Honestly a lot of useful software is ‘unimportant’ in the sense that the consequences of introducing a bug or bad code smell aren’t that significant, and can be addressed if needed. It might well be for many projects the time saved not reviewing is worth dealing with bugs that escape testing. Also, it’s entirely possible for software to be both well engineered and useless.
You need grid connected storage where you have (unpredictable) renewables. That doesn't negate the benefits of Nuclear baseload power. In an ideal mix, you need both, and also Gas for emergencies. One is not better than the other, they have different roles in a balanced grid.
Nuclear has the same issue as (unpredictable) renewables, it is incapable of cost efficiently following the demand curve. As a result, just like renewables, it requires a form of dispatch-able power to complement it (gas, batteries, etc). Solar and nuclear fill the exact same role in a balanced grid - cheap non-dispatchable power.
Or at least nuclear would if it was cheap, but since its costs haven't fallen the same way that the costs of other energy did... well new nuclear buildout really doesn't have a good role at all right now, it's just throwing away money.
Solar and nuclear complement eachother fine - because their shortfalls (darkness for solar, high demand for nuclear) are mostly uncorrelated... a mix of non-dispatcahble power with uncorrelated shortfalls helps minimize the amount of dispatchable power you need... but batteries have made it cheap enough to transform non-dispatchable power to dispatchable power that nuclears high costs really aren't justifiable.
A case can be made that nuclear could potentially be cheaper than renewables plus batteries in Northern Europe when targeting 100% zero carbon electricity. (It seems unarguable that renewables can get to 80% zero carbon electricity more cheaply).
But they're not really complementary in that one can't fill in for the gaps in the other. So the case for new nuclear gets more and more uneconomic the more cheap renewables we deploy.
Nuclear has a hard time existing in a net with dominant renewables during most of the year. Down-regulating nuclear absolutely kills its profitability. What you want is power plants with low capex that can be profitable with just a few hundred hours at full capacity per year. For example you can burn hydrogen.
Plus, related (storage), you do not want to put hydroelectric in water reservoirs targeted to population consumption, as you could find out one summer that the reservoirs are empty, the result of such water being used with the intention of generate electricity, or even used as inertial stabilizer for renewables.
This is the moment were at the news you read "There's a drought because it isn't raining" and similar excuses, when in reality your five years of water's reservoirs become reduced to half -or one third- due they focused the electricity production over the population real water demand.
I mean, hydroelectric needs at least two level’s reservoirs, one to generate electricity (or even exclusive two level's reservoirs with water pumps for this), and the next one, absolutely untouchable by the electric companies, targeted as water storage for the population/agriculture, the classic more than five years reservoir, for real.
Not even that. It is settling a bet on voting. But you are taking a bet on voting on the right side of the outcome. This is independent on the actual bet - this is
outcome voting. You make very little money if you vote on correct outcome, and lose a lot if you vote on wrong outcome. So there is an incentive on voting on correct outcome.
Not going to defend Polymarket, but that's usually the case for markets that should never existed that depend heavily on opinion and/or reporting.
For example, "Will Trump talk Macron before 31 of March?". Someone is going to get scammed no matter what: the market rules will set some basic resolution scenarios, but you'll find sources saying it was a letter, or sources several countries and in several languages saying that it was an exchange between their offices/assistants, or smoke signals, or god knows what, while a single US source will say they talked without any further detail, or it is simply reported 1 month after the fact when the money has long moved wallets, and then people vote based on the combination of factoids they've been exposed to. In principle the perverse incentive of voting wrong to earn money will make you lose money on the UMA itself (unless there's a coordinated effort, which has already happened, but IME it's rather rare).
Other markets are indisputable bar black swan events, like, "how many Oscars will X win", if it's 6 it's 6 and no source will say 5 or 7. That makes opening disputes 100% a money-losing option.
Also their use of AJAX and inline editing was revolutionary - probably created the whole industry around first Bootstrap, then jQuery. Man - spent so much time to emulate that light pastel yellow fade when you edited a title and saved it (later provided by jQuery).
Your question implies the answer. It's probably not a problem that's worth solving. The industry found the most cost optimal way of sizing stuff that works for most people at the desired price and the rest is either served through misfits, alterations or boutiques. Clothing is not some niche forgotten industry where most obvious opportunities still exist.
It's like a new woodworker with a new router where every edge must be rounded. Hopefully, the new will wear off, and everyone will realize round corners do not fit in square holes
I'd even settle for it being on a switch, call it "minimal UI" or something, but I have a feeling that Apple doesn't work like that. It's burn-the-boats, we're going all in on Glass and there's no going back.
So, for example, since the toolbar at the bottom is not a separate interface but hovers over the rendered page, if the page has a button or link that only sits at the bottom of the page, it can literally be impossible to click it because the hovering toolbar will cover it. I’ve come across 2 websites in the past week itself where I had to switch to mobile Firefox to actually do something.
Yeah, because chrome is required to use -safari- webkit too, apple won't allow alternative browsers on the app store.
Except in the EU, but they don't allow it globally so no sane company is going to invest time into building a browser for iOS while apple is intentionally region-locking the ability to install them.
So yeah, on iOS, rendering bugs on Chrome are quite often apple's fault, and the Chrome team can't fix em.
There's no need to lose face to the vast majority of their customers, who don't read tech blogs or know who Siracusa is.
They can just boldy advance forwarded in a rearward direction and claim whatever they want about it. They've done it multiple times - every new iPhone and iOS has looked "the best and newest" and made the last one that looked the best and newest look old-hat.
They owned their mistake of removing all ports and function keys from MacBook Pros, so there is a chance. That being said, the UI degradation of macOS has been a slow but persistent march for about a decade now, and I don't imagine it will change now.
People keep blaming Alan Dye as if he was the only one responsible.
Federighi—who's in charge of implementing this and was busy praising it on stage—is completely blameless. As are all other managers big and small at Apple.
I mean, yeah, if you were picked to present "on stage" (when was the last time a stage was actually involved???) then of course you're going to be a team player and read the script enthusiastically. It's not like Federighi is going to present something "and now, here's the thing that I argued against doing, but was shouted down in all the meetings so here's this thing I don't like and you shouldn't feel obliged to like it either"
> I mean, yeah, if you were picked to present "on stage"
Ah yes. Federighi, the VP of Platform Development, literally responsible for the development of iOS and MacOs "was picked", and had no power to say no to the overwhelming power of the all-powerful head of design Alan Dye.
> but was shouted down in all the meetings
So, VP of Platforms was shouted down by whom exactly?
But sure, let's keep telling everyone that it was only Alan Dye who was responsible for Liquid Glass.
BTW I remind you it was the same Federighi who introduced the awful design changes in the MacOS a few years ago proudly presenting the new settings app and saying that everything will be meticulously designed in the final version (was it Sonoma? Can't remember).
You've taken the wrong interpretation from what I was being somewhat snide about. I don't know the Apple hierarchy and who is actually responsible for what. The point was that anyone presenting for Apple is going to come across as having drunk the kool-aid, otherwise, they would not have been picked.
At the end of the day, I don't care who was/wasn't responsible for any of the decisions. I have no say in the matter, and unless you're part of the management at Apple, neither do you. Lots of people wrote the code to make whatever debacle has happened. They all have skin in the game.
I would like nothing more but the goodwill (what little is left) that would be burnt with the developers who updated their apps to use Liquid Glass might be more than Apple can handle.
Best bet and to move as quickly as possible to tone it down, fix the bugs, and get someone who actually likes macOS in charge(clearly the people in charge hate it, why else would they treat it so badly). The System Settings app was the canary in the coal mine (yes, I'm sure there even better canaries but it's the first that comes to mind), whoever let that out the door should have already been reprimanded but instead Apple doubled down and created the trash heap that is Tahoe.
I like this site, and would love to love it. But the unrelenting refusal to participate in new things simply because they're new is incredibly disappointing. There's nothing wrong with Liquid Glass. There's nothing wrong with an llm. Half of this site could just be a bot complaining.
There's a lot of things wrong with liquid glass. The problem isn't that nobody has valid complaints. It's that you, and others, read those valid complaints and then just literally pretend they don't exist. Frankly, I don't even know how you manage to achieve this level of cognitive dishonesty without stepping back and seriously considering your life and purpose.
Yes, liquid glass does actually have problems. It has performance problems. It can be a big distraction, and some people believe UI whitespace shouldn't detract from the main content. It has huge legibility problems. Sometimes text straight up cannot be read. It has predictability problems. Stuff moves around when it shouldn't, text magically changes colors based on heuristics, which throws users off.
Personally, the icon and widget edges constantly moving around when moving the phone even slightly in any direction got on my nerves so bad that I had to disable Motion completely (the only fix for it). This unfortunately also downgraded a lot of other UI components/interactions as well.
It did give me a battery boost though, so at least there's that.
I don't care when somebody doesn't like aesthetics or look and feel of a new theme. It is subjective. Giving people an option to turn it off is kind. But Liquid Glass is usability terror. Just bring up the onscreen controls when you are playing video and compare that with what it was before. What is incredibly disappointing is people like you who defends new things just because they are new without paying any attention to usability, ergonomics or -sadly- performance. There is nothing good about Liquid Glass. Half of this site could just be a bot complaining.
I also use polars in new projects. I think Wes McKinney also uses it. If I remember correctly I saw him commenting on some polars memory related issues on GitHub. But a good chunk of polars' success can be attributed to Arrow which McKinney co-created. All the gripes people have with pandas, he had them too and built something powerful to overcome those.
I saw Wes speak in the early days of Pandas, in Berkeley. He solved problems that others just worked around for decades. His solutions are quirky but the work was very solid. His career advanced a lot IMHO for substantial reasons.. Wes personally marched through swamps and reached the other side.. others complain and do what they always have done.. I personally agree with the criticisms of the syntax, but Pandas is real and it was not easy to build it.
reply