I think you may be thinking of implicit returns, where the `return` keyword is not necessary. An inferred return is a separate feature where the return type is known by the compiler, but not stated explicitly by the programmer. (Note that the code in question uses both.)
Ruby, of course, technically has both as well. However, inferring a return type in a dynamically-typed language is probably less noteworthy ;)
I was going to pop in to say that. also going to add that I hate implicit things like this. messes with my brain, how hard is it to just add the return keyword? saving a few keystrokes hardly seems worth the increased cognitive cost to others.
In most languages that have implicit returns (that I’m aware of), the languages are also expression-oriented. For example, in Rust, if/else is actually an expression and you can use the result:
let result = if foo > 5 {
"Big foo"
} else {
"Small foo"
};
Implicit returns are just an extension of this (it’s really just “semicolons create statements; if you don’t have a semicolon, that’s the final value of the block”). The explicit return is an actual statement that returns early.
IME the holistic design works pretty well, and I think you can glue together expressions much more naturally this way. The implicit return on itself would be much more annoying IMO.
“Implicit return” is basically a misnomer; there’s no language that I’m aware of that implicitly returns early. They’re all expression oriented and act like this.
Is there an opt-out? Or, more importantly, was there an explicit opt-in?
Data from crashes on my device is still my data, not Google's. Google can pop up an alert telling me things went pear-shaped, and then ask to send it back to the devs for analysis.
This is a company already trusted with extremely sensitive information and who have suffered a stream of stories suggesting they may not be fulfilling that trust in the way a reasonable customer might expect, all the while while charging users enough of a price that the service isn't obviously ad/data sale supported.
The bar should be a lot higher for them, it's not some free tic-tac-toe app.
iOS crash reporting and analytics are built in, but requires explicit user opt-in. It's not a requirement that an iOS app use Crashlytics or similar to get this sort of data, so saying "every single app will use such service" is not exactly truthful. And, besides, saying that "everyone does it" is not an excuse for the behavior.
Highlighting Ring makes sense as it represents a new dimension in terms of data collection and data risk. Highlighting Google and Facebook makes sense as they are the major data collectors who take great liberties in using the data to help undermining democracy and manipulate individuals through hyper targeted advertisements.
Worth noting that "crash reporting" is very much worth reporting on and paying attention to, as transmitting a lot of sensitive data in crash reports could be beneficial to fixing bugs (but obviously not beneficial to the indiviual's rights).
This sort of pedantic hand-wringing is tiring. Google sells many things, one of which is advertising. Firebase Crashlytics may be free, but it's made available by Google in the hopes that developers pay for Firebase's full suite of paid offerings—it's not to populate additional user data to their ad or search algorithms.
This may be an excessively optimistic read. A person has to know a reasonable amount about software systems and common development practices to decide crash reporting isn't worth writing about.
The bar to deciding that Google is getting user's data somehow and this is newsworthy is lower, and requires no grasp of underlying details. Technology journalists are often journalists first, and technologists second if at all. I don't blame them, it's the nature of the job.
The crash data is needed for debugging. It's debatable if it's your data, it's the developer's misbehaving code. An app can be architected so more of the code runs on the server than on the client, if an action you took on the client causes a crash on ny server I'm not going to ask you for permission to look at my crash logs.
Not by me. I'm not going to debug the app; I'm just going to kill it and restart it. If the developer of the app wants my data to help his debugging, he needs to ask.
> if an action you took on the client causes a crash on my server I'm not going to ask you for permission to look at my crash logs.
Of course not, but your crash logs aren't coming from my phone. If you want to look at data from my phone, you need to ask.
> It seems possible that the US will get itself into a conflict, possibly (hopefully!) non-total, that disrupts its globalised supply chains and results in massive US business losses.
Before WW1 happened, people thought there was no way a major war in Europe, entangling the major powers, would happen because all of their economies were tied together and it would result in a major economic collapse. However, the war still happened.
One "good" thing about it is that if they are stupid enough to do it anyway the damage means they are less likely to be capable of repeating their mistakes with the same magnitude.
Granted the circumstances can still set the stage afterwards for future conflicts even if the fools responsible lost power as unfortunately demonstrated by WW2.
> Do veterinarians like it when you ask them to take a look at your cat when they're not in clinic? No. Almost always no.
My wife(a vet) won't even let me tell people, that aren't very close to me, that she is a vet. It's ridiculous the amount of free advice she gets asked. The worst part about it is that she has had several classmates from vet school that have been sued(and lost) from the free advice they gave to other people outside of work hours. It's a huge liability issue and trust me, the people who want free medical advice are the people who will sue you because you didn't correctly diagnose the problem for free.
I included the vet example because they're almost violent about not wanting to work outside of hours.
For the reason you stated. And some have told me that providing that kind of free advice devalues the profession and enables bad (read cheap) pet owners.
If I had to guess, the decision will always be to protect the occupants of the car over everything else. No one is going to buy a car that will kill you to save others.
That's not what I was saying. That a car is statistically more safe is not comforting when it kills you in a way you would have easily avoided had you been driving.
