I mean on macOS the Settings are so spartan it can really fit on an unfolded napkin. for power/battery management you need something like Amphetamine. Furthermore AFAIK there are no per-SSID network settings, so you either do DHCP or static IP. Have fun manually changing every time you go home-office. And so on.
It's much, much better. I'm doing both and it always takes at least 2x time to do the same thing on Android. Apple's API are much more consistent and the overall architecture of UIKit is just great (thank to its AppKit ancestor).
The feedback we get is SwiftUI is half-baked while the newer Android stuff is a lot more stable.
OTOH, Apple does a better job at handling things like languages, currencies, and all those experience, whereas Google is notoriously unreliable despite all the best practices. It's common practice to just "force" the wrong locale on an app to handle translations because a user's device would be English-US and yet someone wants the display in another language. OR someone wants a certain local currency in the form of 1.000,00 and not 1,000.00 (which also wreaks havoc with BigDecimal etc) and yet they'll keep the language and formatting as English and you'd have to do some override. We spent weeks on things like this and the iOS solution would just be "use device settings lol"
Coming from iOS development, it was incredibly frustrating not to have an event for software keyboard appearance/disappearance. I tried researching the issue and ended up in Google Groups, where an official Google representative was smugly telling the developers that they did not need such a feature to make Android apps.
Ah, those Google Groups where you are made to feel like an idiot for just reporting an issue and then few centuries later someone with some @google.com email comes and says something completely unrelated and closes it.
As someone who moved from pure iOS development to cross-platform iOS+Android development in C# with native UIs – big nope! Android development is a mess, it takes at least twice as long to build exactly the same UIs as on iOS, and there are endless edge cases between versions and also hostile API, such as not allowing a developer to know when a software keyboard appears/disappears. It was especially frustrating at the start, but has not become much easier with experience.
And the fractured developer ecosystem with multiple UI frameworks (WPF, WinUI, MAUI, Blazor) all being understaffed, while actual Microsoft products are being developed in React Native.
Not in developing countries: most small excavations in Chile are done by hand, even during road construction. Very few bobcats around here, so anything where a backhoe would be too big is done with shovels.
This is not pettiness, but typical behavior of settler-colonial landowners who view indigenous peoples as subhuman pests unworthy of their land for "using it unproductively." They have already committed genocide against his tribe and will try their best to erase his history to prevent him from becoming a symbol of indigenous resistance. We can currently observe the same behavior on the other side of the planet, with the genocidal settler force desecrating and razing to the ground everything they can find.
It's not universal enough to be advised to someone as a solution, increasing the already existing social pressure to have children, and also exposing both the potential parent and child to the risk of lifelong unhappiness together.
Also "spouse or children" – those are too different, Personally, I've been married for over a decade, but I don't have the emotional capacity to be a parent and desire to have kids in the first place.
>You seem to not know anyone who was an unwanted child born because of some secondary motivation
Don't you think there's a difference between suggesting that someone start a family (and itemizing benefits of that life path), and FORCING someone to start a family? If OP does not want a family, they don't have to have a family. Geez.
You are the one aggressively pushing others to have kids with unproved statements that only a minority is not cut out for this task and that it will surely give them purpose. So the kids will become a means to an end, in your own words: "a solid reason why you should get out of bed".
This what leads to deeply affected people: being born and raised because the parents had some secondary goal in mind and needed children for that goal. Can be searching for meaning in life, social pressure, material benefits or even "our beloved first child needs a sibling".
>You are the one aggressively pushing others to have kids with unproved statements that only a minority is not cut out for this task and that it will surely give them purpose.
I think that's a statement of fact backed-up by a biological reality. There is always variability, and a minority of people, I admit, are probably not cut-out for establishing a family. Underneath all that is choice, you are free to choose one way or the other - a freedom that OP certainly has.
What is the aggressive push I'm making? Is it that I suggested to OP that the lack of meaning OP finds in their life, even though they have a good job and a comfortable life, is maybe due to the fact that they didn't establish a family so that they can actually give something of themselves to another human being? So that their day-to-day life isn't just about them? Is that advice worse than medicalizing the issue prematurely? Or to just find another hobby? Why not at least consider doing something that we have been biologically built for, that was a fact of our existence for eons?
Seriously, I do not understand you. Why shouldn't OP JUST CONSIDER it. You and I can't force OP to do anything. OP has already tried everything else. Why is that so distasteful to you personally, that you would rather OP seek medical attention, based on nothing, instead of having them really thinking about one of the most fundamental and meaningful institutions that a human being could engage in - starting a family.
>This what leads to deeply affected people: being born and raised because the parents had some secondary goal in mind and needed children for that goal.
We live in a society with a negative replacement rate. This is not a problem for our society.
I did not personally suggest medical attention, but it is something OP can try and then stop if it’s not helping. But having kids cannot be undone unless one is ready to abandon them.
>biological reality
>negative replacement rate
>most fundamental and meaningful institutions that a human being could engage in
I perceive a particular ideology behind those phrases, so the basics of our worldviews do not match in the first place. If anything, the "biological reality" for me is overshoot and ecosystem collapse, so there's no need to worry about replacement rates.
