It's kinda true, but less exciting than the person made it sound.
gargoyle (n.)
"grotesque carved waterspout," connected to the gutter of a building to throw down water clear of the wall ... from Old French gargole
gargle (v.)
1520s, from French gargouiller "to gurgle, bubble" (14c.), from Old French gargole "throat, waterspout"
Even if it does, you just set it back up again the same way you did the first time.
The hate is keeping him alive
Are you sure its removing those packages and not updating them?
You still get to use it as normal, so long as you have service. That said, I personal stick to physical SIM just to minimize any problems, but you do you.
This makes sense to me, actually. Letters are usually taught with false sounds, and N and K could phonetically be taught as "nuh" and "kuh" by a teacher.
And their cousin, Whiney the Achoo
It's possible to change anything, the main question is the cost of doing so.
Google has already created something called Fuchsia which is reportedly very fast and potentially more secure than Android. But Google already has nearly 20 years of an existing ecosystem in Android that they would effectively be giving up because app manufacturers would have to make new apps for the new system.
They've probably ran the numbers to see how much it would cost to perform the new roll-out vs how much income it would bring, and I would guess that making such a massive change just wouldn't be worth it.
This is my opinion as a random person on the internet: no. The kernel only affects what hardware it can be ran on. Everything else that would make a difference to end users is basically done in userspace.
The thing holding Android back is its JVM layer between the kernel and the userspace. This adds overhead, meaning your phone needs more RAM or it will have performance issues. You also need slower default animations to cover up the increased loading times from this overhead, which make the system seem slow, especially when compared to iPhones.
To quote one of the commenters in the HN discussion:
You will have to solve the epidemic of homelessness and crime in high-density areas of the United States before people will accept using mass transit. I fully support doing so - I would for example support a national project to build cheap concrete housing for all who need it - but that's the barrier.
I've straight up had people tell me that even if Public Transportation were convenient and consistent, they still wouldn't take it because Public Transportation is famous for being pretty dirty and having large potential for crime.
I'd like to have some sort of quick, easy solution, but I think changing that perception is going to take time, and the time the US is taking to revitalize Public Transportation isn't making that happen any faster.
This was my first thought as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0