I had a refurbished ThinkPad that had memory corruption. I only noticed because Firefox started to crash an unreasonable amount. Ran memcheck through BIOS and sure enough it was bad RAM.
Have we considered that maybe Firefox is the cause of bad memory?
If you use Google Location Services, which is stock install on basically all Android devices, it absolutely is uploading "anonymized" GPS data all the time.
In a well-designed (or "proper") abstraction, we can deal with it in terms of its public interface. Two things that break abstractions are bugs and performance.
If you have either of those, then abstractions can be worse.
Another thing that is bad is the wrong abstractions, or abstraction inversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_inversion), where a layered system hides abstractions at the bottom from layers at the top, that top layers would nevertheless like to use, and reimplement, poorly. This happens surprisingly often.
But overall, I generally think that well-designed and factored abstractions are better than no abstractions at all.
Microsoft had around 5k people in r&d in 1995. And that covered the full wide product range, win95, nt, office, visualc, sql server, and all the other stuff.
To be fair, Apple has always had a penchant for removing important features because they don't like how they look. I cannot count how many times I got a CD/DVD stuck in a Mac, and due to a lack of physical eject button and the software eject button not working, resorted to the emergency eject sequences. Just put a button to eject the disk, ffs.
Apple was very early to remove floppy disk drives, then later DVD drives from their computers, even when those media were still commonly used. At least that fixed your problem of the stuck DVD :)
Apple has long been a "style over substance" company, unfortunately. Not always (I mean, you couldn't accuse the Apple II of being stylish for example), but certainly since the year 2000 at least. It has often meant that their products were less pleasant to use because someone refused to add functionality that wasn't as sleek-looking.
It's all just rearranging deck chairs at this point.
I feel like UX designers don't realize that their job should have a natural tailing off as we discover and lock in the good ideas and discard the bad. Even if the ideas aren't that great, users can at least get good at however it does work, if it stays constant. Instead, we just get more dice rolls, eyecandy, and frustration.
I for one hate the power dynamic that OS and website designers have over me. They can just sneak into my house and rearrange my furniture on a whim. Even if it sucks, I would adapt to it if it stayed constant! Instead I both hate it and can't learn it, because everything is different and keeps changing when I least expect it.
At this point my brain has given into learned helplessness and won't retain much of anything at all, but it's next-level figured out that it's useless.
Designers seem to have a bad track record, and it's getting worse.
Part of the problem is that each generation of designers want to leave their mark on the product - often by undoing the work of the last generation of designers. They're not entirely wrong. Design has fashions, like clothes. I enjoy that the industrial design of laptops and phones changes every few years. But good UX isn't good because its fashionable. Good UX doesn't go out of date. They've gotta learn to stop fixing it when its not broken.
Eg, MacOS's new system preferences panel is worse than the old one. And its stupid putting the windows start menu in the middle of the screen, where you can't as easily click it with the mouse.
It's on you to argue it was, e.g. by comparing it to other clear landslide victories like Reagan in 1984. Truth is that 2024 the final popular vote gap was 1.5%, compared to 4.5% for 2020, -2.0% for 2016 (yeah, really), 3.9% in 2012, 7.28% in 2008, and so on.
Does the term landslide have a widely accepted definition? One definition could be winning every single swing state, which Trump did.
I think you also have to factor in the degree of political polarization today, and in particular Trump's polarizing nature, which means that there is smaller pool of "effectively independent" voters to fight over. So 1% today is worth more than %1 in 1984. These, are of course, not particularly quantifiable measures.
The point is taken tough, "comprehensive victory" would have been the more appropriate description.
They are also absolutely shameless about lying and feel no obligation to stick to facts or data, but rather appeal to and cultivate ignorance, binary thinking, fear, us-versus-them thinking, and scapegoating. In short, their propaganda is more effective because they lean into it being propaganda.
I really encourage you to avoid the language of "they" and "we." It's a discussion, and it doesn't need to be an attack of which you are putting yourself on a side, or as you put it, binary thinking. As written I can't know if you are talking about either the right or left.
I think you want to read my comment a certain way and it's not allowing you to, so you posted both:
> it doesn't need to be an attack of which you are putting yourself on a side
and also
> I can't know if you are talking about either the right or left
Which are contradictory, if you think about it. I am not sure what you want me to write if I can't use "they" to refer to other people. Also, I didn't use "we", something you somehow also seem to want me to say, and didn't.
"They" is exclusive. "We" is inclusive. One goes with the other. The point I was getting at was that when you use that language in a discussion it comes off as if you are directly involved, rather than commenting from the outside, or having an opinion.
I didn't want you to use "we" either :) Here's your comment, rewritten twice, that fits in better with HN rules and avoids emotion:
> The left are also absolutely shameless about lying and feel no obligation to stick to facts or data, but rather appeal to and cultivate ignorance, binary thinking, fear, us-versus-them thinking, and scapegoating. In short, the left's propaganda is more effective because they lean into it being propaganda.
> The right are also absolutely shameless about lying and feel no obligation to stick to facts or data, but rather appeal to and cultivate ignorance, binary thinking, fear, us-versus-them thinking, and scapegoating. In short, the right's propaganda is more effective because they lean into it being propaganda.
As you can see, I couldn't tell which side you were talking about. I hope the above example helps. A lot of political discussion denigrates to us-vs-them. It is not helpful.
Have we considered that maybe Firefox is the cause of bad memory?
/s
reply