I completely disagree. I use a Mac for work and basically never leave the terminal and browser. The "finder", which is a terrible name btw, is a completely useless file explorer. For everything a shortcut is needed, and they never make sense. Opening a file? Some key + down. What does Enter do? Renames a file. Okay, deleting a file? I don't know I forgot again. Want to drag and drop? Be real careful that the too-smart-for-its-own-good touchpad doesn't think you are pressing too hard, and don't spend too much time scrolling on top of a folder or it will autommatically expand. But hey at least you have Favorites right? What a wonderful idea, favorites in a file explorer, let's see what they are: first off you have airdrop, which I never enabled and never will. Then you have Recents. What is this about? They are not recent files created via command line, but some random collection of files that Finder thought they knew better about what to call recent, a complete waste of your time. Next you have Applications: What a wonderful idea, to list programs in the file explorer, even though they cannot be interacted in the usual way not have any file navigation to be seen. I guess the only purpose is to be able to drag files into this folder so easily impressed children are amazed by not having seen an installer running. Next you have the desktop favourite, which is important since I don't know any other way of acessing the desktop and it is quite a fitting name for the place only used for screenshots to be created in basically. Finally you have documents and downloads, which are the only real favourites of the bunch. Next you have an ad for the Apple cloud service, and finally you have tags, which I suppose let you aggregate files by color for children that haven't been taught about folders yet. Done with your work? Closing it just hides all windows, to really close the app you have to select Quit from the navigation bar. So at the end of the day I have to select my favorite windows and manually close all others.
If there is any consistency is that I can rely on having a bad experience and anything other than using the touchpad to switch between the same two apps will be better done on another OS.
Expecting Return ("Enter" on Win PC) to open a file is a convention you learned from other OSes. Conversely, imagine my confusion having grown up with Mac OS and being shocked at Windows opening a file I expected to edit the filename of by pressing Enter? :)
Deleting a file? Command... wait for it... Delete
I mean, all of your gripes seem to be about expecting behaviour from other OSes/software and you're not open to learning something new. Different operating systems have different conventions and ways of allowing the user to interact with them.
There are myriad key-commands which can also make your life easier, and they are all pretty easy to remember. I mean, I learned all this stuff when I was literally like 6 years old. As a child I was able to easily remember literally every key command available to the user, in every program I used, including fairly complex DTP software like Quark XPress.
Hey, I'm not saying the person has to like it, but they're complaining at length about an OS strictly because they are unfamiliar with it.
Also, sorry to disappoint you, but pressing Return has entered name-edit mode for files and folders since literally the very first Macintosh, running System 1.0. I just tried it. I'd love to hear the long list of GUI-based OSes from January 1984 (or earlier) that used Enter to open/execute the selected file/folder, though.
Yeah, we were talking about a graphical file manager, and selecting a file/folder/executable and pressing Return. Not the same as entering text commands in a CLI. I can see why you'd try to make this argument if you were conflating the two though. /shrug
Not sure I'd take advice on UI/UX behavior from someone who professes to not leave a terminal window... 35 years after better things came along. I know I live back when terminals were all we had. Boy were we happy when that wasn't true anymore.
No matter how much you like typing everything in a terminal, it is the least efficient environment for file system navigation. It lists file systems in 1-D where you...have....to...type...out...paths and cache the organization in your own memory. The poor UX of the terminal leads to lot of bad habits, like shortening names to acronyms, reducing hierarchy for typing convenience, and dumping files an unorganized mess (looking at you usr/local/bin). GUI file navigation is 2-D or even 3-D organizations of files that together with spotlight indexing I know I outrun terminal navigators by 10X in a real-world file system.
> The "finder", which is a terrible name btw, is a completely useless file explorer.
…it finds files. Is "Explorer" somehow a better name? No comment on it being useless, as that's not something I can respond to, obviously.
> For everything a shortcut is needed, and they never make sense.
Uh, no? You can literally do everything with your mouse, and they all make sense as the other commenters have mentioned.
> don't spend too much time scrolling on top of a folder or it will autommatically expand
You can configure that, it's call the "spring loading delay" in System Preferences.
> first off you have airdrop, which I never enabled and never will
That sounds like a "you" problem.
> They are not recent files created via command line, but some random collection of files that Finder thought they knew better about what to call recent, a complete waste of your time.
They're recent as in what you opened recently.
> Next you have Applications: What a wonderful idea, to list programs in the file explorer, even though they cannot be interacted in the usual way not have any file navigation to be seen.
You can copy them, move them around, delete them…I fail to see your point.
> I suppose let you aggregate files by color for children that haven't been taught about folders yet.
I was about to call you out on ⌘-Down opening a file but I just tried it and was amazed that it works (most of us do ⌘-o or just double click).
Deleting a file is ⌘-Delete.
Everything in the Finder sidebar is removable (I've removed Recents and Tags, though I find Airdrop and iCloud Drive useful) and you can add custom stuff if you want something else (I always put my home folder at the top of the sidebar, it used to be there by default on earlier OSes).
⌘-Q is useful for closing apps, but I usually just open up the switcher (⌘-Tab) then while keeping ⌘ pressed you can tab over to other apps and just press Q to quit them.
That is one explanation, but the explanation I tend to believe is another: Twitter quickly bans new accounts to force you to "prove your identity" by adding a phone number.
Can we say "the Russian government" or "the Russian secret services" or something similar? Why always this tone with the Russians, the Russians are wonderful people, like everyone else trying to live their lives with the hand they were dealt. Am I the only one that sees how offensive this trope is to about 150 million people?
While I agree with your general sentiment, in this specific case the person appeared motivated to literally just sell the laptop to some Russian people, with the expectation that they had the ability to resell the laptop to the Russian government.
The people who broke into the Capitol and stole things are not the smartest or most well-connected people.
More details are available in some of the court docs that are floating around the internet. The entire situation is stunningly disconnected from reality.
The frightening bit is that in their "reality", the deep state with the help of Communist Party of China (or are they lizard people?) stole the election, the judges are part of the theft, MSM is just lying to the brainwashed masses, etc, etc. And that they're the patriots trying to save the country.
The funny bit is how they're crying that it's China (oops, I mean, Chinese government) who's controlling Biden. Why couldn't it be Putin? Is it because the Russians (oops, I mean, Putin) are their friends now? Or that they subconsciously know that Trump was Putin's poorly-trained lapdog?
>The people who broke into the Capitol and stole things are not the smartest or most well-connected people.
Imagine you stole Putin's personal laptop, the secret special one with no password that he hides under his pillow. If you email info@state.gov and offer to sell it to them, it auto-replies with a warrant. They'll definitely take it, but they will not pay for it.
Better to sell it to some random American who thinks they won the lottery.
Edited to add: I guess a Russian warrant wouldn't mean much in the article's case. She basically paid a premium to not deal with a government.
Edited to add: best to not steal it in the first place, obviously. Obviously don't steal state secrets, don't loot your capitol, and just be cool.
I'm trying to get into her headspace so I can understand her. I think what she did was bad.
I’m Syrian-American and I hate it when people say “the Syrians” when they really mean the barbaric Assad regime. I do, however, think it’s more out of stupidity than malice; it stems from a statist worldview rather than an intentional desire to demonize the people subject to a given state’s rule.
I agree that saying "the Syrians" feels incorrect, but how do you feel about saying just the name of the country as shorthand for the country's government? For example
America donated fidget spinners to Syra
vs
The American government donated fidget spinners to the Syrian government
(but not 'The Americans donated fidget spinners to the Syrians')
I'm pretty sure we all know that the ultimate consumer of something like this is not a Russian neighborhood bread store owner, but the Russian government. I don't think it needs to be said to be understood.
Well, this language isn't useful, a Russian friend of mine, who is quite modern, not a fan of Putin or anything, said she'd prefer Trump to win, because Biden said "Russians are our enemy" (not sure if Biden actually said that, and even if he said "Russian government", the media could've edited "government" out of that quote).
Unless you're Joe Biden, you don't... but if he or his admin wants to not alienate the ordinary Russian people, he should emphasize "Russian government" or Putin and make sure the media notices what he's saying.
As an American living in Russia, not really. Russian people overall have a very positive attitude towards the US and Americans and are able to differentiate people from their government. Even the official Russian propaganda (Channel 1, etc) has a less harsh depiction of America compared to how US media portrays Russia. All the Russia hate in the US right now doesn't even make an effort separate the politics from the people, which is really disappointing.
You are living in a bubble. General prevailing opinion of Americans - the proverbial stereotype - is that they are arrogant cowboys, and that being put mildly. You ain't likely to hear that directed at you, but it slips through the cracks all the time. You just need to pay a bit closer attention.
Most people tend to be able to differentiate individuals from paper-thin stereotypes. Sure we get exposed to stereotypes all the time, but when you get to know people you see through that.
Most people behave differently too, once you really get to know them.
Your claim about the prevailing opinion is not what is being discussed here which is how regular Americans are portrayed in Russian media, which is favourably.
I don’t fully understand your statement, but I spent 5 years in Canberra and regularly deal with government. I think the stereotypes are exaggerated, but do exist to some eccentric (think: ABC’s Utopia, as opposed to bogans muttering ‘the gubbament don’t do nuffin’) to be fair I think our gov gets caught in big organisation syndrome.
Canberra people are in general, awesome. Little art/fashion culture compared to other cities, but per capita are the most educated people. That doesn’t fix the nightlife situation though :P
I have read that in the 1930s, the city of Rome, Texas, sent a letter to the New York Times to protest that it was not the Rome that had just invaded Ethiopia. I guess this could be an apocryphal story.
"Can we say "the American government" or "Central Intelligence Agency" or something similar? Why always this tone with the Americans, the Americans are wonderful people, like everyone else trying to live their lives with the hand they were dealt. Am I the only one that sees how offensive this trope is to about 330 million people?"
Why do you have to be so obtuse? Everyone with some common sense knows that in a political context, “the Russians” means the Russian state. Any support from the general Russian populace is secondary (though not entirely unrelated since the state is generally a product of its society). I refuse to believe that you don’t understand this to be the case.
Unfortunately everyone doesn't know. I live in Russia and am constantly having to explain to people in the US that yes, you can own property, start a business, not everyone is an alcoholic who fights bears etc there. Americans understanding of modern Russia is often very much out of date.
> yes, you can own property, start a business, not everyone is an alcoholic who fights bears etc there
Not American, but as the only Russians i met were "security detail" from Crimea and as my mother used to help Georgians exiles between 2005 and 2015, i would put asterisk everywhere in your sentence except at "who fight bears".
Do you also tell them that all ISPs are obliged to route all traffic via government servers and if some FSB general likes the successful business you started it will be taken by him easily?
I've heard some stories and no doubt there are problems. My point is that Americans have a pretty poor understanding of what modern Russia is like. They either think it's still a grey communist dystopia or the crazy 1990s (Adidas track suits and mafia).
The same appiles to "the Chinese". Heck, just look what happened to Asian Americans here at the beginning of the pandemic, when all we knew was that the virus started in China. "Kung Flu" and stuff, some people are just plain retarded.
I'm always surprised by the gall of Google and other companies that decide for others if websites are suspicious. I'm always sure to disable all those garbage warnings, together with email spam "features".
it more so prevents people from retroactively going back in time and scraping data they wouldn't have in the moment. Many of my chats expire all messages after 24 hours because of this.
Most people will not archive all texts they get in the moment, it's only after some fallout or event happens they there's motivation to dig up old messages.
In order for the message to be readable by the other party you fundamentally trust the other party. A self-destroy timer doesn't really help that aspect (which is why I don't use them).
Simple, how about just like a store is not allowed to refuse service, an online platform also not be allowed to refuse service? Is someone misbehaving, great, inform the actual authorities of their jurisdiction.
Actual governments, with the people's mandate, are the only ones with authority to set the laws. Not tech monopolies.
>Simple, how about just like a store is not allowed to refuse service
A store is absolutely allowed to refuse service. You're not allowed to walk in to Costco without a Costco card. Plenty of restaurants and clubs have a dress code. Most places have "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" rules.
> A store is absolutely allowed to refuse service.
No, that is not true for all private services.
For example, common carriers have strong restrictions on their ability to refuse service to others. Common carrier laws aren't particularly controversial.
These existing common carrier laws could be expanded to apply to other things.
Common carriers are a tiny minority of businesses. Plenty of other exception exist too, but they are exceptions. Because the default is that businesses do reserve the right to refuse service.
They are exceptions yes. And people are advocating for additional exceptions to be made and they are giving justification for it.
So you cant just straight up dismiss the idea that we should consider requiring a few more businesses to fall under our existing and uncontroversial laws common carrier laws.
There is potential for an antitrust issue - two companies having immense control over the most popular way to access the internet, your phone. At least for now, it's really more of a convenience thing when app stores remove apps; limiting the feature set of your product offering to apps only may make sense, but it is an educated risk. If you feel you want the most people to access your content, you make it work on mobile and desktop computers without requiring a specific app store gatekeeper.
If you disagree with Apple removing something from an app store, you buy an Android compatible and enable side-loading, or you buy a Linux compatible phone, or if all else fails, you connect through a web site.
When I used Windows Phone, it was annoying that I couldn't download an app for my bank, inconvenient that I still had to use ATMs to deposit checks. And disappointing that I couldn't hop on the Snapchat bandwagon. But I was still able to communicate with friends and family, read the news, do research, learn things, and make use of the internet.
Allowing just a few companies enough control over the internet to take away your ability to choose how you use it is an antitrust issue.
Sure: people who want more free market want the state to focus on regulation, instead of actually owning everything, competition is the motor of progress. For capitalism to function well it needs constant watch to prevent lobbying, monopolism and corruption in general. It needs bad companies to go bankrupt so the good companies flourish and it needs to ensure companies are focused on maximizing stakeholder profits up to, and not exceeding, their social and ecological obligations. Those social and ecological obligations were decided by the government by the people; whereas if companies start having political opinions they'll want to undermine the will of the people and do a disservice to their raison d'etre.
