transition | Transition is a Golang state machine implementation

Today i have got this email:

Last July, we announced Advertising policy changes to help bolster security and privacy. We added new restrictions on identifiers used by apps that target children. When users choose to delete their advertising ID in order to opt out of personalization advertising, developers will receive a string of zeros instead of the identifier if they attempt to access the identifier. This behavior will extend to phones, tablets, and Android TV starting April 1, 2022. We also announced that you need to declare an AD_ID permission when you update your app targeting API level to 31 (Android 12). Today, we are sharing that we will give developers more time to ease the transition. We will require this permission declaration when your apps are able to target Android 13 instead of starting with Android 12.

Action Items If you use an advertising ID, you must declare the AD_ID Permission when your app targets Android 13 or above. Apps that don’t declare the permission will get a string of zeros. Note: You’ll be able to target Android 13 later this year. If your app uses an SDK that has declared the Ad ID permission, it will acquire the permission declaration through manifest merge. If your app’s target audience includes children, you must not transmit Android Advertising ID (AAID) from children or users of unknown age.

My app is not using the Advertising ID. Should i declare the AD_ID Permission in Manifest or not?

I have error like this after trying to build my apps in Emulator

/Users/joel/.gradle/caches/transforms-3/06231cc1265260b25a06bafce7a4176f/transformed/core-1.7.0-alpha02/res/values/values.xml:105:5-114:25: AAPT: error: resource android:attr/lStar not found.

I don't know what causes this error. After digging some answer which has similarly error (but in flutter) Problem. But still not solved my issue.

I have this dependency in my project

Just today, whenever I run terraform apply, I see an error something like this: Can't configure a value for "lifecycle_rule": its value will be decided automatically based on the result of applying this configuration.

It was working yesterday.

Following is the command I run: terraform init && terraform apply

Following is the list of initialized provider plugins:

I am trying to get to grips with the specifics of the (C++20) standards requirements for container classes with a view to writing some container classes that are compatible with the standard library. To begin looking into this matter I have looked up the references for named requirements, specifically around container requirements, and have only found one general container requirement called Container given by the standard. Reading this requirement has given my two queries that I am unsure about and would like some clarification on:

1. The requirement for the expression a == b for two container type C has as precondition on the element type T that it is equality comparable. However, noted later on the same page under the header 'other requirements' is the explicitly requirement that T be always equality comparable. Thus, on my reading the precondition for the aforementioned requirement is redundant and need not be given. Am I correct in this thinking, or is there something else at play here that I should take into account?

2. I was surprised to see explicit requirements on T at all: notably the equality comparable requirement above and the named requirement destructible. Does this mean it is undefined behaviour to ever construct standard containers of types failing these requirements, or only to perform certain standard library function calls on them?

Apologies if these two questions sound asinine, I am currently trying to transition my C++ knowledge from a place of having a basic understanding of how to use features to a robust understanding so that I may write good generic code. Whilst I am trying to use (a draft of) the standard to look up behaviour where possible, its verbiage is oft too verbose for me to completely understand what is actually being said.

In an attempt to seek the answer I cooked up a a quick test .cpp file to try an compile, given below. All uncommented code compiles with MSVC compiler set to C++20. All commented code will not compile, and visa versa all uncommented code will. It seems that what one naively thinks should work does In particular:

• We cannot construct any object without a destructor, though the objects type is valid and can be used for other things (for example as a template parameter!)
• We cannot create an object of vector, where T has no destructor, even if we don't attempt to create any objects T. Presumably because creating the destructor for vector tries to access a destructor for T.
• We can create an object of type vector, T where T has no operator ==, so long as we do not try to use operator ==, which would require T to have operator ==.

However, just because my compiler lets me make an object of vector where T is not equality-comparable does not mean I have achieved standards compliant behaviour/ all of our behaviour is not undefined - which is what I want I concerned about, especially as at least some of the usual requirements on the container object have been violated.

Code:

For the sake of example let's define a toy automaton type:

A new PendingIntent field in PendingIntent is FLAG_IMMUTABLE.

In 31, you must specify MUTABLE or IMMUTABLE, or you can't create the PendingIntent, (Of course we can't have defaults, that's for losers) as referenced here

According to the (hilarious) Google Javadoc for Pendingintent, you should basically always use IMMUTABLE (empasis mine):

It is strongly recommended to use FLAG_IMMUTABLE when creating a PendingIntent. FLAG_MUTABLE should only be used when some functionality relies on modifying the underlying intent, e.g. any PendingIntent that needs to be used with inline reply or bubbles (editor's comment: WHAT?).

Right, so i've always created PendingIntents for a Geofence like this:

My problem is that I have this Venn diagram consisting of three div elements and I want to scale them with :hover, so that when I hover over an intersection all the circles that meet in the intersection scale to my defined value. In the moment I only get one circle to scale at the time.

I keep noticing this message when I load the rgdal package:

"Please note that rgdal will be retired by the end of 2023, plan transition to sf/stars/terra functions using GDAL and PROJ at your earliest convenience."

I don't know what this means. Does this mean that there are some sf/stars/terra functions that use rgdal and others don't? Or does this mean that sf/stars/terra don't use rgdal at all, and that I should use these packages instead of other packages that do rely on rgdal?

What are common packages that do rely on rgdal that will be affected?

So I have this great little nugget of code that I am trying to rewrite into plain JavaScript and CSS without jQuery.