78 karma · joined August 2, 2011
China doesn't like to take credit for that, but personally I believe its alliance with the West was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
My understanding is that it's done this way so that there's a consistent experience installing software from a CD/DVD or from a download online.
But I think you're right, Apple should've rethought the software installation process the moment they dropped the optical drive from their computers.
Nowadays I only run Windows 2000 in a VM, and CRT refresh rate is no longer a concern, it may be worth considering going backing to NT4, as I'm pretty sure I can set the background to the warmer W2K gray in NT4. Thanks for the idea!
This claim is entirely baseless. The "classic theme" is just a gray background plus some light/dark borders. There's absolutely zero difficulty doing that in hi-DPI, or any other environment for that matter.
Stop making excuses for Microsoft. Windows XP was a panicked and half baked response to the shinny Mac OS X Aqua interface, because that's what Microsoft had always done: following Apple's lead. I can't really blame them either, as following Apple's lead had led to great success for Microsoft.
Actually I lied, I do blame Microsoft for blindly chasing Apple's new shinny. Having established themselves as a pioneer and authority in UI design/usability with the revolutionary Windows 95 GUI, they should've had the confidence to stick to their guns and iterate their GUI without too much influence from the competition.
Well said.
I prefer Windows 2000 myself, but other than that, couldn't agree more.
It's not a form allowed by all the preceding rules, and I wasn't sure what it meant either.
What does China censoring its media have to do with anything, besides advocating for the same kind of censorship on HN?
The aggregate activity of accounts like yours is effectively a propaganda campaign that bends the facts of a divisive, bigoted, right-wing nativist riot against anyone who sounds different or dares to disagree, to fit the narrative of a desperate fight for freedom, because that's what gets you support in the West.
Or shall we stick to the facts instead? They still matter, don't they?
I'm not say that makes them right. I'm saying I can understand why they stayed on the sideline. And I wouldn't disagree that those in charge at the scene should be held accountable for their inaction.
It's amazing is it?
Censorship is of course bad, unless they are the ones doing the censoring, then of course it's the right thing to do.
Even though we disagreed, I always thought you sounded intelligent and thoughtful.
But somehow you felt the need to resort to naming calling and baseless speculations here.
The facts are really not on your side, are they?
> early on the police were ordering people to disperse even though there was no violence at that time.
But did the police use violence first?
> late in July there were increasing attacks on protesters in which police stood by as people were attacked with poles. It seems that in this case, it was the police that were allowing violence and destruction, not the protesters.
When you treat the police like your enemy, how do you expect them to rush to your help the moment you need it? And seeing that the protesters were more than capable of violence themselves, why would the police rush to help?
> the first bullet even fired in this whole situation was a police officer shooting an 18 year old high school student.
The officer was under attack and fired in self defense, you know that better than I do.
> Peaceful protest is definitely better when possible, but in many cases throughout history it simply has not been feasible.
In a place without law and order, it may not be feasible. In Hong Kong? It's definitely possible.
> The promise not to use the law for political crimes is worthless knowing that history.
That fear is certainly reasonable. But the HK Chief Executive has officially announced the withdrawal of the law about a month ago. How do you justify the continuing violence and destruction since then?
It all started a few months ago when someone committed a crime in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong. To prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for criminals, the Chief Executive of HK proposed a new law to facilitate extradition of these crime suspects from HK to various jurisdictions in the region, including Taiwan and mainland China.
The proposed law even explicitly stated that it's not applicably to crimes political in nature. But some HK people were nevertheless concerned that it might be abused by China to target political dissidents in HK.
So they have taken to the streets to protest that law. As a result, the law was quickly suspended before it had a chance to pass, and a few weeks ago the HK Chief Executive officially announced the withdrawal of the law.
However, despite the concession from the HK government, the protesters pressed on, demanding four more concessions from the government, chief among them universal suffrage, or the direct election of the HK Chief Executive, who up to this point have been nominated from a narrow pool of Beijing-approved candidates, then voted on by a committee.
It's not entirely clear that China even had anything to do with the proposal of the law which started this ordeal. But the protesters have been shrewd to paint a picture, to great effect, of big bad China stomping on the poor helpless people of HK.
What I cannot stress enough, is the rampant violence and destruction from these protesters, which has done this great city, and many innocent citizens, unimaginable harm. Feel free to support their peaceful protests, but please don't simply pile on and encourage these violence and destruction.
If anything I said is untrue, please correct me. Use the truth to argue your side, don't be a coward and hide behind your downvote.
> You omitted how China pressured Cathay Pacific to identify and punish its staff involved in (peaceful, legal) protests.
A pilot who took part in violent protests was barred from flying in China's air space.
Some other employee who illegally leaked customer information where disciplined or fired.
Please tell us how those punishments are unfair.
> You omitted any mention of police violence.
The police were never violent before the protesters got violent. They simply responded in kind. You think they should just stand still and take the beating/burning?
> you omitted the important fact that Taiwan's government very early made it clear that they did not want the extradition law.
> You decline to explain why the HK government refused to officially withdraw the extradition law for months after declaring it "dead".
The chief executive officially announced its withdrawal about a month ago.
How are you going to justify the continuing violence and destruction since then?
It all started a few months ago when someone committed a crime in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong. To prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for criminals, the Chief Executive of HK proposed a new law to facilitate extradition of these crime suspects from HK to various jurisdictions in the region, including Taiwan and mainland China.
The proposed law even explicitly stated that it's not applicably to crimes political in nature. But some HK people were nevertheless concerned that it might be abused by China to target political dissidents in HK.
So they have taken to the streets to protest that law. As a result, the law was quickly suspended before it had a chance to pass, and a few weeks ago the HK Chief Executive officially announced the withdrawal of the law.
However, despite the concession from the HK government, the protesters pressed on, demanding four more concessions from the government, chief among them universal suffrage, or the direct election of the HK Chief Executive, who up to this point have been nominated from a narrow pool of Beijing-approved candidates, then voted on by a committee.
It's not entirely clear that China even had anything to do with the proposal of the law which started this ordeal. But the protesters have been shrewd to paint a picture, to great effect, of big bad China stomping on the poor helpless people of HK.
What I cannot stress enough, is the rampant violence and destruction from these protesters, which has done this great city, and many innocent citizens, unimaginable harm. Feel free to support their peaceful protests, but please don't simply pile on and encourage these violence and destruction.
If anything I said is untrue, please correct me. Use the truth to argue your side, don't be a coward and hide behind your downvote.
Yes I saw it the first time. They certainly did it. But we're talking about how well they did it, aren't we? Usability and polish?
> I'm not particularly fond of Snow Leopard over other releases, nor I see much "regression since then".
You clearly aren't and clearly don't, but quite a few macOS users are, and do.
Here's a sampling of regressions for your perusal:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/macos... https://furbo.org/2015/05/05/discoveryd-clusterfuck/
> Uglier is pretty subjective if not downright wrong.
If you like the new looks, good for you I guess.
> Slower is easy: it's 100% wrong. In fact, can you show any number of it?
I don't have any numbers. What I do have, is the experience running these successive releases on the same laptop. And it has definitely not been positive.
I'm aware of that. But they are not exactly the same, are they?
> Of course features still need integration to the respective form factors and UI paradigms.
Isn't that what usability and polish are all about?
> And yet, Snow Leopard was created exactly because people complained Leopard and earlier were not stable enough. It was the release to focus on stability and polish over new features (and they even admitted this was alluded in the name change, "Leopard" -> "Snow Leopard" as opposed to a whole new version-animal).
I know, and that's why we all love Snow Leopard. Why the regression since then?
> >They've shown themselves utterly incapable of releasing a quality update each year.
> Given that they ship 100 million or so updates, they have almost immediate adoption (far quicker than new Windows version), and the complains always subdue after 1 point release or so, I don't think so.
They release updates alright, but what about the quality? The fact is overall, macOS has gotten slower, buggier, and uglier with every release.
I agree neglect is probably not the right word. I like the term Marco Arment uses on his ATP podcast: drive-by updates.
> They have been adding several huge components/APIs/tools that they have working for macOS (Metal, APFS, Swift, CoreML, etc),
These all seem to have been developed for iOS first and macOS second.
> they have tons of under the hood improvements (e.g. memory compression), and so on.
Personally I experienced rage-inducing multi-second freezes after updating to Sierra, disabling memory compression solved the problem.
> What exactly did you expect to see, or was seeing before "Snow Leopard"?
Stability, usability, and polish.
I don't think it's controversial to say that all of these have taken a precipitous fall since Snow Leopard.
There are probably many reasons for this. It seems to me the biggest culprit is the yearly release schedule.
They've shown themselves utterly incapable of releasing a quality update each year. The question is, why are they keeping it up? To sync up with iOS releases roughly maybe?
> Human rights violation by china are well documented.
That may have been the case. But we are talking about human rights violations by the Hong Kong government here, and I don't think you have a case here.
> The triad attacks are definitely real
We can certainly demand an independent investigation into this once the violence and destruction stops.
> Westerners consider what you call "violence and destruction" to be a fair price to pay to have rights guaranteed.
I believe the bill was quickly suspended after initial peaceful protests. There's no reason to believe the bill wouldn't be withdrawn if peaceful protests persisted. That's why I believe the violence has been unnecessary and may have even been harmful to the cause.
FWIW, I oppose the bill and support the peaceful protests against the bill.
> shining laser in eyes is laughably tamed
Have you tried that on yourself? Maybe you'll have more empathy for the policy if you had. It looks deceptively benign but is in fact incredibly aggressive.
> I do understand that some people just want to go on with their daily lives ... just very different from western thought.
I doubt it's very different in the west.
What have been the human rights violations from the government, aside from responses to protester violence?
Labeling yourself "human rights" does not automatically make you right.
> It's possible to only say true things and still be biased. This is probably the most common way of spinning a story for "fake news".
Certainly. And you are immune to biases and spinning "fake news" ... how?
> Escalation of force, hiring triads to attack citizens, blinding journalist with rubber bullets, shooting live ammo at students in the chest,
"triads"? "fake news" much?
What else from this list is anything but a response to protester violence? Or do you think the policy should just stand still and take the beating?
> To an individualist,
Keep throwing labels around all you want, it doesn't make you right.
Your freedom to shine your laser light ends where another person's eyes begin.
Maybe you're right, there aren't many. But that doesn't make the violence and destruction right, that doesn't make the violence and destruction just.
Whichever way you lean, it's absolutely no excuse or justification for the violence and destruction.
It all started a few months ago when someone committed a crime in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong. To prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for criminals, the Chief Executive of HK proposed a new law to facilitate extradition of these crime suspects from HK to various jurisdictions in the region, including Taiwan and mainland China.
The proposed law even explicitly stated that it's not applicably to crimes political in nature. But some HK people were nevertheless concerned that it might be abused by China to target political dissidents in HK.
So they have taken to the streets to protest that law. As a result, the law was quickly suspended before it had a chance to pass, and a few weeks ago the HK Chief Executive officially announced the withdrawal of the law.
However, despite the concession from the HK government, the protesters pressed on, demanding four more concessions from the government, chief among them universal suffrage, or the direct election of the HK Chief Executive, who up to this point have been nominated from a narrow pool of Beijing-approved candidates, then voted on by a committee.
It's not entirely clear that China even had anything to do with the proposal of the law which started this ordeal. But the protesters have been shrewd to paint a picture, to great effect, of big bad China stomping on the poor helpless people of HK.
What I cannot stress enough, is the rampant violence and destruction from these protesters, which has done this great city, and many innocent citizens, unimaginable harm. Feel free to support their peaceful protests, but please don't simply pile on and encourage these violence and destruction.
(EDIT: If anything I said is untrue, please correct me. Use the truth to argue your side, don't be a coward and hide behind your downvote.)
It all started a few months ago when someone committed a crime in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong. To prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for criminals, the Chief Executive of HK proposed a new law to facilitate extradition of these crime suspects from HK to various jurisdictions in the region, including Taiwan and mainland China.
The proposed law even explicitly stated that it's not applicably to crimes political in nature. But some HK people were nevertheless concerned that it might be abused by China to target political dissidents in HK.
So they have taken to the streets to protest that law. As a result, the law was quickly suspended before it had a chance to pass, and a few weeks ago the HK Chief Executive officially announced the withdrawal of the law.
However, despite the concession from the HK government, the protesters pressed on, demanding four more concessions from the government, chief among them universal suffrage, or the direct election of the HK Chief Executive, who up to this point have been nominated from a narrow pool of Beijing-approved candidates, then voted on by a committee.
It's not entirely clear that China even had anything to do with the proposal of the law which started this ordeal. But the protesters have been shrewd to paint a picture, to great effect, of big bad China stomping on the poor helpless people of HK.
What I cannot stress enough, is the rampant violence and destruction from these protesters, which has done this great city, and many innocent citizens, unimaginable harm. Feel free to support their peaceful protests, but please don't simply pile on and encourage these violence and destruction.
(EDIT: If anything I said is untrue, please correct me. Use the truth to argue your side, don't be a coward and hide behind your downvote.)
Let's be angry about it, let's protest peacefully, let's demand answers, let's demand their return.
But let's not use the kidnappings as an excuse for violence and destruction.