Apple stand
-
@boomzilla and yet you managed to squeeze so much wrongness in there.
-
@Gąska no
-
@boomzilla yes
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
So yes, Google is a fucking monopoly.
Google gives you the option to sideload APKs easily if you want (that's way more than Apple does), but sure, they're a monopoly like Apple
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Let's not.
Let's instead talk about software products like people who know a thing or two about their life-cycle.I tried at first but apparently some people here cannot comprehend how knowing that more code increases bug count doesn't let you determine number of bugs with just code size alone.
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Features you are adding can be independent or partially relying on existing functionality.
In both cases you are adding some lines of code.That's in development, and when you're a developer. But in case of finished products, and in case you're a customer, it looks a little different. Namely, you don't add features. You just have two products to choose from. One product has one set of features. The other has another set of features, which may be the same as the first, or might be a strict subset of the first, or a strict superset, or both might have some features not present in each other. In none of these cases it tells you anything about how many bugs there might be in each product. "More features means more bugs" is only ever true if you're comparing the very same product immediately before and immediately after adding a single feature and without any other changes whatsoever. In particular, it's patently false when comparing Android to iPhone, which was the original context where this correlation between number of features and bug count was invoked.
-
@Gąska To extend your (correct) point with an analogy:
You have two solid objects. One has much greater mass than the other. Can we conclude from that that the volume of the larger object is greater than the mass of the smaller object? After all, if you add mass to an existing solid object, you must add volume as well.
No. The missing factor is density. One might be made out of aluminum and the other out of lead; lead is about 5x more dense.
Same with software. The missing factor is bug density--average number of bugs per feature. And that's quite unknown, so saying one has more features => more bugs is not even wrong.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Are you seriosly expecting people to sideload APKs from random sources?
Fortnite did, and it's apparently wildly successful...
-
@Tsaukpaetra Loto-Quebec makes an app that is available on the Apple app store, but not on the Google Play store (because of the no gambling rule or something), so you have to side-load it on Android
-
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Let's not.
Let's instead talk about software products like people who know a thing or two about their life-cycle.I tried at first but apparently some people here cannot comprehend how knowing that more code increases bug count doesn't let you determine number of bugs with just code size alone.
Is that what you thought you were doing? Now that I know what strawman you were addressing some things make more sense.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
Fortnite did, and it's apparently wildly successful...
It had the advantage of being wildly successful before it did that.
-
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Let's not.
Let's instead talk about software products like people who know a thing or two about their life-cycle.I tried at first but apparently some people here cannot comprehend how knowing that more code increases bug count doesn't let you determine number of bugs with just code size alone.
Is that what you thought you were doing? Now that I know what strawman you were addressing some things make more sense.
Is it still a strawman if somebody is seriously making that point in a discussion?
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Let's not.
Let's instead talk about software products like people who know a thing or two about their life-cycle.I tried at first but apparently some people here cannot comprehend how knowing that more code increases bug count doesn't let you determine number of bugs with just code size alone.
Is that what you thought you were doing? Now that I know what strawman you were addressing some things make more sense.
Is it still a strawman if somebody is seriously making that point in a discussion?
Of course not. I'll admit to not reading all of the thread super carefully (vacation
is more than regular ). I just assumed you meant that I'd made that point.
-
@boomzilla maybe you shouldn't have joined a discussion that you haven't checked what it's about.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla maybe you shouldn't have joined a discussion that you haven't checked what it's about.
Maybe you shouldn't try to contradict me but then actually just reply with non sequiturs.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla maybe you shouldn't have joined a discussion that you haven't checked what it's about.
YMBNH™
-
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla maybe you shouldn't have joined a discussion that you haven't checked what it's about.
Maybe you shouldn't try to contradict me but then actually just reply with non sequiturs.
Your very first post in this thread of discussion was trying to contradict me on this very thing...
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla maybe you shouldn't have joined a discussion that you haven't checked what it's about.
Maybe you shouldn't try to contradict me but then actually just reply with non sequiturs.
Your very first post in this thread of discussion was trying to contradict me on this very thing...
Except not at all on the way you just seemed to be paraphrasing it.
-
@boomzilla then tell me, what was this "Are you really trying to say that's not true?" about, if not implying that it's true that more features is more potential bugs? (Which was in context of comparing released Android phone to released iPhone.)
-
@Gąska and what does that have to do with saying you can predict the number of bugs by the code size?
The pony was that at some point someone had to write the feature which was a point in time where new bugs could be introduced. Even rust retards should agree with that.
-
@Gąska It is true that more features is more potential bugs. It is also mostly irrelevant. Using that fact as a reason not to add features is like refusing to cross a busy road because you might get run over. That's fine if you are happy with everything on your current side of the road but otherwise it's a necessary risk. Likewise with adding features to an application or OS. Of course it increases the risk of bugs, and if the proposed features are completely useless to you that may be an unacceptable risk, but refusing to add useful features because it might be buggy is foolish. The awareness that adding features may add bugs allows you to act to minimise that risk but it shouldn't prevent you from adding the features.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Apple stand:
Same with software. The missing factor is bug density--average number of bugs per feature. And that's quite unknown, so saying one has more features => more bugs is not even wrong.
That’s misrepresenting the argument, though. The original statement was "more features = objectively better", for very loosely defined "everything else being equal". There’s no reason a priori to believe the bug density is wildly different (and in which way), and unless it’s zero then yes, the exact same thing without those features would not have the bugs of that part.
If you offered me two basically identical Android phones from the same manufacturer, the only difference being one has a tightly integrated gopher client, would I pick that? Hell no, what do I need that for. It either is just a waste of resources (another point against "objectively" better) in the best case, or has vulnerabilities (even if you don’t actively use it) in the worst case.INB4 someone explains that gopher is not security critical, like that makes any difference to the point.
-
@topspin I was only responding to that one minor point. I agree that any discussion of "objectively better" in this arena is fraught with insuperable difficulties.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Apple stand:
fraught with insuperable difficulties.
I read that as insufferable. Both work.
-
@Seppen of course "refusing to add useful features because it might be buggy is foolish". But this hinges on the feature being useful, which isn’t exactly objective. An advanced feature that just confuses the average phone noob and most of the times leads to them shooting themselves in the foot isn’t automatically a benefit to the user. (Assuming it is present in such a way they do that. Of course you can give power users power and protect normal users if you design things appropriately.)
-
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
The pony was that at some point someone had to write the feature which was a point in time where new bugs could be introduced.
Which is as irrelevant to whether Android is more buggy than iPhone as anything could possibly be. And yet someone has made it their argument. To which I replied. To which you replied, so I assumed you must be at least as retarded as the first person if you believe that.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
The pony was that at some point someone had to write the feature which was a point in time where new bugs could be introduced.
Which is as irrelevant to whether Android is more buggy than iPhone as anything could possibly be. And yet someone has made it their argument. To which I replied. To which you replied, so I assumed you must be at least as retarded as the first person if you believe that.
I believe exactly what I said, not some cockamamie interpretation of yours.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Apple stand:
Same with software. The missing factor is bug density--average number of bugs per feature. And that's quite unknown, so saying one has more features => more bugs is not even wrong.
That’s misrepresenting the argument, though. The original statement was "more features = objectively better", for very loosely defined "everything else being equal".
Not for very loosely. For very strictly defined "everything else being equal". If there's even one smallest difference other than having some feature or not, then you can't make that objective comparison anymore. Unless you're making a detailed, bit-for-bit comparison where you split the products into prime factors and compare these prime factors and compare these prime factors with each other. Then each such comparison of prime factors, which focuses on one metric and one metric only, can be kept completely objective. The only problem is that there are million such factors, and at least 99% aren't measurable by end user, and 90% aren't measurable at all. That's why whole products cannot be compared objectively. But individual aspects can. Having a feature is an individual aspect. Having a feature and the associated risks to reliability isn't individual. These two can be considered separately. They cannot be separated in the sense that one can happen without the other, but they can be separated in the sense of comparing just this one thing, having the feature or not, in isolation of literally everything else. Why is this so hard to understand?
-
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
The pony was that at some point someone had to write the feature which was a point in time where new bugs could be introduced.
Which is as irrelevant to whether Android is more buggy than iPhone as anything could possibly be. And yet someone has made it their argument. To which I replied. To which you replied, so I assumed you must be at least as retarded as the first person if you believe that.
I believe exactly what I said, not some cockamamie interpretation of yours.
And what you said is that you didn't care to check what the discussion is about before chiming in. And didn't bother mentioning it until two pages later.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
The pony was that at some point someone had to write the feature which was a point in time where new bugs could be introduced.
Which is as irrelevant to whether Android is more buggy than iPhone as anything could possibly be. And yet someone has made it their argument. To which I replied. To which you replied, so I assumed you must be at least as retarded as the first person if you believe that.
I believe exactly what I said, not some cockamamie interpretation of yours.
And what you said is that you didn't care to check what the discussion is about before chiming in. And didn't bother mentioning it until two pages later.
Huh. More shit I never said. No one could have predicted that.
-
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
The pony was that at some point someone had to write the feature which was a point in time where new bugs could be introduced.
Which is as irrelevant to whether Android is more buggy than iPhone as anything could possibly be. And yet someone has made it their argument. To which I replied. To which you replied, so I assumed you must be at least as retarded as the first person if you believe that.
I believe exactly what I said, not some cockamamie interpretation of yours.
And what you said is that you didn't care to check what the discussion is about before chiming in. And didn't bother mentioning it until two pages later.
Huh. More shit I never said. No one could have predicted that.
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Let's not.
Let's instead talk about software products like people who know a thing or two about their life-cycle.I tried at first but apparently some people here cannot comprehend how knowing that more code increases bug count doesn't let you determine number of bugs with just code size alone.
Is that what you thought you were doing? Now that I know what strawman you were addressing some things make more sense.
Is it still a strawman if somebody is seriously making that point in a discussion?
Of course not. I'll admit to not reading all of the thread super carefully (vacation
is more than regular ). I just assumed you meant that I'd made that point.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
The pony was that at some point someone had to write the feature which was a point in time where new bugs could be introduced.
Which is as irrelevant to whether Android is more buggy than iPhone as anything could possibly be. And yet someone has made it their argument. To which I replied. To which you replied, so I assumed you must be at least as retarded as the first person if you believe that.
I believe exactly what I said, not some cockamamie interpretation of yours.
And what you said is that you didn't care to check what the discussion is about before chiming in. And didn't bother mentioning it until two pages later.
Huh. More shit I never said. No one could have predicted that.
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Let's not.
Let's instead talk about software products like people who know a thing or two about their life-cycle.I tried at first but apparently some people here cannot comprehend how knowing that more code increases bug count doesn't let you determine number of bugs with just code size alone.
Is that what you thought you were doing? Now that I know what strawman you were addressing some things make more sense.
Is it still a strawman if somebody is seriously making that point in a discussion?
Of course not. I'll admit to not reading all of the thread super carefully (vacation
is more than regular ). I just assumed you meant that I'd made that point.Yes, it's not surprising that you would misinterpret the post where I gave you an out to claim that you were talking about stuff other people said instead of embarrassing yourself by denying the obvious and trivial truth of what I had posted.
-
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
The pony was
I don't think @Tsaukpaetra has been very active in this thread.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
The pony was
I don't think @Tsaukpaetra has been very active in this thread.
No, I got bored after a while...
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Apple stand:
Same with software. The missing factor is bug density--average number of bugs per feature. And that's quite unknown, so saying one has more features => more bugs is not even wrong.
That’s misrepresenting the argument, though. The original statement was "more features = objectively better", for very loosely defined "everything else being equal".
Not for very loosely. For very strictly defined "everything else being equal".
Including the bugs per line ratio? Then you’ve got yourself more bugs right there.
These two can be considered separately. They cannot be separated in the sense that one can happen without the other, but they can be separated in the sense of comparing just this one thing, having the feature or not, in isolation of literally everything else. Why is this so hard to understand?
So you’re considering things separately that cannot be separated. That’s not particularly useful to say, hypothetically, “this part is objectively good and I’m ignoring that it intrinsically comes with this bad part, and just declare it good overall”.
Is there’s a version of psdoom for Android, btw?
-
Status: I introduced a new feature to Master Server (Well, finished programming it anyways) and exposed a bug not related to said feature. What does this count as?
-
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
The pony was that at some point someone had to write the feature which was a point in time where new bugs could be introduced.
Which is as irrelevant to whether Android is more buggy than iPhone as anything could possibly be. And yet someone has made it their argument. To which I replied. To which you replied, so I assumed you must be at least as retarded as the first person if you believe that.
I believe exactly what I said, not some cockamamie interpretation of yours.
And what you said is that you didn't care to check what the discussion is about before chiming in. And didn't bother mentioning it until two pages later.
Huh. More shit I never said. No one could have predicted that.
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Let's not.
Let's instead talk about software products like people who know a thing or two about their life-cycle.I tried at first but apparently some people here cannot comprehend how knowing that more code increases bug count doesn't let you determine number of bugs with just code size alone.
Is that what you thought you were doing? Now that I know what strawman you were addressing some things make more sense.
Is it still a strawman if somebody is seriously making that point in a discussion?
Of course not. I'll admit to not reading all of the thread super carefully (vacation
is more than regular ). I just assumed you meant that I'd made that point.Yes, it's not surprising that you would misinterpret the post where I gave you an out to claim that you were talking about stuff other people said instead of embarrassing yourself by denying the obvious and trivial truth of what I had posted.
It would make sense if you didn't
QUOTE ME TALKING TO SOMEONE ELSE AND SAY THAT WHAT I SAID THERE TO THAT OTHER PERSON IS WRONG
Which is the same as you agreeing with that other person.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
These two can be considered separately. They cannot be separated in the sense that one can happen without the other, but they can be separated in the sense of comparing just this one thing, having the feature or not, in isolation of literally everything else. Why is this so hard to understand?
So you’re considering things separately that cannot be separated.
Cylinders cannot be separated from crankshaft, and yet it's perfectly okay to talk about cylinder displacement separately from crankshaft weight. Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?
That’s not particularly useful to say
You know what's even less useful to say? That one product having some feature that another product doesn't necessarily means that the first one has more potential for bugs.
-
yawn
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Are you seriosly expecting people to sideload APKs from random sources?
Fortnite did, and it's apparently wildly successful...
Hypatia battle royale
-
@kazitor said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Are you seriosly expecting people to sideload APKs from random sources?
Fortnite did, and it's apparently wildly successful...
Hypatia battle royale
In progress. Also, a sports arena.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/487399446980591646/572591629173784578/unknown.png
Also, educational modules.
Also, profit.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
In progress.
I'm surprised, yet simultaneously wholly unsurprised.
-
@kazitor said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
In progress.
I'm surprised, yet simultaneously wholly unsurprised.
Progress: 0.001 percent. It's being "discussed" amongst the "team members".
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
These two can be considered separately. They cannot be separated in the sense that one can happen without the other, but they can be separated in the sense of comparing just this one thing, having the feature or not, in isolation of literally everything else. Why is this so hard to understand?
So you’re considering things separately that cannot be separated.
Cylinders cannot be separated from crankshaft, and yet it's perfectly okay to talk about cylinder displacement separately from crankshaft weight.
Right, and if I put 24 cylinders in my Polo it will be "objectively better", because more is better.
Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?
Is it so hard to grasp that "a feature" can have negative value?
That’s not particularly useful to say
You know what's even less useful to say? That one product having some feature that another product doesn't necessarily means that the first one has more potential for bugs.
Wait, is the rest equal now or isn’t it? Because if it is, then absolutely yes. Make up your mind.
-
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
What does this count as?
Since you didn't state you fixed the exposed bug, the total bug count went up
-
-
@Luhmann said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
What does this count as?
Since you didn't state you fixed the exposed bug, the total bug count went up
Well, I think the bug is fixed. Observation so indicates. But since there are no tests (INB4
) I cannot guarantee it is so.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
The pony was that at some point someone had to write the feature which was a point in time where new bugs could be introduced.
Which is as irrelevant to whether Android is more buggy than iPhone as anything could possibly be. And yet someone has made it their argument. To which I replied. To which you replied, so I assumed you must be at least as retarded as the first person if you believe that.
I believe exactly what I said, not some cockamamie interpretation of yours.
And what you said is that you didn't care to check what the discussion is about before chiming in. And didn't bother mentioning it until two pages later.
Huh. More shit I never said. No one could have predicted that.
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Let's not.
Let's instead talk about software products like people who know a thing or two about their life-cycle.I tried at first but apparently some people here cannot comprehend how knowing that more code increases bug count doesn't let you determine number of bugs with just code size alone.
Is that what you thought you were doing? Now that I know what strawman you were addressing some things make more sense.
Is it still a strawman if somebody is seriously making that point in a discussion?
Of course not. I'll admit to not reading all of the thread super carefully (vacation
is more than regular ). I just assumed you meant that I'd made that point.Yes, it's not surprising that you would misinterpret the post where I gave you an out to claim that you were talking about stuff other people said instead of embarrassing yourself by denying the obvious and trivial truth of what I had posted.
It would make sense if you didn't
QUOTE ME TALKING TO SOMEONE ELSE AND SAY THAT WHAT I SAID THERE TO THAT OTHER PERSON IS WRONG
Which is the same as you agreeing with that other person.
Yes. There are always exactly two sides to any disagreement and disagreeing with one person is exactly the same as agreeing in all aspects with the other person
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
These two can be considered separately. They cannot be separated in the sense that one can happen without the other, but they can be separated in the sense of comparing just this one thing, having the feature or not, in isolation of literally everything else. Why is this so hard to understand?
So you’re considering things separately that cannot be separated.
Cylinders cannot be separated from crankshaft, and yet it's perfectly okay to talk about cylinder displacement separately from crankshaft weight.
Right, and if I put 24 cylinders in my Polo it will be "objectively better", because more is better.
Cylinders aren't features. Cylinders are cylinders. I never said more anything is always objectively better. I said having a feature, with everything else being equal, is better than not having it. However, more cylinders means more power. More power is objectively better than less power. But 24 cylinders most likely also means higher fuel consumption. Higher fuel consumption is objectively worse. If you add all the individual parameters together, it's a mixed bag and cannot really be compared objectively. But individual parameters still can.
Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?
Is it so hard to grasp that "a feature" can have negative value?
Only when the feature is hostile to the consumer (which, among other things, requires that it cannot not be used). Otherwise it can only have positive value, unless it's completely useless, when it has zero value. UI and UX of using the feature is yet another matter, separate from having or not having the feature.
That’s not particularly useful to say
You know what's even less useful to say? That one product having some feature that another product doesn't necessarily means that the first one has more potential for bugs.
Wait, is the rest equal now or isn’t it?
It is equal. Everything else is equal. Everything. Literally everything. Up to the entire codebase of the entire system, even the code for the entire feature in both cases, with literally the only difference being a single bit flag whether the feature is enabled or not. Not a realistic scenario in practice by any means - but it's not the point. The point is to compare the feature and the feature alone. In isolation of everything else. Including the code that covers the feature. When comparing this one metric, having feature or not, literally the only thing that matters is whether there is this feature or there isn't this feature. This can be compared objectively. And it's a very useful comparison, just like it's useful to compare screen resolutions. Screens cannot exist without power connectors. But you absolutely can compare screen resolutions without also comparing quality of power connectors at the same time.
