Yeah, far be it for me to expect a 2.76 TRILLION dollar company to actually innovate within a single year. My apologies for having such expectations. And my brain is the one rotted. Okay.
I love how downvotes are used here to punish those you disagree with. Such fun. I guess this is now Reddit.
So the only compelling reason to upgrade from the 14 is...USB-C, where people are saying the 15 (non-Pro) runs at USB2 speeds?
This was one of the most lackluster Apple launches in recent memory. I long for the day when Apple actually innovated on this product line. Now they're simply treading water and only making good changes when forced to (EU requiring USB-C).
I will give credit where it is due for Apple -- the M2 MacBook Air is phenomenal, even as a software engineering platform. The form factor is fantastic, the weight is awesomely light, and it's a true joy to use. Sadly, innovation on macOS is about as bad as the iPhone, but I suppose I'm more okay with that because being my workhorse machine, I want predictable stability more than I want interesting features.
Edit>> I love how people are asking "what are you doing with data transfer anyway?" Such deflection of the principle of the issue, but keep on trying as if any answer I'd give would satisfy the question. I adore Apple products, I don't adore a clear stab at yet more greed from the company that has had the top market cap for years now. I'm intelligent enough to see this for what it is, and not simply dismiss corporate greed because some people may not use the device the same way as others. Putting USB3.2 in these phones is possible. Putting Thunderbolt in these phones is possible, though that comes with the Intel complication. The tech exists and has for many years now. They chose not to bother on the lower end phones so they could create yet more divergence between the product lines trying to create FOMO for people so they'll buy the higher end phone.
I mean, everything is "better". If cameras are important to you, you now finally have a bigger sensor that allows for 2x zoom at around the existing quality. The chip is faster and more efficient, so battery will get better too.
If you wait 2-3 years between phones, you get something that's more significantly better. I've seen tons of comments here and elsewhere saying the 15 isn't that compelling compared with the 14. Is it supposed to be? Updating your phone every year isn't that common IRL. This is more compelling for people coming from iPhone 12/13 or older.
The changes between iPhone generations and phones in general used to be huge and always cause for excitement. IMO, it's a sign of maturity and welcome that phones are now making steady progress instead of frequent paradigm shifts. It felt like electric cars were in a similar state till quite recently where it felt like anything you buy will be quite outdated next year which is bad for a huge investment.
Exactly. It seems like a lot of people don't realize this. We will never get that insane rate of innovation in smartphones again. These small incremental updates are what we are getting for the rest of our lives. What innovation we brought in a year, will now take 10 years because smartphones have matured and unless there is a major paradigm shift, this is more or less the final version of smartphones.
The entire computer and internet industry has been maturing too. We are getting to the point where the only significant increases in processing power are coming from spending more on the silicon. Internet companies have secured their markets and it hasn't changed much in the past 5-10 years.
If you want further crazy levels of innovation, it's time to look elsewhere. Computers have had their time. Now it's time for the next big thing. Maybe that's AI, quantum computers, gene editing, or nuclear fusion. Hell I doubt it, but after some years maybe cryptocurrency will have a breakthrough and we'll go rushing back to it. This is a story as old as the wheel.
Computers will continue to improve, but it's gonna be gradual which in itself can be incredible. I just bought my wife a tiny computer for $250 to play some old games via LAN together. The thing is ~1/4 the size of a mac Mini and faster than my old gamin PC from 10 years ago. Easy to cough at being faster than a 10 year old computer, but given the tiny size and cheap price, it's incredible! It's not as incredible as going from a bad camera in your phone to a camera good enough to not take a standalone camera on vacation, but amazing nonetheless. You only see it though if you actively take inventory of past improvements.
IMO, taking a look back and appreciating the sum of incremental improvements is something we should do much more of frequently in all areas of society and life.
For sure. I think computers and the internet will continue to be more innovative than most other industries, but the rate will be slower than what we are used to.
There was a time when performance would double every couple of years, but now we see around 10% performance gains over the same amount of time. Nothing to scoff at, but not enough to drive as crazy innovation as was previously commonplace.
I wonder where the market will go after we've exhausted lithography.
Except it isn’t compelling to people with an iPhone 12 because we’re on the third S year in a row. Design hasn’t changed, camera bump has just gotten worse, yay USB-C but only nerds use that and everyone else will be pissed about needing new cables.
It isn’t compelling compared to anything after the 11, and they should be aiming higher.
My notes on the upgrade from 14 to 15 I took during the announcement:
* Twice as bright screen
* Dynamic Island
* Smaller bezel
* Contoured edge
* New better plastic back
* Big camera improvements
- 48MP main camera vs. 24MP
- Faster focus
- Much better telephoto
- Improved portrait mode
* Better color
* Better low-light performance
* No shutter lag
* Turn on portrait mode after the fact
- Smart HDR for better lighting
* Live voicemail transcription
* Longer battery life?
* Satellite emergency / roadside assistance
From what I understand the battery life is equivalent (they seem to have shaved some weight off instead?) and the live voice mail transcription works just fine on my iPhone 13 Pro with the iOS 17 beta.
Unless you simply don't trust Apple's security promises (in which case why are you using Apple devices), iCloud backup is now E2EE encrypted [1]. A bit of wringing to turn it on, but totally worthwhile.
There are differences between iCloud and local backup. For example, iCloud backup doesn’t backup your Notes or Health data but local backup can. Sync != backup — without a backup, if you sync a bad change you’ve lost the data.
Both of these are stored in iCloud (if you enable) and are backed up in the cloud (and E2EE). All other large repositories of data are not sourced from my Apple devices
I think they do, but my guess is that most people don't keep their phones long enough for that to be the reason to stop using the phone. Usually the phones get damaged/lost/too slow to run modern apps etc.
Whatever I please. It's irrelevant what I may use it or not use it for.
The point is that the technology now is far past USB 2 (and has been for some time despite Apple's persistence on using Lightning with such slower speeds) and the only reason they have for not putting USB 3 in the 15s (non-Pro) is greed. They were forced by the EU to convert to USB-C, so it looks to me as if they did the absolute minimal amount of work and effort to be any more consumer-friendly than they have to be.
You are attributing malice, but they explained things pretty clearly in the presentation.
They are reusing the SoC of the 14 pro in the 15 (as they always do), which doesn't support USB 3. On the 15 pro they have support for USB 3, and you can bet it will propagate down the iPhone line next year.
The state of the current extraction-based economy is such that you have to differentiate Apple's greed (less cutting edge usually, costs more) vs Google's greed (wants to track you all the time).
I'd rather the up-front greed that may force me to pay for a Pro model rather than the ongoing & increasing greed.
Maybe not "malice" exactly, but Apple has been obnoxiously anti-USB-3 on iPhones for many years. Not only could they have planned ahead for the port change, they could have been supporting it over the lightning port.
It was especially bad when they added prores without a way to offload footage at a reasonable speed.
And there probably is an element of spite where they don't want the upgrade to USB 3 to come too directly aligned with the USB C switch.
>I love how people are asking "what are you doing with data transfer anyway?" Such deflection of the principle of the issue
I think it's a legitimate question from people trying to understand the use case -- I haven't done a USB data transfer with my phone in years. I wouldn't want to pay even $5 more to get faster cabled data transfer.
Imo it's finally offering a bit better image quality than 5 year old 12mpx sensor overprocessed into watercolor. At least I hope, iPhone 13 pro photos become a badly prompted stable diffusion once zoomed a bit.
Not disputing your point of view, but wasn’t this always the case at some level? The <version> to <version>S was, to my memory, never that big, so you were really looking at two year cycles for major updates.
No comment on whether the 13->15 jump was big enough to be worthwhile, just that I think that’d be more comparable than the 14->15 jump.
Better cameras, faster processors, capable GPU, titanium case, better OLED screen with higher max brightness, satellite emergency assistance. As far as the philosophy of incremental improvement goes that’s pretty good.
I love how this is justified by "everyone is doing it so it's okay." That's the bandwagon fallacy and I don't buy it.
Twitter (I will not call it X, because that's just stupid), is free to attempt to change their Terms of Service, policies, etc, but we do not have to accept it or agree with it or be resigned to it. Also, it should not be retroactively applied to past content, and it should be an opt-in consent -- but that is pie-in-the-sky wishing at this point given the garbage heap Musk, and others, has made of Twitter.
If someone created an account back when AI was not a thing, they did NOT consent to their data being used for AI:
You cannot expect people to retroactively consent to a thing the existence of which they were not even aware of when they gave consent for some limited OTHER use.
Besides, it's just rude to do things for which there was no consent in general, no matter whether it is AI or anything else. No consent is no consent.
Further, you can't expect people who have a life in general to sit around all day just waiting to figure out where they have to delete accounts before they are misused.
Bazillions of websites nowadays want you to create an account, the normal behavior is that users just abandon accounts which they don't need anymore. Nobody has the time to delete all of them.
Your profile says you were "Senior Director of Monetization at Reddit". Considering all the outrage that company has caused with its users as well (redesign coughcough - just one example out of a truckload), and that the outrage-causing things largely seemed to be aimed at monetization, perhaps you should do some soul seeking to figure out whether your values are aligned with common societal morals.
Or in other words: How many more people will you make angry until you realize that maybe you're the baddie?
You can get mad all you want about people using “your data” that you posted on a public forum for whatever, doesn’t change the fact that you were dumb for thinking that your (not important, unique, or interesting) musings would be protected from people using them for whatever they want by posting it on the open internet, much less the website of the company you posted it on, get real.
The fact that you, Jamie Quint (look at his nickname, it says that), a previous Senior Director of Monetization at Reddit (see his profile), answer being accused of a poor moral compass by insulting the person who did (calling them "dumb", and trying to belittle everything they have to say as "not important, unique, or interesting") shows that you in fact have what you've been accused of - not only by me but by the community of reddit as a whole:
A poor, or even no, moral compass.
I'd lean as far out of the windows to speculate that what has often been said about people in positions of power applies here:
Those positions attract people who are completely unable to perceive empathy, and who act solely out of the desire for power and narcissism.
It's a shame, you cause so much harm for society - and you probably are unable to even perceive the harm you're causing because your brain is just not wired to be capable of empathy.
If you want to do the world a favor, go read up what a psychopath is, and by that I do NOT mean to insult you, but rather the actual medical term "psychopath".
Ask yourself whether it applies to you, and learn to protect society from yourself if it does.
You most likely consented to future changes to the ToS. It's kind of like their version of asking a Genie for infinite wishes as one of their three wishes.
I'd like someone to address this. Surely there's a limit. The statement "your account balance belongs to Twitter" is not against the law (like they can say the service is worth whatever amount of money and that you owe them this money), but you're not allowed to do that, because you're not allowed to retroactively change a contract's terms.
So, surely, you can't change ToS retroactively and expect that any of it applies?
Let's breakdown what tos is. It's the terms they are enforcing to provide you a service. They can refuse you service at any point for any reason. You can have your own terms of service that they must follow or you will refuse to do business with them.
By adding that they can train AI they are trying to get out of a future lawsuit that may happen if the courts require consent for training (current anyone can train on anything).
Your right to sue them for using the data they hold might be lost if you continue to use after the term change.
If they asked for your car and you refused they could stop service but they can't take your car.
They can't change payment terms from the past and sue for them. But if they change the tos to say it costs more now your next bill will go up. If they say they can use your data now that they hold and you have an active account they could take that as an acceptance that past/future can be used to train ai.
A better example might be a right given. For a year you could download photos for AI training. Today they forbid that for all future and past posted photos. Anything downloaded before the date can be legally used to train.
Go through the GDPR deletion process if you care that much, will very likely be deleted because the fines are massive (4% of annual worldwide turnover)
I am not an EU citizen or resident, so I don't believe that avenue is open to me. Also, Twitter has not of late demonstrated significant susceptibility to regulations.
I will note that we've narrowed the claim from "you're free to delete your content" to "If you live in some countries you're very likely to be able to delete your content", which I agree is probably true.
You would think so! I've requested deletion under GDPR and here's what you get in response:
Thank you for your inquiry. You can deactivate your account at any time. When deactivated, your Twitter account, including your display name, username, and public profile, will no longer be viewable on Twitter.com, Twitter for iOS, and Twitter for Android. For up to 30 days after deactivation, it is still possible to restore your Twitter account if it was accidentally or wrongfully deactivated.
Keep in mind that search engines and other third parties may still retain copies of your public information, like your profile information and public Tweets, even after you have deleted the information from our services or deactivated your account.
They don't have a form to request the information to be deleted under GDPR. I have looked everywhere under help.twitter.com and they just ask you to disable your account.
GDPR means absolutely nothing between an American customer and an American company. It's completely irrelevant.
And I'm not even sure it means anything even for users in the EU. If Twitter doesn't have any offices/subsidiaries/bank accounts in the EU, then even if the EU fined them, I'm not sure how that would ever be enforced?
Is it still there? I knew they did previously, but last year there were reports it was possibly closing as part of Musk's layoffs.
Looking online I can't find any recent information.
Basically, given the way Musk has been ignoring other regulations and/or not paying for things, I'm wondering if he even cares about GDPR. And if he doesn't care and shuts down any legal European presence, then does it matter?
(Of course if the Ireland office is still active and receiving lots of European advertiser revenue, then of course the GDPR has teeth.)
Musk only cares about "getting his way" at this point.
Years ago, "dark triad incarnate" was checked by lack of nearly as established a position* and a longer timeline over which to grow and consolidate wealth and power (which does require time and attention).
He's past 50 now, and started transitioning into his own "late Putin phase" (substitute your own 'favorite megalomaniac' at will) quite aggressively in the past 5 years (especially). Now the game is using that wealth and power for a kind of ultimate "spoiled child fantasy camp".
Regardless of how directly any of them channel the childishness of the archetype, the traits are always there - "I'm special", "your (parent-style) 'rules' don't apply to me"**, "I will get my way", etc. It's the whole point, and the motivation that people who don't think this way miss. The motivation that makes the behavior make at least some sense.
Musk is one of the real extreme examples in terms of how transparent the behavior is - whenever he does something that seems hard to explain, ask yourself how the situation might look "in a sandbox". Seriously. This may sound like typical rhetoric, but I'm serious: try it. Twitter is a perfect example - "if I can't have it my way, then I'll make sure no one can have it" ...
... and, just like in the analogy, there are layers of goals. I.e., it's also good if while we (may ultimately) destroy "the sandbox", we can use it to harm those we don't like who've been playing in it. Either directly (e.g., firing employees of Twitter), or in various indirect ways (reporting "troublesome users" to their authoritarian governments [when applicable], etc.).
* Specifically, still needing something from others here and there - most recently and likely the final example: funding for Twitter deal
** People who think this way can't help 'telegraphing' - it's one way they identify members of their own flock, in part. "Nanny state", "snowflake", etc.
I'm not sure the GDPR can be enforced outside of the EU, therefore one can't be absolutely certain the posts will not appear if accessed from elsewhere.
It is enforced internationally just like copyright law. It is a law for EU users no matter where their data resides. Meta was fined 1.3 billion dollars in spring for GDPR violation.
Realistically, a company is only obligated to pay the fine if they have a physical presence within the EU, and care to keep that presence.
For some companies, the calculus says pay the fines and cooperate with EU laws.
But for most companies, they can and do safely ignore GDPR and other EU laws. EU laws do not apply outside the EU... despite what many Europeans want to believe.
But for most companies, they can and do safely ignore GDPR and other EU laws. EU laws do not apply outside the EU... despite what many Europeans want to believe.
You’re right but when did you meet Europeans who said that a company selling in India has to respect GDPR?
You only need to apply EU regulations if you serve EU citizens, or you get either fined or blocked
Seeing bugs is one thing (I stopped using twitter like 5 years ago or so and it was always a bug fest so I can believe it got even worse) but we are talking about a single specific bug here with important privacy consequences. Some reliable proof would be nice.
The ethics argument is asinine. If you don’t like the rules, don’t use the product or start your own company. Just don’t be an insufferable whiner about it.
If you pull the “we need to have an ethics discussion” card about public data posted on a website you can quit anytime, you’re an insufferable whiner. Sorry not sorry.
>You're free to delete your content and your account if you're unhappy.
>Senior Director of Monetization at Reddit
You of all people should know that "free to" and "should" and consent by default is perfectly legal. And yet, it's also gross and slimy. So I guess I'm not at all surprised to find out you're a monetization person.
Comments like this act like the consumer has all the power to choose and create the world they want. We don't, companies own this world and major public forums and make decisions together like this which we are powerless to change.
Corporations have more power in our government than individuals. They have a better understanding and coordination. Acting like a public forum owned by a company is immune from criticism because it's a private company is sweeping so much under the rug.
I imagine you wouldn't be where you are in life if you didn't believe such things, though.
If only there was some legal regime that turned this conundrum into a scenario whereby people could publicly share their intellectual property while still retaining control of their rights in the material.
This seems so critical to a functioning society that one would have thought it would have been considered in the Constitution. Oh well!
If you think Twitter is violating the constitution or copyright law, then take them to court.
But by agreeing to the terms of use, Twitter retains certain rights over what you post on the platform.
If that is not acceptable, then don’t use Twitter. If you think your thoughts are too valuable for Twitter to use, then write them into a book or blog or some other venue where your intellectual property can be protected.
I do not think Twitter is violating the Constitution unless we are talking about some kind of state actor doctrine vis a vis misinformation censorship under previous ownership.
I do not think there are any violations of intellectual property law given that there is surely a waiver of ownership of posts in the TOS.
I, of course, do not have the kind of free time required to do something like engage with Twitter, and accordingly I have no account, cannot post, and have not agreed to the TOS.
I think you have misconstrued my post, but that’s ok.
the ethical implications of using someone's data without explicit, informed consent for each specific use case is obviously problematic.
the data landscape is ever-evolving, and what was acceptable or even conceivable years ago may not be the same today.
companies should not only be transparent but also dynamically update users on how their data is being used and offer an option to opt-out.
ignoring this not only impacts individual users but also has broader societal implications.
consent fatigue is real; expecting users to keep track and delete their accounts across numerous platforms is neither practical nor ethical.
also, cancelling your account or laboriously deleting all of your content doesn't necessarily guarantee that all your data will be deleted on the backend... did you think your comment through at all?
Also, could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing the guidelines and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
> The mentality of actively opposing or criticizing anyone who defends a particular individual, organization, or viewpoint can be described as "tribalism"
Something tells me Elon could announce he's going to shit on all your faces and you'd be like "it's his company he can do it!" While opening your mouth and looking up with a smile.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. You may not owe $CelebrityBillionaire better but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
It's been entertaining watching the pro-Elon crowd shrink and get quieter as he repeatedly screws up. I'm not saying every decision he's made has been bad (some, like revenue sharing and using Twitter Blue, are good imo). But he really has been screwing up bad, and in ways that are indefensible by anyone with common sense.
I also will not call it X, because I think it's confusing.
Quite a few years ago I remember working in Paypal's X API. Part of me wondered if I misremembered this, but no ... there are still references to it online. Maybe Musk named it. He wanted to name the entire company X, right?
I can't imagine how a retroactive agreement would possibly hold up if this issue were to go to court. It seems like it invalidates the whole ToS if potentially anything can be added at any time to apply across time. Wild. Imagine if a rent contract could do that. You now owe rent for two year ago because your landlord change your contract now to take retroactive effect.
Everyone is doing it, because it’s capitalism! Our public forums are privately managed and controlled by a few people. Venture CAPITALISTS invest in startups, get shares, prop up money-losing economics for years and then sell the shares to the public in an IPO. The corporations have quarterly earnings calls where they have to explain how they are extracting rents from their ecosystem, in order to make “number go up”, ie make shareholders happy.
Open source can liberate us from this, but we need someone to build really good and competitive alternatives to Twitter, Zoom et al.
Capitalism isn't "things I don't like", capitalism is when investors are paid simply for "owning" things rather than being forced to sell their labor in exchange for a wage like everyone else. Your company is selling shares to external investors and is not worker-owned; it is a capitalist firm that pays dividends to people who didn't necessarily do any work for the company. Words have meaning.
Words do indeed have meaning. Absolutely! And I am using the words advisedly, and in their original meaning. Venture capitalists are … well, capitalists! I don’t mischaracterize anything.
Capitalism is characterized by PRIVATE ownership of the “means of production”. That’s the term used in the 19th century, but today we could point to the technological infrastructure which enables each new user to engage with a network.
“Ownership” means exercising exclusive control over this, and excluding others from using (even a copy of) it.
Musk controls Twitter. Zuck controls Facebook. Durov controls Telegram. Moxie controls Signal. And so on. This is centralized control by people who won’t give you their back-end software. They’ll at best let you have your own custom client for a while, until they don’t (Reddit).
Cory Doctorow recently wrote about the “enshittification” that happens as the end result of all this private ownership. “I built it — I own it!” Well, if you believe that, you shouldn’t complain when a privately owned company does something, not even when they deplatform you. What you should complain about is the lack of open source alternatives.
Does Linus own Linux?
Does TimBL own the Web?
Does Rasmus Lerdorf own PHP?
Does Vitalik own Ethereum?
Just because one specific company in an ecosystem is privately owned does not mean the network infrastructure is centrally controlled by a few people.
In fact our company has experimebted with ways to reward contributors properly:
Wordpress, Drupal, Magento, Linux etc. can be hosted anywhere. It is a free market. By contrast, Twitter and Facebook (oh sorry, X and Meta) are digital feudalism!
We also are working on utility tokens that, unlike shares, entitle people only to services in that free market, and not to expect rents to be extracted forever. If Qbix or Automattic extracts too much rents from their open source ecosystem, or doesn’t do the best hosting in, say, Hawaii, then a competitor can arise and compete with them, locally or globally.
In fact, Qbix can be used to host social networks in areas with bad internet, including rural villages, cruise ships and planes. They can help young people of all sexes be educated in rural areas with bad internet. Can the same be said of Google or Facebook? NO! Their capitalist ideas always involve sending the signals back to their own server farms. Whether it’s Project Loon (google) or the solar-powered drones (facebook), what they don’t offer is local villages to simply load their own forked copy of their backend software, and owe them nothing!
We do. We give the source code away and help hosting companies install it. We are working on creating an entire decentralized ecosystem where we don’t have centralized control … so if host locally, you NEVER have to worry about us training our AI models on your data, or any of the other thousands of things to ebtray your trust. It’s YOUR choice who will run your infrastructure — and it could be your friend on a local computer and connecting your town over a mesh network:
For a long time, the top HN post about Elon Musk was "Elon Musk Deletes Own, SpaceX and Tesla Facebook Pages After #deletefacebook" [0], so he was definitely someone who prized being perceived as not doing what everyone else in Big Tech did.
Why would they? Most sites TOS already stipulate that by uploading data to the service, you grant a global irrevocable unlimited license to use all submitted data for any business purpose without your further consent. I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have this for years.
If that's the case, then Twitter would have no need to change the TOS; their usage would already be permitted and changing the TOS would serve only to bring additional scrutiny
> Twitter (I will not call it X, because that's just stupid)
LOL, it's the latest craze to change company names. When I see their "new" logo somehow my mind immediately associates it (correctly) with the X11 logo. Facebook another one that decided to change its name for something that maybe turns out to be biggest money burn a company has ever done. Maybe tomorrow we will wake up with Pear instead of Apple, who knows. Now that I mentioned FB, what's the current status of the so called Metaverse? Are we there yet? Or are they still furiously pouring millions and millions and getting nothing out of it?
It's always weird when big, established names/brands attempt to rebrand.
Like "the artists formerly known as" Prince, Kanye, Snoop Dogg, etc. There's basically no getting away from the old branding because it has to be included with the new branding so one knows what we're even talking about.
As far as rebrands go, X just seems dumb. The more an article/news segment talk about X, it feels like an unfilled mad libs made it to air. Or it feels like they're talking about something general, like when X Company does Y thing.
Yeah this is probably the worst corporate rebranding I have ever seen. They replaced one of the most globally recognized brands with a generic and meaningless one. Plus the rollout was a mess, just like everything else post-musk Twitter does. Have they even gotten around to updating all of their own branding references yet?
> given the garbage heap Musk, and others, has made of Twitter.
It's a more vibrant, open, and honest community than ever, despite the organized and coordinated (I wonder by who) advertiser boycott. If anything, a lot of garbage has been removed from the heap.
> Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may. Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests and are equally well-supported by evidence.
With some of the best acting in both Andreas Katsulas and Peter Jurasik, the character development, and the various production woes, I’d say it’s a pretty great series, too.
But we can all agree “TKO” was just plain awful. Right?
So it's a tutorial where the goal is to be able to take a screenshot, post to Reddit, and feel cool. There are a few pieces of good information, but it's for people learning Linux (how to install, run a package manager, etc), not power users, which I would define as someone who understands a lot of the OS and takes as much advantage of the system at hand.
I feel as if I'd qualify as a power user, who has used Windows since the 3.1 days, who has used MacOS since the Tiger days, and who has been using various Linux distributions since 1999 -- I definitely wasn't the intended target audience of this article.
With a title of "Linux Guide for Power Users," I was hoping for some interesting scripts or relatively unknown applications that might be fun to tinker with. I always love to learn something new that I didn't know before (an example: recently I discovered TimeShift which is really a fancy wrapper around rsync and BTRFS, but it's a pretty nice GUI to help create and restore snapshots that I wasn't aware of before).
> This guide is meant as a loose inspiration for a poweruser looking to switch to Linux.
Yea the title and the intro sentence have a subtle, but very important difference.
And I appreciate the effort but I’m ultimately still confused who the target audience is. I’ve only ever used macOS (like ~9 years computer experience) but currently setting up Gentoo, and being a “power user looking to switch to Linux” myself, I would’ve found it more helpful to summarize the Linux equivalents and added optionality to macOS “power user” things.
Eg u use yabai on mac, well here’s i3 and [other options]. Desktop environment? You actually can choose and here’s an overview. Like it went from “eli5 what’s a distro” to vim keybindings so there was that inconsistent definition of “power user.”
I’m obviously biased in terms of what I wanted to see but my larger point is the inconsistency
Yeah, I don't really know what a 'poweruser looked to switch to Linux' even means. It doesn't compute. A poweruser is a highly proficient user. If you're looking to switch to Linux from Mac, you might be a Mac poweruser but you're not going to be a poweruser in Linux, because you're starting mostly from scratch. And if you're a Windows poweruser, then you're going to be starting entirely from scratch.
So the generic 'poweruser looking to switch to Linux' really makes no sense to me. You can't just be a 'poweruser' in the abstract. A poweruser is a poweruser of something, the thing they are highly proficient at using.
Your first paragraph is spot on. A quick look at the ToC made me think it's a "how to reproduce every r/unixporn screenshot ever" rather than teaching something interesting about Linux for people well-versed in administering or using other Unix-like systems (e.g. Mac OS, FreeBSD, ...).
This may be oddly specific to myself, but I hate having to memorize internal IPs and like to address my computers with their hostnames. This article makes no attempt to tell me anything about hostnames, mDNS, DNS-SD, etc. on Linux. Is mDNS configured OOTB on most Linux distros like it is on Mac OS? If not, which implementations should I consider using? So on, so forth.
I also find it a bit amusing NeoVim is automatically chosen for the reader. I'll stick with Emacs, and I know many others will stick with VS Code or just plain old Vim. :)
mDNS does work out of the box mostly with systemd-resolve (and the right firewall rules if you only allow certain inbound traffic).
You can add something like avahi and have Linux do more interesting things like reflection between interfaces/networks--critical for segregating your Chromecasts and other IoT devices.
I get that some people want to switch from macOS to Linux, but why would they want to change from *BSD? In all likelihood, one uses a BSD precisely because it's not GNU.
You'll find, as I have, that laptops and Linux distributions/DEs don't always play well together (lid closing/reopening, suspend/hibernate, keyboard backlight, function key alternate media controls, trackpad, etc). It's sometimes a shot in the dark if not buying from a company that helps guarantee Linux support/compatibility for all the hardware in the system (Dell XPS 13 plus developer, System 76, etc).
That's great there was a tutorial that got everything working well, especially for your specific setup! I'm also now running Linux as my only operating system on my gaming desktop machine (I run Arch, btw ;D ). Steam/Proton and Lutris make gaming a relative cinch now, and I've been hoping for this since I first started with Linux in 1999.
Despite what some on the political spectrum try to say, the Internet has become a basic human right. It is required in schools in America. In many cases, it is required to even interact with certain government entities. Allowing governments and corporations to force users to a specific browser on a specific operating system just to interact with their site goes against everything the web is supposed to be -- an open platform for the free exchange of ideas.
This proposal is a slap in the face to all of that and basically allows governments and corporations to force users to use what those governments and corporations choose.
This is net neutrality all over again, just in a different vein.
I, for one, will continue supporting Mozilla and Firefox and will never again use Chromium-based browsers, or any browser which supports this. I just hope I can keep browsing the sites I need to.
Thanks for posting this. I was not inclined to respond after already providing information that he could have viewed when time afforded him. Here's hoping he has time to read a Wikipedia article instead of having people do the work for him.
I love how downvotes are used here to punish those you disagree with. Such fun. I guess this is now Reddit.