xcjs

It depends on how often and how quickly you use the task switch button. I use it to rapidly switch between two apps frequently by double tapping the button and trigger it multiple times a day still. Google still recognizes it as an open bug.

To note, this occurs with the three button layout, so the fact that you're not having a problem is expected.

I'll only switch from the three button layout if I'm forced to. The gesture based navigation is slower and less precise.

It is not nearly a replacement for me.

It's been a constant thorn in my side on my Pixel 4 XL, my Pixel 6 Pro, and now my Pixel 8 Pro.

I confirmed with a friend that it still occurs on her Pixel 9 Pro XL.

They still haven't fixed the task switch button from the three button layout becoming non-functional after four years: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/204650736

It's a byproduct of the home and task switch button now being managed by the Pixel Launcher regardless of which launcher you use. The animation delay makes it so the button becomes inactive and won't be made active again until the Pixel Launcher is killed or the phone restarted.

From my perspective, Google is losing interest in maintaining Android at all.

It would be extremely barebones, but you can do something like this with Pandoc.

Not the person you're debating (and I'm on your side here), but what's up with all the revisionist history going on lately?

"This thing you're arguing for was never the intent."

Then what was the intent you dimwit?

And they never have an answer aside from acting like it was some grave oversight that was only recently caught as a mistake.

That is exactly a function of a jury.

"What you say disagrees with my world view, so I'm just going to pretend you're crazy and your words don't make sense."

I've had this exact tactic used against me - it's very transparent when used and weakens your position.

I get what you're saying, and yet it exists and a term exists for it.

I know there's no "nullification" verdict and the binary guilty/not guilty are the only recognized options, but nullification is used to describe the not guilty verdict despite any charges and evidence in a trial, which I'm sure you understand.

I don't think her decision to take the deal took into account whether jury nullification exists or not. The way you explained it sounds like retrocausality, though I don't know if that's the way you meant it.

Jury nullification isn't about fair outcomes, I should clarify, but about whether the law itself is lawful, representative of the people, or applied lawfully. Maybe that fits into the definition of fair I had in mind, but I was thinking on it more objectively, not subjectively.

There are proponents and opponents within the United States, true, but if a legal system does not permit punishment of jurors, then jury nullification is a logical byproduct of the system. And an important one I would argue. It fits into why trials by jury are important in a democratic legal system - the people have the final say, whether they realize it or not.

Whether a jury feels a charge is fair is the whole reason trial by a jury of peers exists.

It's a feature of the system, not a bug.

It'll probably be there, but at least it can be disabled in the settings now. It won't go away on its own.