I don't think it's that. I've used Linux since high school as well and use Mac occasionally and I get the same feeling that Mac is weird and nonsensical.
The reason I'm pretty sure it's something intrinsical to Mac and not age, is that is that I also use Windows now and then and while I don't like it and I have lots of complaints about it, I find Windows in general does make more sense to me then Mac. It's just crappy and clunky and closed, but it's generally pretty straightforward.
And I've had people tell me that since Mac is unix compliant it's very similar to Linux but I've never found that to be the case. Mac in general is obtuse, poorly documented, rarely configurable, and I always get the impression they like to do everything based on some weird sense of aesthetic that they've cultivated over the years that seems to work for people fully invested in the Apple ecosystem but just makes no sense to anybody else.
To me at least, I liked Kingdom Hearts as a kid despite the Disney stuff, not thanks to it. I played it after Final Fantasy IX and X so I really enjoyed the change from turn-based combat.
But VR has been going on for a while now. I have a VR headset, I use it occasionally and I love it because it allows things that wouldn't be possible in any other platform. But strapping something on my face is not something I'd want to ever use as my main system. It's like a racing wheel, you use it for some games but it doesn't replace a controller so it's just a very niche product.
It’s not about that. It’s about if some new fundamental discovery shatters all barriers leaving VR in an uncontested position of technological supremacy. You know, the arguable position of the “smartphone” which apple leads in.
The transition from the PC/laptop has been brutal to the prior entrenched players. I’m inclined to agree with OP that this is a play that is about more about creating options now. Might be that Apple executes the winner and happily cannibalizes itself but it does not want to be in a position where it is 5 years behind in terms of R&D if another company breaks through first.
Imagine the vehicle upside down and the camera twisted upside down so the photo is right side up but conflicts with the other sensors. In that situation I would take the rest of the day off.
Language should be adequate to the context of a conversation. If you were writing a legal document, or some policy for a kindergarten it might make sense to make that distinction, but this is a public forum with many non-native speakers. Parents is a concept pretty much all of us are familiar with and if you say parents we'll understand you mean people using the service because they care for young kids.
No, because child care (aka day care) is temporary and optional. A person who is raising a child has taken responsibility for them through their childhood—metaphorically “raising” them up into adulthood.
What an insult to someone who has taken on the responsibility of raising a child. Of course they should be called parents. A man doesn’t adopt a son only to be called his “child raiser”. Stop this foolish line of thought.
You're the only one in this thread not attaching the same connotations of "child raiser" to "parent" and considering one lesser than the other. I don't know what's more insulting, being called a child raiser, or considering child raiser to be off-brand parent rather than a generalization of the term.
"No man goes into education to be called 'instructor', they're 'teachers'."
"No woman goes into CS to be called 'coder', they're 'developers'."
Language should be adequate to the context of a conversation. If you were writing a legal document, or some policy for a kindergarten it might make sense to make that distinction, but this is a public forum with many non-native speakers. Child-raiser is a concept pretty much all of us are familiar with and if you say child-raisers we'll understand you mean people using the service because they care for young kids.
Change is hard and expensive. The juice needs to be worth the squeeze.
Far too often those introducing new words (or even worse redefining existing ones) are playing power games with their in groups best interests in mind, not the rest of us.
IMO I felt that battle was lost couple of years back when my wife was pregnant with our youngest. We were looking for CDC guidelines on covid booster for expectant mothers. The website mentions "pregnant people". That's when I felt discourse is evolving to cater to the edge cases.
So you're saying the CDC should not cater to the edge cases? Where are we drawing the line? 10% of the population? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.001%? That last one is still thousands of people. Does your opinion hold for all edge cases or just those involving gender identities?
If there is a place I'd expect to "cater to edge cases" including those that only make up a fraction of a permille of the population, it'd be the CDC because they have to address hundreds of millions of people so even a one-in-a-million edge case still represents hundreds of people.
Not necessarily. Unless otherwise asked, I, like the vast vast majority of people, classify others as men or women or non-binary based on their presentation, because it's the only thing I have access to. If someone wears masculine clothes, and masculine style, and has a masculine name, and I knew nothing else about them, I would obviously say he is a man. If I later find out he was born female, I wouldn't suddenly start thinking he is a woman.
On the other hand, if someone dresses and styles themselves in a typically feminine way but tells me they use masculine pronouns, I will of course by reasons of politeness call them by their preferred pronouns, but privately I would find it hard not to consider her a woman who prefers masculine pronouns.
That's just daft though. Defining women and men in terms of clothing, haircuts and other adornments is awfully regressive. It's like 1950s-style sexist stereotyping all over again.
Well, it's all you've got, ultimately. You can't categorize people just on their word, and you can't categorize them based on any of the biological criteria since you don't know what their chromosomes or hormones or genitalia are when you see them.
And it's not purely about clothes. Even if you look at people adopting more clothing styles traditionally associated with their other gender, say Harry Styles at awards shows, they do not style themselves exactly as the other gender would. Ultimately gender is a social construct, and that involves some shared performance that we each choose to adopt when defining ourselves in relationship to everyone else.
So if, say, George Clooney announced tomorrow that he is a trans man (assigned female at birth) all along and is pregnant, would you consider him a woman?
Not to mention, women who got a histerectomy can't be pregnant either, does that make them men?
Just yesterday I was looking at a list of American films released in 2023 and there were more than three hundred [1]. Considering that a movie takes a whole team of people to make but a comic only one or two, they're much easier to distribute especially digitally, and comics are popular also in Asia and Europe, I would say there's at least several thousands of them published every year (without even counting that many have monthly issues).
Edit: Another interesting data point, there were more than 14000 games released just on Steam last year [2]. So I think it's not crazy to assume there's also several thousands of comics.
> And they get selected based on their track record of effective allocation of those resources.
I've seen too many managers fail upwards to truly believe that is true in general. In plenty of companies connections are just as or more important than being effective at allocating resources.
This is what motivates me in my ... admittedly belief.
Of course politics will always play a huge deciding part in resource allocation. But if the allocation is based on a small "elite" then it looks a lot like historical societies - and we think we have moved beyond that.
If we believe in democracy for our civic society, if we believe in the Totalitarian Bet, why not apply democracy to the companies that are too big to fail?
It is also why I suspect founder led companies do very well (if the founder is good enough) - the internicine politics just gets overwhelmed by the founder picking and choosing - but history has taught us that it's vanishingly rare to find such people, to place them in the elite and have them continue to make excellent decisions over decades.
I've had to work on a PHP project recently and it's horrible. Mypy has many pitfalls and it's not great, but at least it's entirely optional, so you can work around the issues or ignore some types until you can fix it or do some refactoring. Typescript might be a different language but it's the best implementation of adding types to a language I've seen so far.
> I've had to work on a PHP project recently and it's horrible. Mypy has many pitfalls and it's not great, but at least it's entirely optional...
Do you mean mypy is optional?
At the risk of opening a can of worms here, what's "horrible"?
In your own PHP code, you can get by without any typing at all. If/when you start to use 3rd party libraries, that may become a factor, though off the top of my head I can't think of a show stopper.
Started using Obsidian a couple months back but the default line-spacing was really bothering me, I'm pretty sure I found your theme looking for something with better line spacing and I've been using it since, so thank you.
I don't think it's that. I've used Linux since high school as well and use Mac occasionally and I get the same feeling that Mac is weird and nonsensical.
The reason I'm pretty sure it's something intrinsical to Mac and not age, is that is that I also use Windows now and then and while I don't like it and I have lots of complaints about it, I find Windows in general does make more sense to me then Mac. It's just crappy and clunky and closed, but it's generally pretty straightforward.
And I've had people tell me that since Mac is unix compliant it's very similar to Linux but I've never found that to be the case. Mac in general is obtuse, poorly documented, rarely configurable, and I always get the impression they like to do everything based on some weird sense of aesthetic that they've cultivated over the years that seems to work for people fully invested in the Apple ecosystem but just makes no sense to anybody else.