The Thunderscan, for the time, was pretty awesome though. I remember borrowing one from a classmate to make some scans. Given how we keep a document scanner in our pocket these days, the whole notion of sticking a scanner into a printer seems so antiquated and kinda crazy.
The one area where I think 98 and 2000 regress from 95 is that they introduce "web content" in applications that are not web browsers - specifically, random objects respond to single-clicks instead of double-clicks, and blue underlined (and sometimes not even underlined) hyperlinks start to appear.
Where does it say he expected it to be free? In the article, there's a tweet that says "So I paid Google a lot of money for a long time for a plan that included unlimited storage"
To me, the bigger problem is that companies are allowed to offer "unlimited" anything in their marketing copy.
Yep, it's pretty clear that unlimited is going to have limits (250 TB is a lot of data, that'd be $1500 a month in Backblaze). However, Google should have been required to be up front about their definition of unlimited (eg: up to 10 TB), rather than leaving it as a nebulous ToS term they can arbitrarily decide upon in the future.
This is actually a good use case for something like AWS Deep Glacier or Azure Archive Storage: data that needs to be saved and accessed infrequently if at all. It'd be around $250/mo, but as a business expense for a professional journalist that seems reasonable. Amazon or Microsoft could of course turf those services in the future, but considering the number of large companies that use them for long-term archiving I would expect that there would be a lot of notice before taking that step.
I dunno, my 18 year old Honda (and wife's Toyota of same age) is pretty much all physical switches (and that's not counting all the cars I've driven since the late 80s). Outside of the occasional manufacturer idiosyncrasies, my Honda's controls pretty much behave the same way that all my prior cars did too.
Yes, there are a lot, but I only use a handful of them at any given time. They work predictably, without any random lags related to CPU load or any other weird stuff that could be related to running a -large- complex operating system. Everything just works, and all the time. -- edit: might want to add that they don't need software upgrades either
Between cruise control, volumes controls, front wipers, back wipers, camera controls, interior light controls, HVAC, the array is truly bewildering, and I've never been in two cars that were similar unless they had the same manufacturer and were manufactured relatively closely.
Now, on my Toyota, though I find the controls bewildering and worse than a well-done screen, I would never ever want Toyota to make a screen based control for these. Their 2019 screen system is laggy, looks like it was built in 2008, and is really not even fit for the purpose of selecting radio stations, much less the wholly inadequate map navigation system they put on it.
Or the choice is having a traditional auto maker have switches or a screen, give me switches. If the choice is to have a halfway competent UI and hardware designer give me switches or a screen, give me the screen.
If you find that bewildering, maybe it's a generational thing. I've been driving for around 35 years, and I never really found it too hard going from one car to another before the LCD era.
At this point, I'm trying to avoid buying a new car, because I don't want a car where I have to put a key in a faraday cage, etc. I don't want to use my phone to unlock my car. To me, these "modern conveniences" have gone so far out of control that they're an inconvenience, and sometimes even dangerous.
I'm probably in the minority of the minority, but I don't want a touch screen in my car. Or even any big LCD screen in my car. I would prefer my car to be relatively dumb, and free of distractions where possible.
I've been on Fastmail for almost a year, and I get spam/obvious phishing attempts in my inbox. Compared to my experience with GMail before switching to Fastmail, I found Gmail to be noticeably better at spotting and filtering both spam and phishing emails.
Having said that, I'm still not going back to Gmail.
