robinson7d

It’s arguably adware, since users paid for the OS and then advertisements have appeared in new places since Windows 10’s initial release. E.g. some ads appeared for many people in the file explorer a few years ago.

Adware is considered a form of malware. Not the worst type of malware by any means but still “literal”.

GNU hosts a list as well; though I believe many items on it to be a stretch, I feel at least a few are justifiable. https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html

That meme’s sort of funny in a meta way because presumably the person who actually drew the number (the comic artist) drew it as both a 9 and a 6, so in that one particular case they actually are both right.

The sentiment of the red message is great though.

It’s more than simple ternary, for example: `response?.data?.users?[0]`

To get the first user from a server response would be significantly longer if you wrote three nested ternary operators.

That citation is for "English as a foreign language", and if you read the end of the paragraph you see they are excluding UK and Ireland.

English as a first language accounts for 13%, which when added to the 38% leaves you with 51% (or, "most")

http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/e... (Cited at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_European_Unio...)

I don't think that would work, but correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as I know, git bisect does a binary search along the commits; `good` tells it to look at the latter half, `bad` to look at the former.

So suppose you have five commits (1,2,3,4,5), where 1 is the working state, and 3 is a conflict commit. It will start by asking about the middle commit (3), automatically choose `good`, and determine that 3 was the latest working commit (after checking 4, which says `bad`).

----

EDIT: Obviously this is simplified to explain the issue with marking "good" those commits.

I think you may have meant de-stress, rather than "They will instantly distress you with their chill vibe.", as amusing as the idea of recommending cats to instantly send people into distress is!

That seems entirely unrelated to what you quoted. Regardless of whether the whole screen becomes a touchscreen, or a bar is used, the F-keys in their form are bad UX.

The way that for the last couple generations the touchpad hasn't actually "clicked", and been simulated by haptic feedback. That same feeling on the Esc/Cancel/etc. virtual button would alleviate most of my personal concerns.

I'm surprised they didn't include it given how much they've been pushing it on iOS, as well as on the touchpad of Macs.

> The standard "function keys can do anything" response is getting old.

That "function keys can do anything" is, in my opinion, the exact reason they had to go. They're scary for the typical user. What is F7? You may know, but it's not obvious in any way. That some of them cause destructive actions (e.g. Alt+F4 on Windows) makes it worse - they're scary to many users. And even when after figuring out what some of them do, one is stuck wondering "was that F8? Or F9? Oh! It was F10" (which, includes the worry that a wrong guess could cause problems).

Though, I cannot believe they shipped it without the haptic feedback to make it clear that a button was actually clicked.

^ Also, none of that, to me, includes Esc. Esc seems clear enough in its intent, and I hold no ill-will toward the Esc key.

In 1998 the iMac dropped most other ports. Admittedly, maybe a bit less severe because it still had an ethernet port, and a couple FireWire. But it did drop the ports that were commonly used for peripherals and devices, which is the similarity. People used those, every day. In the exact same model, they also dropped floppy drives. A _lot_ of stuff people used frequently was no longer supported in that device.

I'm not sure that this time it will work out for them, that's not what I'm saying at all. Personally, I think HDMI is useful still. And I'm hugely sad to see the MagSafe go. I guess all I'm saying is it's not totally uncharted territory, or even that uncharacteristic of Apple.

She appears to be President and COO; Musk is CEO and CTO.

If true, the troubling part for me is this sentence from the article:

> He’s since deleted the post, and seems to have spent a better part of the last few years trying to understand and ameliorate the issues of homelessness and mental health in the city.

Basically, it sounds like he said something wrong (awful, even) years ago, recognized it as a problem (sure, perhaps after being told it was), and has spent most of the time since then working to gain a better understanding to avoid repeating that sort of statement.

To me, that sounds like a good thing. Unless there's more to the story, I'd expect he'd be less likely to cause the same (/related) problem again than most other people.

I don't think it has to be so black and white. There's room for a variety of small preferences to cause a person to choose one thing over another.

Going out to eat may be tastier, but it's generally more expensive. When it's not more expensive (than Soylent) it's often to some degree a mixture of the following:

1. Not vegan

2. Not tasty anyway (i.e. fast food)

3. More time consuming (the place that you like is far enough away)

I'm certain you can find other potential reasons.

Each of these may affect different people for different reasons and to different amounts (e.g. some may not care about vegan).

Ultimately, it's up to each person to decide on their own personal preferences, and the weigh their own perceived costs. For some, that may result in Soylent being a preferred option for some meals (these preferences are dynamic). For others, it's never a preferred option. That just seems like part of being human, to be honest; no sense for either side to get upset at the other.

I certainly agree that the rest of the post makes sense and is more on topic! It's why I felt the need to add the statement at the end of my own stating that I agree with it, immediately after I posted it ;)

Re: requirement - there I was referring to your opening:

> So let's show off what you can do without JavaScript...but also include SCSS as a dependency when the opening paragraph complains about a JavaScript dependency? Madness...

And explaining that although they used SCSS, it certainly isn't a requirement, nor even much simpler than the plain CSS.

I'd guess that most of the responses probably focussed on it because leading statements are often read louder than what follows them. They set the mood/tone in a way.

None of these requires SCSS at all. You may verify by grabbing the SCSS they provide in the codepen and pasting it into http://www.sassmeister.com/

Most examples are equally compact in plain old CSS. In fact, many of them are just plain CSS displayed in a window labeled "SCSS".

The places using SCSS seem like they're simply being more sane in allowing a user to change numbers trivially. Instead of saying "just change all the 400px throughout to 500px", one can change the `$slide-width` definition in one place (usually at the top).

There's also the style preference of nesting to group. But neither of those make it a strict dependency.

---------

EDIT: I'm not saying that I disagree with your assertion that CSS is a bad place to layer logic from a maintainability standpoint; I'm more pointing out that blaming it on SCSS makes no sense in this context.

Probably a simple editing mistake, but (at the time of this post) the Before and After timelines are identical.

Both images point to the same URL: https://engineering.siftscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/...

For context, the parent said:

> The fact that my headphones need a AAA battery

Just because some headphones do not need batteries says nothing about these specific headphones being talked about. Both can exist at the same time (a pair that requires batteries, and many that do not.)

For example, Bose Noise-Cancelling Headphones, which are quite popular, require AAA batteries:

http://worldwide.bose.com/productsupport/en_us/web/qc15/page...

I don't think those are the same argument at all.

If everybody is open about everything, the result is not that all spying/invasion ends. In fact, it doesn't really prevent anything (it makes those who were spying more powerful in fact - you've done their job for them.)

On the other hand, if nobody bought the products a company is selling, that company eventually goes out of business. Or finds that their products don't have a market fit, and adjust them accordingly.

I'm not a free-market-solves-everything type by any means, I just don't see how these can be considered "the same argument" at all.

(Though, I agree with your basic point that we should not only allow, but encourage discussion and opinions. At the root of it, I agree with where you're going.)

> Can't charge while listening.

If you shell out for the AirPods, you can.

Though I definitely agree - I'm pretty sad to see the headphone jack go.

Is there a substantial difference in this cost when comparing an electric vehicle to a gas vehicle, though?

The parent's post was about cost of fuel (per mile), not the overall cost of driving.

Of course, your first qualm (lower salaries) was exactly what the comment said to remove by providing SF "senior-level talent" salaries. USD-converted rates and all. Quality of life in Toronto with those salaries would be excellent, and I think it would attract a lot of talent.

Though you're right - the cold did drive me away.

Another option: offer SF "senior-level talent" salaries in Toronto. They'll be spending more than this by relocating and then hiring down there anyway. I expect they'd find that there's plenty of talent already in Toronto, or willing to move.

To me, it seems pretty obvious that the move to SF is more about image than about whom they can hire.

But there is someone listening on snapchat - the person on the other side still sees and hears it.

The conversation analogy that xux made seems perfectly reasonable to me in that regard. However, it is (depending on the user, I suppose) not super "real-time" the way conversations are.

To me it seemed implied that Javascript was required for other reasons anyway, when the parent said "started working on single-page/client-side applications".

At least, that's typically part of how I parse it when people refer to a site as an SPA.

Totally right. I made a PR to the repo showing a way to fix it: https://github.com/LukyVj/family.scss/pull/1

Scrolling up on that screen reveals history.

http://apple.stackexchange.com/a/194867

The difference that I see between 3D touch and right click is that one adds functionality to the same input mechanism, and the other adds a new button. Assuming that every action can be done with only standard (non-3D) touches, or only left click, a nontechnical user navigating an app is basically simplified into:

- Touch screen users use the app, and never/worry know the shortcuts that they're missing,

- Mouse (w/ two buttons) users first wonder which button the have to use, then learn to use the left one. They stick to clicking that leftmost button, but occasionally look, confused, at that other button.

(Ignoring power users with the assumption that they get used to either.)

On the other hand (as a counter-point against my own thesis), I've never noticed them shying from cmd, ctrl, alt, fn buttons on keyboard, which seem to present the same issue. Perhaps that's just because keyboards have so many keys already?

I'm in a similar boat. Safari has surprised me lately - particularly its speed.

That said, there are a couple things that always frustrate me with stock Safari:

1) You can't reopen an arbitrary number of recently closed tabs. (You can use Command+z to "undo" closing one, but if you've closed two, or three, you're out of luck. I prefer how Chrome handles this. Though perhaps there are good reason to avoid this feature.)

2) Tabs don't have a favicon. They may be ugly sometimes, but with many tabs open favicons really simplify navigation. Of course, this can be fixed via 3rd party SIMBL extensions.

Otherwise, using Safari has certainly been better than I expected.

Who knows, they might move toward a mega-app. Consider for a moment, though, that currently we're talking about Facebook Messenger, which is a huge, and fairly recent example of the exact opposite thing happening (it was part of Facebook, but pulled out into a separate app.)

Regardless of beliefs on the Right to be Forgotten, this feels wrong.

The way that I had previously interpreted it, a person or entity could ask to have all references to them removed. The request in this article isn't that, though - it's a request to cherry-pick, and have subsets removed.

To me, this feels too exploitable. I'm not sure whether I could agree with a Right to be Forgotten in the first place, but if there were one it should be all-or-nothing.

---

EDIT: It appears, per @alain94040's comment, that this is not entirely the case, and that the article was not accurate.

The interpretation that @alain94040 explained, which is that Google would still show the articles in question, just not if the query includes the entity who requested they be forgotten's name (or is it just not weighted by the name? If a name's included, but the rest of the query is sufficiently strong, would it still find the article?) actually seems completely acceptable in the realm of a Right to be Forgotten.