It could be that your app is amazingly well done. But most PWAs and web apps turned into an "app" are not meeting my quality standards. It's usually a clunky experience (well, like a browser).
I think once you've seen the actual possibilities of what e.g. an iOS app can do, when done correctly, everything changes for you.
My mobile app is pretty decent actually. Other than some stylistic differences, I can't tell where the native wrapper ends and then embedded view starts. The embedded view is a SPA though so it never does full page loads.
Isn't that war illegal? Doesn't congress need to approve these things?
Speaking of terrorism, only one of the belligerents has been antagonizing both its allies and its enemies recently. Didn't they just snatch another country's head of state? Try a decapitation strike unprompted against Iran? Threaten to invade Canada, Greenland and Cuba? If one regime is using terror to achieve political aims these days...
I said nuclear program and I was correct by a very wide margin:
> The United States again spent more than all of the other nuclear armed states combined: $56.8 billion. China was the second largest spender at $12.5 billion, less than a quarter of U.S. spending. The third largest amount, $10.4 billion, or 10% of the total figure, was spent by the UK.
Russia objectively has the largest nuclear program.
'which car collection is larger, the one with less more expensive cars, or the one with more cars'.
See how that works. The one with more of the 'thing' is the larger. The fact one nation gets more bang for their dollar doesn't change how numbers work.
Yes, Shia Islam does not "embrace martyrdom" in that they do not want to live. I think they handle us murdering them en mass with the utmost grace, maybe that's where you are confused?
They may want to live, but at least some of them are much more willing to die - much more willing to choose to die - than most leaders of most countries.
I don't understand why media, such as BBC, keep uploading heavily compressed versions of photos that could be beautiful. The original has grain, sure but that's not a problem. The BBC version is horrific. Are they trying to save on bandwidth in 2026?
It's highly reasonable for them to limit image size/quality to whatever looks fine to 98% of their readers. They store and serve an absolute ton of ever-changing content to browsers/apps; The very small (and likely revenue-negative) contingent of highly motivated people can find the originals if the images are especially noteworthy like these.
reply