Do you think if stolen property is eventually recovered, in some condition, it's "no harm, no foul?" Or, maybe it would be beneficial for society if theft didn't happen in the first place?
Because based on “asked it to make a profit” I expect financials in the story. Even if it is a bit of a ”Clarkson’s Bot”, for the farm there is discussion of the numbers.
Jony Ive here. I’ll come back and help make your new keyboard perfectly flat and seamless- touchpad based, and we’ll remove all ports. Bluetooth devices only.
Alan Dye here. I'm coming back to Apple, and the next versions of the operating systems will not even have visible controls or icons. You just have to click on the beautiful, clear windows and hope you're interacting with the right UI elements.
Cave Johnson here. I'll be honest, we're throwing science at the wall here to see what sticks. No idea what it'll do. Probably nothing. Best-case scenario, you might get some superpowers.
Scott Forstall here. I’ll resign before I apologize for the choices we make at Apple. All our research shows you’re gonna love it, and if you say you don’t it’s because you’re wrong, not me.
I had a blackberry passport and it had a lot going for it(best keyboard ever on a phone) but one thing I really liked for reasons I don't understand is it had a square screen and took square photos.
Human eyes have a viewport that's like a mailslot, though. A lot of screens are a compromise between area and a movie screen like wide immersive image.
CRTs might have actually liked being nearly hemispherical because glass and deflection-from-center.
Square (or squarish) formats were pretty standard in pro photography once upon a time. Bliss, the Windows wallpaper, was shot on a camera that shoots in 6x7 natively (that's a nominal 6cm x 7cm, really it's more like 55mm x 65mm) A lot of other medium format cameras also shot in 6x7 or 6x6. And of course, 8x10 is still the standard "medium size print." I find square (or squarish) easier to compose with than wide ratios. Street photography, portraits, and sports photography don't often benefit from wider ratios, to name a few examples.
That looks genuinely useful - I could see positioning a monitor like that on either side of my main monitor, at an angle, and using them for docs, reference material, slack, calendars, etc. All the screen space of a dual-monitor setup, without the separation right in the center! Ah well, shame they're no longer made.
Hmm. Android uses the curvy bits for status so the main area is rectangle. So it is OK. It has the advantage of curved corners on casing to reduce chance of cracking screen on a drop.
Or you could forget the borderless screen and add a bezel so I can hold my phone without touching the screen. Then you've got enough room to curve the corners and have square screen corners.
For real. Doesn't help that the three/four finger swipe between full screen windows/workspaces has a mandatory animation that you can't disable (you can turn on "reduce motion", but it simply changes the scrolling animation into an equally time-wasting fading animation).
Virtual machines aren't the solution for day-to-day computing though. You're missing out on the graphics acceleration, being able to plug things in that just work, and so on.
My custom XFWM theme has square corners on windows without focus and large-radius rounded corners on the one window with focus.
The square corners are part of a 2 pixel wide border (one black, one white) because who needs to waste space on handling things we aren't manipulating? But the title bar is high-contrast, because you'll go looking for it when you want to switch windows.
The round corners go with a fairly thick border in a customizable color, usually something very bright in the yellow, orange or cyan ranges. When you sit down, you should immediately know what is active.
Nope. Virtual windows are rectangular because the screen is also rectangular while being small enough to see the edges within our field of view.
They don't have to be any particular shape or size. The property of being virtual overrides everything else when free of these self-imposed constraints.
Even if you lose the GUI and go back to text, the ideal terminal is a plane of infinite columns of arbitrary cell size that dynamically fills your field of view.
I'd further argue that the only reason VR/AR isn't more widely adopted is the lack of orthographic vs perspective modality per application (and uncomfortable headsets). In VR/AR, you don't want a window manager or even windows at all. What you want is a field manager (as in FOV "fields" of varying opacity that can be composited by the user). Shape and size is just an arbitrary region blended in with the environment.
For the sake of ergonomics, you'd more often prefer to project an interface onto a surface if you had the choice. When you don't, you probably want the projection to be orthographic, but for the edges to be fuzzy if not invisible. You'd generally want to be able to layer these interfaces as well instead of having opaque rectangles always in your way.
I don't think GP was advocating for actually square windows. Rather that the corners should be right angles.
This makes perfect sense considering that most LCD displays, and practically all computer displays, don't have rounded corners. This trend of rounding displays and GUI elements is purely an aesthetic choice. I also find this obnoxious since the only thing it does is rob me of a few pixels which are often useful.
But considering Apple users have accepted living without a large block of pixels dead center at the top of the screen, which they've been sold as a "feature", the rounded corners are likely even less of an issue.
I'm not sure that an infinite plane of pixels makes sense even in XR. I want to see a clear edge of where digital content begins and ends, and a rectangle is the simplest and most optimal shape for that. So I would rather have physical display-like floating rectangles, than floating text in arbitrary locations, or rounded off corners for the sake of aesthetics. I'm not opposed to a very slight rounding off of edges on certain elements, but the trend Apple is pushing is supremely ridiculous.
Yeah I don't think we disagree. I just think you all's preference for windows, tiles, etc. (anything rectangular and opaque) is rooted in an idealistic efficiency of pixels (or irrational fear of deception?) just as unergonomic and frustrating to everyone else.
I'm saying that there is room for your arbitrary preference for opaque rectangles if we all abandon the notion of a "screen". We are well past the point where we can do this economically. It only persists because of consumer acceptance. Traditional screens are less efficient in every tangible way. They are less power efficient for their apparent brightness and require more material to construct.
Even the notion of clear boundaries and pixel size is an illusion. Traditional screens only make the pixels so big because they require sufficient brightness and power to see them at that distance, not because we cannot manufacture smaller pixels for cheaper. We could have much better results for everyone and the only remaining cost/problem is finding a way to comfortably wear the display.
CSS does suck because of the globals. Class names, ids, z index values are all areas where one commonly bumps into other developers in sometimes confusing ways.
But to the point of the article, it’s a technology one has to learn. There are name spacing solutions in css (layers) and around css (css modules, panda, tailwind, etc).
I think another challenge folks may have with CSS is thinking visually. It’s not automatic. In art school one learns both how to see and how to render, and generally learning how to see clearly is a bigger challenge than learning how to render.
First off, he had discomfort with the study methodology. Didn't go into details, but was surprised that the FDA was less conservative than himself in this case.
Secondly, it has been common in his practice for someone to have an unusual event. Someone does something out of the ordinary, they have an unusual circumstances, they don't adjust their treatment, and something goes wrong.
His question was -- does the device have a reset button? Is there a way to restart the management and learning? The answer is no -- the device will learn! But there's no way for the patient or the physician to adjust the treatment. So his answer is -- he would never recommend this device, not the way it's currently setup. It's opaque and there's no means for a person to influence the device's learning.
This is just monitoring, not a pump. There is no learning or tuning or dosing. If it’s anything like the Freestyle I wore for a while there’s a self calibration process that takes a couple hours, but that’s per-sensor, and those get changed out every two weeks.
I will point out the obvious tensions between these legitimate concerns and the usual HN "we demand full unfettered access to all the firmware knobs all the time" groupthink.
> But there's no way for the patient or the physician to adjust the treatment.
This does not parse. This device is for patients that are managed with oral meds and not insulin. Yes, sulfonylureas carry some risk of hypoglycemia, but not as much as insulin proper and its fast- and slow-acting friends.
If someone is on a pump, they sure as heck will be using prescribed equipment.
reply