prizzom

All of the companies you mention are at minimum engaged in monopolization and anti-competitive mergers as well as exploiting tax loopholes.

More specific criticisms:

Amazon

- They exploit factory workers that have to piss in bottles to keep up with productivity quotas and have high workplace injury rates. When they take time off to recover they are fired.

- They commit intellectual property theft, by copying top selling products and putting their hands on the scales to divert traffic to their clones.

NVidia

- Used software lock-in of CUDA to gain advantage in hardware sales.

Google

- Steals your information. Uses its browser to compete unfairly in other markets (mobile phone OS, etc).

Elon Musk / Tesla / SpaceX

- Bought Twitter and used it to influence elections and voters, promote racism / nazi sympathizers.

As a recent toe-dipper into linux (now running Arch on a powerful minipc and KDE plasma) I'm shocked at how little progress has been made on the native UI side.

How do you downvote garbage non-content like this?

I think the missing piece here is that onramp contains the definition of a very simple virtual machine. One that the reader could implement themselves (though a reference implementation is also provided).

After it incrementally builds on itself all the way up to a fully functional C compiler.

Honestly, I don't know what you were expecting. QT sucks pretty much everywhere. For universal UI I think the three choices are native (and if you have to pick one start with iOS because of reach and the fact that iPhone users pay for apps), React Native, or Flutter.

The problem with 3rd party frameworks is that you're always playing catch up. So if you're soloing it / developing a proof of concept you're good but if you're a real business you'd have a hard time selling me on anything but native.

Things I like about this article:

+ A focus on viewport size instead of screen size.

Few people browse websites in full screen in fact "Full Screen" browsing is used almost entirely for people using a web browser for presentations or physical kiosks. A completely different use-case than regular desktop browseing.

I loathe the fact that when I tile my windows to half my screen size the website "helpfully" switches into a tablet/mobile layout. Incidentally WCAG (which I consider a well-meaning but ultimately largely useless set of guidelines) can be blamed for a lot of this nonsense.

Things that I hate about this article:

- Like many "analysis" articles they start with a misleading validation of their sample size. 120,000 datapoints is not terribly big.

- Implying that these screensizes can't be grouped together. Resolutions #3 and #4 are practically identical 393x660 vs 390x664 is essentially a rounding error.

- Implying that any sane person should be considering how their desktop/mobile website should be displaying on a smart watch. This is totally different use case and (admittedly having never built anything for a smartwatch) I assume (hope?) that unless you've somehow identified your design as being smart watch compatible the browser is very liberally going to strip most of your layout and styling anyway to just text and headings.

- Implying that anyone should care about the minor differences in screen sizes. As a veterean of the Flip-phone days when the scourge of "form over function" phones (think Beyonce clamshell phone) was at its previous highest. There is no solving this problem. Apple swooped in an took a strong-armed approach to screen sizes that made developing on iOS EXPONENTIALLY EASIER than supporting MIDP or Android.

- A useless masonry visualization of viewports in a garish orange/purple contrast that is impossible to read. Thanks for nothing.