If your update system requires 1-2 days of "post-upgrade homeswork" time and slows your phone by 50% in the process, you've designed a very poor update system.
Apple successfully upgrades a huge majority of all their phones in the field, and nearly all of those users are barely even aware of it. They plug their phone in at night, sometimes in the morning there's a message about a new version. Maybe they notice their phone is slow for a day or two, likely they don't. No major incidents involving mass-bricking of phones, no rollbacks, no data loss... arguably the most successful update system in the history of technology.
> It’s just true that data structures change over time
Sure, but it seems only 1 of the OS's takes this long to be fully usable post-update. Why is that? Does Android not ever have to change data structures and if so, why doesn't it take their OS 24-48 hours of post-processing to finish the update? You find this acceptable?
Android doesn’t have the same feature set. Comparing the two like this is an obvious fallacy. For example, Apple does their ML e.g. for photos on device for privacy reasons, whereas Google does it in the cloud.
I’m not saying ML is the cause although it could be. I’m saying they are different products with different values, so expecting them to behave the same doesn’t make sense.
And yes, some background processing after an update is more than acceptable. It’s desirable if it means sending less data to Google.
It's nonsense, just people who see something happen once and continue to make nonsense assumptions. "Last time there was en eclipse my power went out, therefore the eclipse caused it"
What's the connection between RH, Citadel, and Doge? Yes, it happened during GME, but they had a vested interest as GME short sellers and no actual connection between them and reddit downtime was ever established.
Now we're talking about crypto and making the same assumptions. It's no different than all of the kids on reddit with 2 months experience in the market who now believe they can spot a short squeeze coming.
Even if I take those numbers at face value, it's disengenuous to mix in those from 1964 and up until we banned public smoking nearly everywhere you can imagine. The last place you can smoke freely is your home, and this doesn't address that.
>Your argument boils down to “I want the right to poison myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets.”
So when do we ban highly processed foods that are killing far more people every day? Not sure what the difference is aside from it's acceptible to play Mommy to smokers but not the overweight/obese.
Yes, many media outlets are sensationalist, have a poor record of journalistic integrety, yet their product is consumed by millions of people. That doesn't make them a good source; it makes them a liability.
There's nothing proving that the boogyman doesn't exist either.