It’s been perfectly fine for me too. I don’t understand the folks tossing it so much hate…I have to think for them it’s more about subjective style complaint than objective complaints. Operationally my Mac experience hasn’t changed.
Within an hour of using it, I honestly stopped noticing the differences.
It’s been fine for me, I have been running since 26 beta 2 on iPhone, iPad, and Mac. I have noticed zero bugs, it’s been perfectly usable with only two design decisions that I dislike, but are minor.
On Mac, the corner handle grab change was a miss but doesn’t affect me much because I don’t do much window resizing.
On my iPad, the fly in and fly out animation for the App Library doesn’t necessarily follow your swipe direction.
I’ve never seen a lock screen wiggle, my guess that might be related to debris or finger moisture more than the OS
There are 10 iPhones in my immediate family orbit, all running 26 (Including an iPhone 12 Pro). Users ranging from their early teens to 90 and I am the one they call when there is any tech issues.
No one is complaining. Not too bad for an inconsistent and broken release.
That is nice for your family, but we have opposite experiences, my anecdata is just the opposite. Plenty of people are complaining. It's not always the most salient topic given current events (I'm in the United States) but it's just kind of like when Windows 11 or Windows 8 released.
> So to arrest someone while they are following the steps they're supposed to be following
I think the issue complicating this man’s situation is that it appears when you dig into the details that for nearly 16 years he was skirting the system and only tried getting his legal situation resolved just a few months prior to his detainment. He is choosing to fight it which is resulting in the long detention.
Personally I believe we need some legal carve outs for this type of situation, but there is simply no doubt that this guy made a series of poor decisions prior to April of 2025 that has created the situation he is in.
This is the one thing that pops up often in these cases and my European head can't understand this. Obviously people do this because they can but why does the system allow this? People should be forced to sort out their legal situation one way or another in timely manner, because if something happens after decades (like what's going on now) it will cause lots of damage for many people including families with children. This many people living in legal limbo also encourages lawless behavior of the agencies.
It would be very hard to skirt the system like that in many European countries. Not impossible, some people do it anyway, but that means more or less living completely underground without healthcare, driving license, any sort of banking etc.
There was a similar problem in Sweden. In the old system a person could first seek asylum, get denied, then seek a work visa, get denied, then seek a student visa, get denied and then repeat the process since now enough years has passed. People could also simply go underground for a period of time and then restart the process.
Two law changes was added last year to prevent this. First, any decision remains in force indefinite as long the person remains in the country. The second is that all applications will be running simultaneous and the final decision is given at the same time, with no option to change application afterward if the result returned negative.
The system has some drawbacks, especially if the applicant apply for the wrong thing and don't change it until the decision has been reached, but it removes stalling and delaying tactics.
> In the old system a person could first seek asylum...
Yes but that still means communicating with the institutions and having some sort of legal status. What is en masse happening in the US and to a lesser extent was (or is, not sure, but see for example the Windrush scandal) happening in the UK is that people legally enter the country and have for a time legal standing to reside there, but that lapses, laws change etc., and just nobody cares deeply enough to solve the situation one way or another? And then decades pass and bad things start to happen. But all of this was entirely avoidable and I don't mean just 'not voting for Trump' avoidable, but in a systematic manner.
We could compare that to the situation in Spain where there is a group of illegal migrant workers who are exploited as cheap work force. Now they are given a chance to legalise their status but that too is happening after decades of neglect. Of course there are similar groups in other countries.
The Windrush situation is a bit different - the people involved were British Subjects, and didn't need any documentation when they arrived in the UK.
The only thing that changed was the introduction of the "hostile environment" policy in 2012, meaning that everyone (including full UK citizens) must now prove that they have permission to be in the country before getting a job, renting a home, getting a bank account, etc.
The Windrush generation always had that permission, and continued to have it - what they didn't have was the documentation to prove it. And, to make matters worse, the Home Office had disposed of their arrival records so in many cases it became all but impossible for them to get it.
(I know this is a minor quibble, but I think it's worth pointing out that the people affected shouldn't have needed to regularise their situation, because it was never irregular in the first place!)
> I think it's worth pointing out that the people affected shouldn't have needed to regularise their situation, because it was never irregular in the first place!
This is what I don't agree with and exactly why I mentioned Windrush as an example. The situation was irregular because while they were legally entitled to stay, they didn't have a simple way to prove it. And once they needed that, it became an issue.
Now I assume most of them regularised their situation and some didn't and since the state knew enough about them to try to deport them, it should have fixed their status in the first place by issuing them the needed documents. But it didn't! And that was my original point - the state neglected their situation for decades, let them adapt to changing legislative environment on their own (or not), only to swing the axe (wrongly) without warning. If they were issued a citizen ID long ago none of that could ever happen.
> We could compare that to the situation in Spain where there is a group of illegal migrant workers who are exploited as cheap work force
The term we should be using here is human trafficking. It is a extremely common practice in construction and farming. As a police officer said here in Sweden in a news article, if they went to a single major construction site the yearly budget for human trafficking violations would be used up for that site alone. It is an open secret that construction sites has a tier based system for workers, where the most illegal workers (and there are different degrees to that) get the most dangerous assignments, least amount of safety equipment, longest hours, and with the lowest pay.
A lot of the calculation on the cost of reduced immigration get based on the resulting increase in costs to construction and farming. It is quite insane how much of the economy is based on exploiting people.
In the US it’s easier. Certain states will issue you a drivers license even with a questionable immigration status. Once you get that, maintaining it is easy for long periods of time….basically obey the traffic laws and don’t drink and drive take an eye test and written test every 5-7 years and you are golden and keep it.
With a DL check cashing is a snap and it looked like this guy was a building sub-contractor which can and often operate in cash. Cash secured credit cards give you access to plastic. Healthcare doesn’t require an ID and hospitals are compelled by law to treat you if you are in a life threatening situation. Urgent care clinics will gladly accept cash to fix your sniffles.
I think the biggest issue that allows it is just inconsistent enforcement of our immigration laws from administration to administration and the general bureaucratic reset that happens every 4 to 8 years.
Thank you, this is a valuable perspective. So essentially every person that lives this way doesn't pay income tax (and/or possibly other taxes) and the states, and most of the time the federal government too, just don't care?
If you are getting paid in cash you are only paying income tax if you actually set out to do so. Operating fully in cash is getting harder and harder as we progress to a more cashless society, but right now, still do-able.
The government always cares when it is not getting its share, but enforcement is probably more by accident rather than intention. If you are living modestly and are not calling out any sort of government paper trail to yourself (avoiding government services, police interactions), you are probably not going to attract any investigation.
These sweeps that we are seeing change that a bit. Easier to get ensnared.
you can still file taxes regardless of your immigration status if you can get an SSN. It used to be easy to do that using your DL. So you have people who have been in the country for many years and have an SSN, pay taxes, etc., but technically are still "undocumented"
yeah, probably so. but what should matter is whether you're in compliance _now_. But if we do really want to arrest people who were at some point out of compliance in terms of their visa status, let's start with Elon and Melania, and we can talk about going through everyone's else's history and deporting them if they broke the immigration rules.
There are quite a few missing but important details not in the news story. Apparently he complicated matters and put himself into a no win legal situation by choosing against applying for asylum. The “forged” signatures turned out to be a close match to checks that were provided to the court that he admitted to signing. He also admitted to the court that his memory was hazy around that time. There was also no need for immigration officials to forge his name on those documents because if he refused to sign the notice document it had the same legal result as if he did. SOP would be for an immigration official to simply indicate “refusal to sign” on the document.
Unfortunately our laws don’t always protect us from ourselves.
Look again at the insurmountable hill that is the US's potential transition to a fully public healthcare system, and consider that celebrating having done that elsewhere might be valid.
I can tell you that piracy in the corporate world was RAMPANT in the ‘90s. I made a nice sum of money back in the day as a freelance auditor for companies trying to get their legal ducks in a row. Productivity software like Lotus, WordPerfect, Word, Excel were just mass installed off one license because there was no product activation keys or any sort of license validation methods.
Dongles were pretty commonplace on your more expensive software products from mid 90s through the early 00s. If I was publishing software that was a >$1000 a license, I damn sure would have used them.
> Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event
The law is specifically written to protect religious gatherings from protest and harassment (in addition to the abortion harassment prohibition in FACE), so it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested.
> it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested
Just to be clear, this is the ad hominem, which is moot. Even if this is true, it has no bearing on the case being discussed and the question is a foolish one for this silly political game you describe: firstly, it can easily be turned around on the asker and, secondly, it has an extremely obvious game theoretic answer of "yes" because that's the only option to get one's interrogator to continue with the actual discussion. (Thanks for proving the point.)
While it has no bearing on the active case itself, within this thread it has bearing on exposing the political prejudice of the commenter influencing their opinion about the case. Would they have a different opinion if the variables were tweaked a bit, but the action and violation of the statute was the same?
It’s always a good exercise to evaluate your opinion this way, it should help keep you honest about legal fairness.
> within this thread it has bearing on exposing the political prejudice of the commenter influencing their opinion about the case
You say that it matters for these silly political "gotcha!" games. I say it therefore does not matter. It is an ad hominem attack which has no basis in the discussion.
I say it matters to illustrate how someone commenting on a topic can be so ingrained on one side that they can’t conceive, comprehend, or concede that sometimes a law can protect all sides.
If you want to shut down discussion because it speaks against your opinion, fine. Others want to open it up. You are not the gatekeeper to the discussion and what paths it might take.
> I say it matters to illustrate how someone commenting on a topic can be so ingrained on one side that they can’t conceive, comprehend, or concede that sometimes a law can protect all sides.
Sure, but to what end? What is the purpose of pointing this out? Even pointing it out to the person behaving in such a manner seems foolish: they're just as likely to change their mind as the person pointing it out.
> If you want to shut down discussion because it speaks against your opinion, fine.
It seems the act of disregarding the points being made by others so one can hint that their bias is clouding their judgement to see it the correct way shuts down discussions far more effectively than simply arguing from a certain perspective. As I said before, such an accusation can easily be turned around on the accuser; if you think through what happens there, the accuser just denies it the same as the accused would because that's the only option that moves on from the point which is only relevant to the political game. The entire game theory can be explained in a single sentence. It's not really an interesting game and the best outcome of it in the context of a greater discussion is for it to end as quickly as possible.
> Others want to open it up.
One might consider (perhaps by not being "so ingrained on one side that they can't conceive, comprehend, or concede") that the point of calling out a rhetorical ad hominem is to open the discussion to more critical thinking.
I realize that there are some people that don’t really want the first amendment to cover speech they don’t like and religions they don’t like, but it does. As it relates to the FACE act that includes interruption of those religious services they don’t like too.
Yes, I agree, and these statements do not refute anything I've written in this thread. Besides, what do they even have to do with the ad hominem point we've been discussing? Anyway, we can just move on from that, I guess.
> the first amendment
In this case, the first amendment, as a matter of law, isn't relevant in the context of those who had their religious service interrupted: the service in question was not interrupted by the government. The first amendment concern in this case is whether or not Don Lemon's right to journalistic freedom is being infringed since he's the one who's actually facing criminal prosecution for actions which seem a lot like journalism.
> the FACE act
It appears that Don Lemon did nothing which violates this Act. I guess if you disagree with the judge who found there was no probable cause of such a violation for an arrest warrant, you're more than welcome to explain why. (I mean, surely it's not simply because you disagree with Don Lemon's politics, that would be embarrassing.)
I am sure how from my comments you could have any idea what my opinion about Don Lemon in this situation would be…
But if you must know, I think it’s a long shot that he will be convicted, but he damn sure didn’t make it easy on himself. He should have followed his own advice on his livestream when he was in the car and said “I don’t think I should go in…”
In a church service? To what end does it make sense?
The whole thing was live streamed. They intentionally interrupted a religious worship service. You had children traumatized, crying. What idiot or group of idiots would think that is going to motivate the government to do anything except go after you with specific laws that were passed to protect religious gatherings from such things.
This type of tactic was not productive to whatever your cause is…it did damage.
My M4 Air has been fine after the 26 update. I haven’t noticed any difference in responsiveness.
reply