Talk:1965: Background Apps

Honestly, the fact that there isn't closing tag doesn't bother me that much. It might bother me more if HTML tags were the same length. When I first started HTML, I styled all my opening tags with a space < like-this>, just so it could be the same length as a closing tag, </like-this>. It worked, but I eventually gave up and accepted it... Linker (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

App closing advice

Okay, so I've never edited before, but I found an article from a year and a half ago here that relates to closing apps and batteries. 172.68.211.244 16:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

That's better than the CNET article I found. Updated to use yours, thanks. TheAnvil (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily true

This sounds like good advice if you have a flagship phone with boatloads of RAM, but those of us that have to save money by having a midrange or budget phone absolutely can not leave everything running and using RAM when not in use. On my Nexus 5X (2GB) if I don't close absolutely everything other than what I am actively using the phone will run too slow to be useful, and some apps will even crash. Especially true with Google Maps which just dominates resources. 172.69.69.52 17:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how Android works, but on iOS, if low on memory, the system will automatically purge background apps to free up RAM. 172.68.174.82 19:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I too have a low end android phone (v4.1.2), and I can tell you that it doesn't automatically close apps when it runs out of memory. I can have my foreground app crash (while seeing the IOU memory message) and the background apps are still open. It drives me mad when people claim that the memory management is perfect, and cannot be improved by human management. The user has special knowledge that the OS doesn't. I.E. I am done with a certain app, and won't be using it for a while. 162.158.79.119 19:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

My experience shows that an Android phone indeed tries to conserve memory, but is rather stupid about it. E.g. if I have a couple of tabs open in Chrome, this usually means I'm actually switching between them. Yet, even though I'm in Chrome at the moment, when memory runs out it will not kill unused apps - no, it will look for room in the cache, meaning that the tabs will reload at every switch. More bandwith usage when not on WiFi. Slower browsing. Losing state for script-driven sites, start again. Dynamic content reloaded, that random article link that looked interesting - good luck finding it again... And so on. Killing apps really makes room for more tabs. So, the advice from first panel looked just weird at first sight - what does battery life have to do with that? I kill unused apps all the time and never even considered whether it would have any effect on battery. Logical fallacy: assume the reason for some action and criticize that. Surprizing on Randall's part. --141.101.77.212 20:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like you're assuming Randall is making this statement out of his own belief in it, which I don't believe is the case at all; he's just using it as a comic device. Besides, you're all falling for his nerd-sniping trap! Stop while you still can! Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This drives me crazy too; The sheer number of apps which launch upon system startup is idiotic. Every app wants to open quickly, so the preload as much as possible, even when I haven't used them & have no intention to. The phenomena of tabs getting cleared from the cache is particularly loathsome. One might as well just not have tabs at all & only show a series of History links, if several pages can't be kept open at once. I frequently open secondary tabs to locate & cite references for a comment in an existing tab, only to have the comment page reload when I return to insert the relevant link into my comment. Note to Android developers: Don't clear downloaded data out of the cache if there's any local data you could clear instead. ProphetZarquon (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of "<marquee>" banner

It may be that the "<marquee>" banner is not a blank template but rather a reference to the obsolete HTML tag (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/marquee).

• You're absolutely right, except that "deprecated" is only half the story: it was never a W3C-compliant tag to start with (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquee_element). And, given the nature of plane-pulled banners, it's also very obviously a reference to the similarity of behavior. Plus, it also meshes with the title-text, since that also delves into HTML both by talking about the Div tag and by the fact that the plane-pulled marquee tag is also un-closed. 108.162.238.95 16:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Comic is about compulsive messaging, not battery usage specifically?

Per the edit performed by 172.68.58.11, I don't believe this comic is specifically about background apps or airplane banners. As that added content in the explanation points out, this comic seems to be a commemtary on typical exchanges in forum discussions across the web on a variety of topics. It makes me wonder if Randall has recently come across a similar exchange himself and is making jabs at the absurd posts that are so common in that type of environment. It seems the title of the comic is not directly related to its primary focus, which IMHO is not uncommon for Randall! (Warning: Randall may be nerd-sniping us in this case, maybe seeing if he can start a similar exchange within our discussion!)

On a separate topic, aren't we supposed to avoid adding section headers within the discussion comments because they somehow mess with automated page layout templates? Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and have removed and made bold headers in stead. --Kynde (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

nontrivial resources

"but there are non-trivial resources involved in the global distribution of electronic communication" ... well, technically, yes. Except that unlike the planes, those resources are optimized for high capacity; your forum post would "consume" very little of those resources, if anything at all, as most devices involved will consume same amount of electricity when turned on no matter how much communication they exchange. -- Hkmaly (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)