I agree, it's better than iOS 10. Though quitting apps does feel worse, but maybe that's intentional?

Users aren't meant to manually manage apps. Perhaps it should not even be offered as an option in the first place, except as something like "force quit" of last resort.

Apps are shown by recent-use, so that takes care of "which I'm using for this task now".

Users have to do what users have to do though. Apple may not mean for them to "manually manage apps" (i.e. killing apps; not some monumental task), but there are plenty of reasons for users to need to do it which are listed here and in the article comments.

So why are we making it harder for them to do things that they definitely need to do? I think the only opinion we've heard so far has been "because that's what Apple wants users to do".

This is typical Apple - they are totally ignoring what users actually need to do and acting like it's a superior design. Next thing you know, they'll provide no means to resize a window by any corner or edge on Macs. Then Apple evangelists will defend that decision for years and years as if it were somehow better (or "just different"...but definitely not worse than anything else!)

Have you tried Typescript? It's less ambitious/different than Clojurescript, but the compiler in watch mode compiles on change very quickly.

Do you think the 'existential danger from mobs with pitchforks' is justified? If they don't believe the outrage is justified, then they may be aware of this, but still speak these things out loud.

If there are people half starving or barely able to survive, take care of their loved ones, or have any dignity, and you control so many resources as to be able to personally lift hundreds of thousands out of that misery, but don't, those people will eventually try to kill you.

We can sit here and academically discuss the degree of justification of that fact, but that seems to me somewhat tangential to the actual issue.

I don't think this is very true--what significant/majority of religious thought patterns are the same in atheism? The only one I think you could make a case for is ingroup/outgroup thinking, but that is not a majority of religious belief.

Acquiring the belief because it's popular in your ingroup, along with a strawman-based view of the outgroup(s). No real effort spent on thinking the belief through; lack of any real argument against the beliefs of the outgroup(s).

This attitude ignores the other 90+% of people who read your replies: people who aren't actually engaging, just reading and considering. I think the meme of 'debate online is pointless' is wrong because the vast majority of people who read anything you write publicly will be able to read from a position where they could have their mind changed, maybe. Write for those people.

This is explained in Thank You For Smoking, and illustrated every day on C-SPAN

Interesting, I didn't know that--is it worth watching?

Sounds like a fun challenge, but some of the comments here are a bit too hero-worship-y for me... He's a mere person.

There always seems to be that kind of vibe on any of his posts, they seem to be mostly from people in Asian countries. I guess everyone needs a role model, and when people see the chance to interact with theirs they really reach out for it.

It saddens me to see how much this (obviously terrible) idea has caught on in the general population. Science literacy should be a higher priority for our education system.

I'd love to see FPS rise in eSports again. Here's to hoping this new game has some advanced movement techniques (bhop!).