The Atlantic article is mostly based on subjective choices/values while since should be objective, but generally science should be about arguments, so everyone can come to a conclusion themselves. Give me the arguments/pros/cons on a candidate's policy (and past performance), not the ad hominem.
I think the point is that if Google is not allowed to make such payments, neither is Microsoft (unless they want to risk the same lawsuit against them). Apple will stay with Google since a change would probably be unpopular with users. End result: Default search engines stay the same, but Google doesn't have to pay for it anymore.
I think this ignores Apple could still develop their own search engine, as they did with Maps, and pocket the ad revenue themselves.
They could, and they should, but they definitely won't. Similar to how they use just a ChatGPT anonymized wrapper for their "advanced AI features", they'll just outsource search to some big player as well.
+1 - I came to the comments to mention powertoys. I’ve had good success with it for OCR on windows 10… also , strange use case maybe - you can run blue stacks to emulate Android and then power toys to copy and paste OCR text. If you have an obscure android only app you need to rip text from.
IMHO it would still be a useful feature, just one that is not strictly needed. You are not able to to pass around such structs, but neither is that possible with the suggested `defer` statement. The only advantage of `defer` is that the destructor code is inline, rather than in a separate destructor function.
But you could gain reusability of headers to be also used in C++, not needing to reinvent the wheel with new issues (e.g. variable lifetime), and a whole lot of existing experience with RAII.
