"I didn’t know Steve. I never met him. I never worked for him. I never even got one of his famous one-liner email responses."
204 upvotes on HN.
210 karma · joined February 2, 2011
204 upvotes on HN.
You're talking about a device with a D-pad, and no touch screen. That's how keyboards work on such devices. It being bad isn't unexpected or noteworthy.
Clearly most people don't read good books, or scientists would have seen evidence of their radical personality-changing effect.
And yeah, i would stop signing your posts - it comes across as conceited somehow; like each comment is a big deal.
What UI APIs are there that don't have a concept of UI thread(s)? Coming from Windows, I'm used to UI work needing to be done on a UI thread.
I randomly googled these comments:
"Never, ever, touch the UI from outside your UI thread, in any version of Qt."
"Android UI toolkit is not thread-safe and must always be manipulated on the UI thread."
google "iOS 'non-UI thread'": 60 million results.
javascript: everything UI-related runs on one thread.
Do you do much UI coding?
Still, I'm not convinced that it makes sense for my 'wallet' to be doing this.
I've used internet supermarket shopping in the past, when I didn't own a car. It was reasonably good, and you paid £5 for delivery within a 2 hour window. You would tend to sometimes accidentally buy a weird size of some item though.
Yep, this will really speed things up.
Instead of scanning items on the way out, (i.e. "beep...beep...beep...beep...beep") people will scan as they shop "okay... just line up the cameraaaa... hmm it's not seeing it, turn the phone a bit... oh i beg your pardon hang on [moves out of the way of another shopper who also wants a can of baked beans]... [phone grabs barcode]... ah finally... beep." - one can of baked beans purchased.
Can't wait!
Also, given how fragile self-scanning checkouts are - presumably calibrated to prevent shoplifting - how will scanning stuff yourself and then walking out with it be acceptable to supermarkets?
EDIT: @tptacek What confused me is there's no reason given to avoid MonoTouch, so I latched onto the memory management comment, to try and make sense of the text.
OK, but why?
Seriously, it'll be worth it not to learn about manual memory management.
I'm confused - MonoTouch presumably has garbage collection, but Objective-C lets you 'not learn about manual memory management'. What's the deal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligence...
Having said that, I just watched the screencast[1] of Python intellisense in VS, very impressive.
And yeah - cover flow - classic eye candy bollocks UI.
Look. Context menus are useful but lots of people don't find them. In fact, MS added something to apps such as Outlook that addresses your comment about commands being near to the content that they work on, but presents the UI in a more discoverable form. Not sure what it's called, but it's a popup toolbar that fades into view next to your text selection, allowing access to text styling such as bold, italic, etc.
I find that in practice, I know where these commands are on the ribbon - they never move - and have no problem moving the mouse pointer to there, to click them. So, I tend not to use the contextual popup.
For nearness and discoverability, perhaps MS could try this UI again with Explorer and see if people liked it.
Arguably, to look at the data and resolve to tune the context menu would be similar to getting data that most people are climbing up a drainpipe to get into their apartment, instead of using the lift, so to improve their experience we should signpost the drainpipe and build a nice ladder up the side of it. (BTW I use the drainpipe - it's quicker)
I'm wondering why this article is making so many people really angry and making them state the obvious in attempts to shoot it down. Clearly it really got under some folks' skins. 'Shitty' indeed.
The thing is, the article is just extrapolating to make a point about existing conditions. By debunking the article by comparing with tides, you're making an implicit claim of cyclicality with no evidence, which is less defensible than the article.
A better argument would be that just because a bucket has a hole, and will have completely drained in one hour, doesn't mean that the bucket wont be repaired, or refilled. But that would be a fairly obvious thing to point out.