Seems like this article conflates threads C# with asynchronous operations a little.

The way I see it, threads are for parallel & concurrent execution of CPU-bound workloads, across multiple CPU cores. And typically use Task Parallel Library. Async/await won’t help here.

Whereas async/await for IO bound workloads, and freeing up the current CPU thread until the IO operation finishes. As mentioned, syntactic sugar on top of older callback-based asynchronous APIs.

I would make the argument it does not matter what the intention is, in practice people await CPU bound tasks all the time. In fact, here is what the offical docs[1] say:

> You could also have CPU-bound code, such as performing an expensive calculation, which is also a good scenario for writing async code.

[1]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/asynchronous...

>You could also have CPU-bound code, such as performing an expensive calculation, which is also a good scenario for writing async code.

That's a scenario for a different reason though (to allow sharing the cpu between chunks of the calculation, e.g. to not freeze UI in JS). In that case you might want to async on CPU-bound code.

But regarding maximizing utilization, you want async to take more advantage of a core's CPU when you got tasks waiting for IO, and threads to leverage more CPU cores when doing CPU bound tasks.

The difference in philosophy is: who is responsible for scheduling work? Is it the language, or is it the developer?

In JS it's the language, for example node sits on top of libuv which is responsible for managing the thread pool and doing async IO.

The advantages of this system are that it's very convenient, and the developer gets a safer single-threaded view over the multiple threads in use. The disadvantage is that the developer lacks control and if you actually want to write multithreaded APIs and not just use them then you have to drop down into a lower level language so you can talk to libuv or the OS.

In C# there is no lower level language to drop down to.

>My iOS device has never once shown me "this website requires Chrome." I get to use the mobile web without needing Google. And Apple is the only reason why.

Let's be real though, Apple didn't enforce this to save user's the small annoyance of 'use browser X' popups. Instead it gives them full control over what web APIs are available on iOS devices, so they can avoid implementing those APIs that would impact on their App Store revenue. They have a clear financial benefit in not supporting the PWA technology that would move the 'simpler' apps off their app store and into web - where they wouldn't receive their developer license fees, a cut of paid apps and a cut of paid subscription fees (outrageous). Also, I believe it was Steve Jobs who first shared the vision of web applications on iPhone “that look exactly and behave exactly like native apps” ?

> Instead it's web developers, who are just annoyed that they have to actually respect the conventions of the platform they're building for.

Developers already get around this to some extent with cross platform tools such as React Native, Xamarin, Flutter. Native apps will always have a place, PWAs are not going to replace sufficiently complex app experiences, much like on Android or Windows.

> and she finds an issue in my product that I don't agree is a real vulnerability

If it’s not a real vulnerability then why would it matter if she publicised it?

Or, is it actually a real vulnerability but you don’t want to admit it because she (the security consultant) is getting paid per vulnerability found?

Because most people can't and don't critically evaluate vulnerability reports. If "SpicyLemonZest Windows Client Local Privilege Escalation 0day" becomes a trending headline, my customers will demand I do something about it, even if I have a perfect explanation for why it's not a real vulnerability and they're at no risk.

Being facetious. But does blood splatter count as art?

Not because it’s Apple, but rather because Apple are exploiting their position as iOS App Store gatekeepers to require developers to add Sign In With Apple. Mozilla don’t have this position / power.

I think people would have the same issue if Google required ‘Sign In With Google’ in play store apps that have Facebook login, and returned throwaway / proxies email addresses.

Anyone know which Android based phone manufacturers or brands are based in the EU? Does the fine match their expected loses? What does the EU do with the money?

Doesnt make sense, if google didn’t geoblock EU IP addresses how would the EU react? Issue another fine which Google won’t pay?

A similar analogy would be like the US blocking their citizens from traveling to North Korea. But then having direct flights from LA to Pyongyang and expecting North Korea to enforce the ban of US citizens at their customs. It’s not their responsibility..

Parent post's point was that Google should block European users in response to European sanctions. Why would the EU prevent her denizens from using Google's services for free?

To twist your analogy this is basically like the US deciding not to give Pynongyang aid any more, in which case yeah they might just decide to block US immigration.

> The problem is that when you are shopping for something, you don't want advertisers to be influencing what you see in search results. You generally want the best match to your search, not the product with the biggest advertisement budget behind it.

So they should remove advertising from google search results altogether?

Like saying TV networks shouldn't put ads/product-placements in their shows because their viewers are only interested in the shows/content.

I think you should re-read those two sentences I quoted above. Google is conflating two issues that are conflicting.

Shouldn't need a license to prove you're an engineer unless say perhaps you're running an engineering business, where people's lives can depend on your work - e.g building a bridge. If you have formal education in engineering, then I would think you can call yourself an engineer?