HN user
Here seems to be a catalog of their current sets: https://indd.adobe.com/view/1881b5e5-34ee-4e7c-8b19-2f25b314...
They have en e-shop (although quite poorly translated) and it looks like they are shipping within EU to US and to some other countries: https://eshop.merkurtoys.cz/
(I am not affiliated just used to like these things as a kid)
Just use Everything (https://www.voidtools.com/), so much better than Windows Search.
yes, but soon there will be many people who don't understand the technology happily using new shiny tools built on top of it.
Knowing how the technology works won't be of any help if someone uses a false ChatGPT generated statement about you as a fact that can have real-life consequences.
I usually try to refrain from posting negative comments, but start of that product video was a bit annoying to watch. Are you trying to showcase your product or to make an animation fitting a cool song you just found? (Maybe it is intentional, it made me post this comment after all :).
I am missing something, right?
right.
Try clicking links in the menu. Although I admit that link labeled "fortune files" leading to a definition of what fortune files are rather than to the fortune files themselves is a bit misleading.
this works: https://github.com/valinet/ExplorerPatcher
Even if it is just used as a figure of speech: "I bet that millions will die in next 4 years" crosses the line for me. But I guess it's just me.
I try to understand "intellectual curiosity" here but I just find it very off-putting to bet on whether millions will die, no matter how sound the arguments of both sides might be.
FYI, this: https://github.com/SAP/styleguides/blob/master/clean-abap/Cl... exists and is slowly being adopted for new code. But everything takes time.
give orange man few more years
Your personal experience is consistent with information in the article, see the map describing decrease of living standards due to the climate change (Mumbai is in the safe area)
iPhones has become status symbols, at least in some socio-economic groups. In this sense the functionality is not important - all that matters is the logo on the back and visual appearance of the home screen. If it can make people around you think that you have an iPhone, it's as useful as the real thing.
From the site:
In simple terms, bar raisers are current Amazon employees that come in during the interview process to analyse candidates. They do this alongside their own full-time job, assessing as many as 10 candidates a week and spending 2-3 hours on each one.
In other words 20-30 hours per week on top of the full-time job? That doesn't sound quite right.
I feel the same and I believe it's definitely because of age. When I was younger I had hours each day to invest into online interactions. sure it was fun, but it's over.
Kids nowadays have it the same, they just use snapshat or instafram or something entire else to create their unique online experience (that they will miss in 15 years)
so is every site that uses affilate links selling your data? I didn't see anything else mentioned in the description.
oh, OK - I entirely forgot about this :). But it's still just an easily modifiable default for beginners that power user doesn't have to use (or indeed remember in my case :)).
In Windows 10 you have two different kinds of UI and settings that can be changed in one but can't be changed in the other and vice versa.
I am not arguing about NT 3.1, but what inconsistencies were there in Win7 UI?
Starting with Win8 you have basically a random choice if some setting is set in "classic style" or new fancy "settings" dialogs. You can have all the performance in the world if your users spend most of the time just looking for the right place to do something.
Except apart for maybe "recycle bin" it was nothing like Mac OS. Central element of Windows 95 UI was taskbar and start menu, which don't have counterparts in Mac OS. Central element of Mac OS UI was the shared menubar, which doesn't have counterpart in Win95.
OP didn't want to remove the functionality, just provide a way to disable it for users that often perform drag & drop operation randomly.
Especially older people have problems with their motor skills so instead clicking on a file they often perform drag & drop instead (they can't hold the mouse steady enough, so the system recognizes movement and at the same time their "click" is too slow, so OS recognizes it as holding the button down)
Just curious: why Windows 2000 and not Windows 7?
Win7 was still internally consistent (as opposed to the newer tablet / mobile / pc / washing machine UIs of later versions) and provided few additional UI enhancements over 2k.
Thanks, this is the first answer to this question that sort of makes sense from a Windows user point of view. I mean I still prefer the "Windows way", but this is at least viable reasoning for the "Mac way".
maximized window ≠ full screen
in Maximized state the window is set to maximal available size (so you are not wasting any part of the screen) while you are still provided with fast and easy access to relevant OS UI elements
in full screen you explicitly tell the system that you don't want to be distracted by OS UI elemtents (typically in situation when you know that you won't need them for extended period of time, or if you REALLY need every single pixel of the screen)
This sounds like a messed up variant of an actual solvable old riddle that goes something like:
"Imagine that that you are the captain of a ship, there are 26 sheep and 10 goat on board... "
... go on for about 2 minutes talking about how the ship stops in different ports and how number of respective animals change... Add another animals as well, make the listener assume that they need to keep the count in their head...
"Now in the final destination all of the animal get off the ship. How old is the ship's captain?"
ok, back to the square one. English is not my native language, so sorry if my point doesn't get accross that well.
How the heck are we allowing reporters to "report" like this?
keyword being "allowing". You either have a system where anyone needs to be "allowed" to write something or not.
Or, if it is, since the US clearly does not have a perfectly free press (and thus, if it's a binary value, has a zero not a one), nothing can be the price we pay for a free press, because we aren't getting a free press.
In US you are generally not required to be "allowed" to write something. That for me is the definition of freedom of expression. As soon as you are required to be "allowed" to publish you don't have that freedom. The system is not perfect, but that imperfection is created by players (content producers and consumers) inside the system, not by artifical regulation from above.
Now we can discuss whether this "allowing" was meant as a call for action meaning: "don't support low-quality journalism" - in that case I agree, I am trying to avoid supporting low-quality press by not giving its publishers my money or my time. But if by "allowing" was meant that some wise know it all independent authority should be set up to allow certain things to be published and not allow some other things to be published, now that's the point where the discussion ends for me. There is nothing to discuss there, you simply lost your freedom. game over.
The paper was written by a journalist, proof read by another one, reviewed by the editor.
This used to be the norm, I agree. Modern technology did wonders to streamline the publishing process. :)
Is this actually inevitable?
Yes, it's actually inevitable. You either have free press or you don't. It's a binary value, one or zero, there is nothing in between. If you are willing to handle for the price of the free expression then we have fundamentaly different ideas about what freedom represents.
How the heck are we allowing reporters to "report" like this?
It's the price we pay for freedom of press and expression. The alternative is screaming "fake news" everytime a journalist makes a mistake. Normal distribution applies in every profession, not all journalists are great
where I live, "this" Monday was 3 days ago :).
We can talk about advertisment in general. But in this instance OP literally wrote that his choice is limited to "echo with ads" or "no echo at all", because goverment is refusing to step in.
I was not questioning whether the advertising industry is good or not, but rather OP's notion that he is entitled to ad-free echo service.
I agree that advertisment should be more heavily controlled in instances where people don't have a choice whether to see the advertisment or not. But nobody is forcing anyone to buy a device that is known to serve you ads. If enough people will make this choice, the business incentive for the producer of the device will disappear and so will the device.
I can promise you that in a world where goverment forces you to use Amazon Echo I will join forces with OP and fight for "government guaranteed" ad-free Echo experience. Also I will very strongly demand that government does something about those damn flying pigs.