bhauer

but is this actually addressing a real threat?

US Executive Orders 14110 and 14141 did create fairly onerous regulatory regimes that could have constrained the dynamism of the marketplace. However, my understanding is that both have been rescinded, so they do not currently post a real threat.

Yes, it is performative. As is most of the outrage in this thread.

Apple is undeserving of its popular reputation as a leader in user interface. The article points out only a sampling of the egregious human interface issues with Apple software and devices. Whether it's iOS, CarPlay, or any other Apple software, they're all dramatically overrated. The trouble is, many of the alternatives are even worse. Android? Also awful. Most OEM infotainment systems? Even worse than CarPlay. I feel Apple is well-regarded simply because it's the lesser among several bad options.

We need a viable third option in mobile operating systems. At least with cars, we have high-quality infotainment systems such as those from Tesla and Rivian. In the mobile phone space, we have tow poor options and a few alternatives with vanishingly small market share.

I've been wanting a computing model I call PAO [1] for a long time. PAO would run personal application "servers" and connect dynamic clients across all devices. PAO is centralized, but centralized per user, and operating at their discretion. It avoids synchronization, complex concurrent data structures, and many other problems associated with alternatives. Its weakness is a need for always-on networks, but that complication seems ever easier to accept as omnipresent networks become realistic.

[1] https://tiamat.tsotech.com/pao (2012)

Light mode might be annoying to read in no-light environments, but dark mode is nigh impossible to read in high-light environments.

Backlit screens are difficult to read in high-light environments regardless of whether you're reading black text on white or white text on black. I use white-on-black ("dark mode") on my e-ink Kindle to read outside all the time. And the same is true on our Daylight computer. White-on-black remains my preference in high-light environments.

I switched to T-Mobile at the last upgrade interval because of this. My family looks forward to no longer relying on Garmin InReach devices when out hiking.

Same. That's the beauty of automatic thermostats. They target the temperature you specify automatically. So you specify your favorite temperature once and never interact with them again.

I guess everyone is different, but what you described absolutely doesn't resonate with me. I never have adjusted my HVAC vents after their initial configuration. Winter, summer, whatever. I always want the air to flow the same way.

Software lag isn't unique to touchscreens. Software lag is always a terrible thing, and developers who de-prioritize performance should be ashamed, but that is true regardless of what input is used.

Yes I do prefer analog controls. Dials for heat. Open close flaps for vents. On off switches.

Dials and switches can be fully digital (e.g., dials can be free-spinning, without locks at each end of a setting). So preferring dials and switches seems reasonable. But flaps for vents are very difficult to automate. Returning to manual flaps in cars would mean losing modern cars' ability to associate and restore HVAC vent preferences with driver profiles. It would mean returning to the time when it was actually necessary to adjust the HVAC vents every time you swapped drivers. While setting vent preferences on the screen may take a second or two longer than manually setting them, thanks to the setting being associated with my driver profile, it's a set-once-and-forget-forever setting. The net time and annoyance savings is large.

Previously, it seemed the sliding sync required a Postgres-backed Synapse installation. Does the Matrix 2.0 version of Synapse provide a seamless upgrade path for those using the default Sqlite installation?

Correct take. But I also want to point out that this earnest reply is casting "remove curse" on this cursed library.

prioritizing some pretty little visual animation over actual functionality

This describes iOS in a nutshell.

The step-up in cost basis on death is the original sin that underpins the entire debate over unrealized gains.

It's disheartening to see so much thought and deliberation going into an obviously toxic idea (taxing unrealized gains) when the obvious solution (removing the cost basis step-up when assets change hands) is being ignored.

Inherited wealth is the least earned, so it should be politically palatable to change this. But presumably because such a change would acutely affect the people who make laws in the country specifically, it is never seriously considered.

Agreed. Explicitness and comments are very useful in understanding the intended functionality and logic, whether or not the code actually implements that intent correctly (an in providing that intent, they can help identify bugs earlier than they would be identified otherwise).

You may be weird, but you're not alone. I too think this looks perfectly normal. I have written similar-looking code and comments (at least from a high-level point of view) for any components that I feel are critical to the reliability of the system. I've never subscribed to the "no comments" fad since my own comments have all too often been invaluable to future me when returning to the code after months or years of attention elsewhere. I can't imagine trying to piece together all of the embedded logic in a component of this complexity without solid comments.

I thought we were talking specifically about banning billboard marketing.

While that is the overall conversation, this specific subthread is rooted on a comment suggesting a world without marketing wholesale.

I remember the corners of the room all being rounded. It just felt better, more soothing?

It's funny. Here in the United States, I find houses with bull-nosed interior walls discomfiting. Something about all the rounded corners causes me mild distress. I find it much more comfortable being in houses with sharp-edged meetings of walls.

Even the default out of the box color scheme of WS 2003 was fantastic. Indeed the pinnacle of Windows UI design.

Uhh but a narrow Level 3 system will also in general do broad Level 2. You think these Mercedes can't do adaptive cruise control at 60mph wherever you want to activate it?

The Mercedes system will absolutely not follow navigation routes, change lanes, execute right and left turns, execute U-turns, stop at traffic controls, and so on. All of which FSD will do.

A broadly capable Level 2 system that is suitable for 99% of driving scenarios (with supervision) is way more interesting than a tightly constrained Level 3 system that is only suitable for <1% of driving scenarios.

The limitations of the Mercedes system are only a little higher than the hypothetical parking lot Level 3 system. The point is to emphasize that a narrow Level 3 system is not very interesting compared to a broad Level 2 system. Technical capability > appeasing lawyers.

Exactly. As a mental exercise, people should consider how broad or narrow the functional domain needs to be for Level 3 (liability assumed by manufacturer) to be truly of note versus Level 2 (liability remains with owner).

Would a Level 3 system that only navigates parking lots at up to 5 MPH be notable versus a Level 2 system that drove everywhere? For me, a very narrow Level 3 system like Mercedes' is absolutely less interesting versus a very broad Level 2 system like Tesla's. The technical capability of Tesla's system is substantial. How important is taking liability, really, to the bigger picture of increasing the technical capability of autonomy? A narrow Level 3 system is not an entirely empty milestone, of course, but compared to the actual work of increasing driving capability, assuming liability seems like a game played primarily by deploying lawyers, not programmers.

"Drivers can activate Mercedes's technology. called Drive Pilot, when certain conditions are met, including in heavy traffic jams, during the daytime, on specific California and Nevada freeways, and when the car is traveling less than 40 mph. Drivers can focus on other activities until the vehicle alerts them to resume control. The technology does not work on roads that haven't been pre-approved by Mercedes, including on freeways in other states."

It's remarkable how often these significant limitations are ignored.

The difference between SAE Level 3 versus Level 2 is liability, not functionality. Conceptually, it would be relatively simple to create a Level 3 system that only worked in parking lots and never drove over 5 MPH. And yes, such a system would be "Level 3," which naively sounds better than "Level 2" because the number is higher.

But you could compare such a system that works only in parking lots against Tesla's Supervised FSD Level 2 system which controls the vehicle at prevailing speeds on all city streets and highways, executes left and right turns, stops at traffic controls, executes U-turns, parks, and everything else. Tesla doesn't want to assume liability yet because they are still iterating fast. The last few builds have been released about two weeks apart.

The functional domain of a Level 2 system can be significantly greater than a Level 3 system. And that is the case when comparing Tesla Supervised FSD versus Mercedes Drivepilot. It remains commendable for Mercedes to take on liability, but we should not kid ourselves. Doing so is a play for cheap media wins and punchy-sounding milestones like what we see in this article. It's not actually moving autonomy forward in any meaningful way when compared alongside Waymo and Tesla FSD. The scope of the Mercedes system is simply too narrow.

You are right, it was a bit more ergonomic. I remember taking some time to get used to the low cursor keys on PC keyboards way back when I inevitably had to stop using my ST and switch to a PC.

That said, the ST keyboards were notoriously squishy, lacking much in the way of tactile feedback. So many people didn't particularly enjoy them for touch-typing.

I think that is much less about the content and more about the headline. Many people agree with the headline and are upvoting based on that alone.

Has iTunes on Windows ever been good?

No. It has always been awful.

I was briefly excited to hear that media synchronization had been separated from iTunes. That gave me hope that I would be able to put media on my phone without a cloud intermediary and without the crippling mess of iTunes. But, sadly, my experience is that the Apple Devices App simply doesn't recognize my phone at all, so it's non-functional for me.

I was briefly excited to hear they had separated media synchronization from the atrocity of iTunes. I just experimented with the "Apple Devices App" for PC. Unfortunately, the experience has been poor, which is what I should have anticipated given Apple's track record for PC software.

First, the linked documentation provides no information about where to get the Apple Devices App. It turns out, it's only available from the Microsoft App Store. Fair enough, but odd that the documentation never says that. Second concern: yikes, this synchronization app is 188 Mb in size. But whatever, I have tons of storage on my PC, so let's proceed.

The final and biggest issue: the app simply never recognizes my phone. The phone is unlocked and has trusted the computer. It shows up in Windows Explorer as a storage device (significantly hobbled by Apple's needless file system obfuscation, but that's not new). The Apple Devices App never stops saying "Connect a device to proceed."

All told, a typical Apple software experience.

If Android weren't so awful, I'd be much happier. The way Android devices appear as just a standard storage device with a normal file system is so much easier to deal with.

Looks similar to the custom theme I built several years back for HN and still use to this day: https://imgur.com/a/ty2TNHJ

Use a fast language and forget some of the old advice from "12 factor apps," some of which are focused on avoiding common challenges when scaling low-performance platforms.

I highly recommend Michael Coorlim's video series on Ultima [1], which balances some playthrough with background on the game's design.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFCs_cDvTi4