Agreed. The very end of the article also names off all the usual cookie cutter nonsense as well.
These people just can't help themselves to inject activism in everything they do, and this is why so many people are turned off by otherwise great projects.
Tech as a whole needs to take a step back and stop preaching to people about things they probably don't agree with.
Ah yes, signed at the bottom with all the cookie cutter political takes of a mentally insane progressive still clinging to the culture war they just lost. I wish I could downvote this post harder.
It was really nice. With the current linear design I organize desktops by theme (e.g. one for dev, one for research, etc) and with the 10.5/10.6 design I'd use vertical desktops for subcategories — so following the same example, on a single screen setup I might have desktops arranged something like:
│ Rails Docs/Search │ Backend Dev │ Music │
├───────────────────────┼────────────────┼────────────┤
│ UIKit Docs/Search │ iOS Dev │ Chat │
├───────────────────────┼────────────────┼────────────┤
│ MDN/Web Dev Search │ Web Dev │ Email/News │
With this, I quickly develop muscle/spatial memory for where each category "lives" and can navigate there in a flash. It also substantially reduces the need for individual programs like browsers to bear organizational load, so for example suddenly "just" single-tier vertical tabs become sufficient, making browser workspaces and tree style tabs much less necessary.
The added dimension really made things intuitive so you weren't left guessing which vertical had to do with what. One space would give you enough context to know what might be next navigating up/down. It's really a shame how disruptive the change to Mission Control was by removing them.
I tend to organize my spaces by projects and then a dumping ground for "everything else" like general browsing and music.
For projects, unique windows are typically: IDE, Browser(s)
For apps I commonly use across spaces, I assign them to "All Desktops" so they follow me, like iTerm2 and Heynote for keeping notes / task lists even if they cover multiple projects.
Especially when Sequoia will be supported by security updates for at least another 1-2 years. There aren't any compelling "gotta have it" reasons to upgrade to Tahoe.
My workplace's dumbass outsourced IT group forced the upgrade the day Tahoe came out, without giving us time to assess the risks for software compatibility or stability first.
Companies need to make it optional until security updates are no longer available for the previous major version.
I'm completely with you on this. Everything from scrolling to how windows behave makes a huge difference in the feeling of quality and responsiveness.
Once you're spoiled by a macOS machine's smoothness, it's hard to use anything else, where cursors feel like they're literally lagging behind your trackpad movements and land somewhere imprecise, and scrolling feels like opening a rusty car door as it catches on itself and you feel the friction.
macOS on an Apple Touchpad is like using a well-oiled machine by comparison. These things really matter!
Can Apple get it over with and revert this overhaul? It's such a disaster. Sequoia's UI and icons were nearly perfect and still looked modern. There was no need for this change whatsoever.
It isn't a free service -- only during the alpha you get access to an "Individual" account which would normally run $20/mo once the test period is over.
Yes, it should be paid of course. Matter of fact, please charge me more for the privilege of not being asked email,phone, credit cards. Just take my money, and feel free to take whatever steps you think are needed to make sure abuse isn't taking places. I champion requiring a "deposit" where if abuse took place the user would forfeit it.
But, my original comment is strictly about email. Even if you asked for a government-id and credit-card payment, I won't object. Just please, no email!
same way I would with my email provider. But I'd expect a recovery code of some sort that i could save.
How would you normally recover an account? Email? So, if my email is compromised, everything gets compromised? That's not sane at all. You should normally have MFA, and if you can recover your MFA/2FA with email, it's just an over-engineered inconvenience. The way it's done right, the MFA recovery code servers as a general account recovery code as well. You save that somewhere safe and offline.
In this case, they use ssh public keys, so there is no need for all that, just add a spare public key to authorized_keys, and keep it's private key offline and safe, ideally in an HSM.
This is a service for technical people, so all that works, for general consumer service, you give them a choice. Either they choose to use a recovery key, a recovery email/phone...or recovery via payment. Let them pay $1 for recovery, proving they control the original method of payment (KYC not crypto). But if nothing else, users should be able to choose recovery code instead of email. It's more secure, because you're not relying on a 3rd party service to also be secure. I don't like them much, but recovery questions have also been used, but if you think about it, those are not that different from recovery codes, they're just more guessable.
Recovery codes aren't one string, they're usually multiple, so if users chose, they can split up their storage. For added reliability, you can require validation of recovery codes periodically, after a successful sign-in.
Thanks for explaining! I was mainly curious what viable alternatives there would be for the average user, and I think your suggestions are sound. Even technical folks wants things to feel as frictionless as possible.
The nice thing about recovery codes is being able to store them securely in a password manager alongside any other entries for the service.
The downside is they're easy to leak (or lose), so the added factors in requiring access to email (also with its own 2FA) are lost in a system like this, if whatever you're managing is mission critical. I wouldn't want to make that kind of bet, personally.
I get it, that's why I advocate letting users choose. Especially with a technical audience, treating them like they can't be trusted to make mission critical choices is not good.
I thought I was crazy for reading articles backwards, but it really does help to build a better picture of what's being shared or reported.
I find that a lot of journalists like to pack their writing with fluff before they even reach the subject of the headline, a lot like recipe blogs sharing their life stories before finally reaching the instructions, as if the recipe is only secondary or tertiary to the background given.
This is why I appreciate articles that include bullet points or a TL;DR right at the beginning to summarize. For anything really long that I'm just not interested in reading fully and only want the main points, I use an LLM with the URL to summarize briefly.
While there's so much value in slowing down as the OP wrote, I feel as if journalists want you to lend the same pace to them for all the time of ours they waste. It's like they forget how much information is available to us and how unimportant it all is.
Borders can be applied to table cells independent of the content inside cells.
Gap decorations allow you to add borders between flex/grid items, but without the woes of dealing with table quirks and behavior.
Common use cases would include mimicking design patterns found in print layouts, particularly newspapers and menus, to help divide groups of items or info.
These people just can't help themselves to inject activism in everything they do, and this is why so many people are turned off by otherwise great projects.
Tech as a whole needs to take a step back and stop preaching to people about things they probably don't agree with.
reply