I had the same issue, and I'm working on an ebook reader that does exactly what you're asking for. It's not available yet, but there are screenshots here:
Which stack? There are other ways of playing them today if you wanted to mess around for nostalgia-sake and also the creator of HC Simulator is quite responsive to fixing things that might not work quite right :)
The page with my name in the HyperCard 10th Anniversary Stack is a stack I made that was added to that project. It does a bunch of weird things to simulate the Mac Finder, none of which seem to work in the simulator (which makes sense, it's possible that it even uses Apple Script, I don't remember the details).
I guess the point is that she, herself, was not notable at that point, since her work was not widely and publicly known. Otherwise we'd already know her pre-transition name.
If I tell you that I'm rolling a die, and ask you whether I rolled a six or not a six, offering you 100$ if you guess right, you very obviously should say "not a six", even if we only play the game once.
No, reading Taleb I realized that if it's not repeated it’s just a guess and winning or losing is a 50/50 thing. There is no strategy because the game doesn’t last long enough for strategy to matter. [/s]
I would argue that if you start out knowing that you will switch, you essentially do lie, because you initially pretend to pick a box (or door) that you know you will not end up opening.
It is true that this approach adds additional layers of thinking, but the problem is that without those layers, the solution to the problem is simply not intuitive for the vast majority of people. Adding these additional layers helps at least some people gain a more intuitive understanding of why switching helps.
A much easier framing on a similar level is simply saying you pick a door, and then the host says you can either open the chosen door, or both other doors one at a time.
It’s the same thing. But if you don’t get why the state is unchanged even after opening one of the doors I don’t think you get it with this whole lying thing
> Why do we need to criticize one tool because it is not equal or better to another?
Probably because we want it to become better :-)
> But calling the iPad a failure because it doesn't fit to your work
I'm sorry that's the impression you took away from the article, because that wasn't what I was trying to communicate. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "failure", but I did try to explain what I meant by the word, by going back to what the iPad was originally meant to be: the car to the PC's truck, a better device than a PC for the vast majority of users.
I think it's unfortunate that it failed to achieve this.
It's great that there are authors who still use typewriters, but that's exactly my point: that's what the iPad is. It's a niche tool for people who have very specific needs. That's fine, but I don't think it's the iPad's full potential.
I also don't think it's a problem, I just think it's a missed opportunity. I think the iPad could have had the potential to be a better computing device for many, if not most, people, had Apple made better decisions.
>What is this silly ‘real work’ gate-keeping? I guess the author means their work.
I used the term "real work" because that's the term people use when they write "you can actually use the iPad for real work" articles. I think it's clear from context that "real work" means the kind of work Steve Jobs introduced the iPad for, i.e. the work people traditionally do on PCs: writing letters, creating presentations, doing spreadsheets, and so on.
I do acknowledge that people do real work on iPads; I pointed out some examples in the first paragraph. The problem is that these are clearly niche tasks, as is reflected in the iPad's sales numbers.
The iPad works well for some people, who do very specific tasks. That's genuinely great for them, but it's clearly not what Apple had in mind for the iPad. And in my opinion, it's not what the iPad's true potential could have been.
Then why don't these people use iPads? (Maybe because iPads are actually more complicated for most common work-related tasks.)
Your claim that only a minority of people use more than two applications needs a source, because I don't know a single person who gets by with just two applications for work. Pretty much everybody uses at least an email client/office messaging app, a browser, and Word, and those are just the generic tools; there are very few people who don't also use work-related, specialized tools.
https://leafl.it/