Few are saying "there is one solution: nuclear". Many are saying any workable solution must include it. Eg: electric cars with panels + nuclear powered grid/charging stations.
You forgot the leftist SJ/entitlement warriors posting from the environmentally toxic, overcrowded, urban sprawls who couldn't give a crap how much business is killed as long as their EBT cards are kept full. You know, the places that are fueled by the coal you mentioned?
Perhaps that's because paranoia has changed, not the allergies themselves. The 'zomg safety' soccer mom mentality has taken over. The fact that it encourages slavish, unquestioning acceptance of and obedience to authority is a 'mere' side effect.
Yeah, but you don't allow advertisers to fill your front lawn with billboards, stand outside shouting at you from megaphones, and spy on the details of everything you're doing.
Of course not, lets reenforce this race to the bottom where no one has control over anything in their lives, reenforcing ignorance and learned helplessness. God forbid someone have control over his machine!
Windows has defaulted to auto updating since XP. That does cover most of the average users, who never change the settings. Taking the control away for the few times it is needed is ridiculous.
Most clueless users do have autopatching turned on in previous windows versions. It's the default. Forcing it is a problem, though, if a patch breaks something.
This is the mentality that's made modern software easier to use for very simple tasks at the expense of making it a lot harder to do complex tasks (or simple tasks with different options). Today's answer to 'the customer doesn't know what he wants' is to strip out all the advanced settings and flexibility and give the user a fisher price turd. Fuck that.
That's true, especially in GUI land. Another example is an insane customer who read about some bullshit paradigm on the net and wants his project to use it, even though it makes no sense, will cost more, and kill performance.
Kinda hard to do at this point since, as you say, they're all the same. Finding a job where you can 'do what you love' is also bullshit. Employers want to turn creative endeavors into life sucking factory work that can be done by migrants for pennies. I suspect we're already suffering from it considering all the stupidly designed software coming from the big players. I remember a time where software from the giants might have had bugs, and the occasional design blunder, but otherwise worked well enough for the most part. A lot of today's software is HARDER to use than it was in 1998. That's retarded.
Win81 introduced the new task manager, and it is far from better. The new processes tab just takes up more space and taskman now defaults to it every time it's loaded. Oh, and the 'fewer details' mode is worse than useless, it's just yet one more extra click to get at what is needed.
Non offensive UI? You mean the one that doesn't let the user set the desired colors and metrics without tons of hacks? There's way too much white and there's no easy way to change it without resorting to the butt ugly high contrast themes. The start menu is usable again, but hardly as good as the old ones because it still has a lot of extra scrolling and clicking to get at what is desired.
Having two control panels is also stupid. If each stuck with the settings for one specific interface (metro and classic), that's fine, but now you have to remember which settings are in which, and the new one is a pain to navigate, especially the 'personalize' panel. It's far worse than what they did when they went from the XP to vista style panel, changing easy to remember names to clunky phrasing.
Actually, the point of having stable APIs and ABIs is so that other dependent binaries and code continue to work and compile even when changes are made to the underlying software.
How about failing to pay taxes (who cares if you're in debt and need to get to work to have a shot at paying them)? Most people who don't, don't because they can't...and what about your example about child support, you want those bureaucratic tyrants at DCF even more power?
Would you really want the police having remote control over every car? Cops already abuse the powers they do have so there's plenty of precedent.
The typical model involves boiling a frog by slowly turning up the heat. History has shown us this repeatedly, and today's culture has tolerated massive heating already.
So we should all give up autonomy, liberty, and arguably, safety, so those short-sighted fools can play with their phones an extra hour or two a day? If driver's licenses don't filter out enough incompetence then the answer is to fix that.
So then if the remote 'pro' control is inferior to having manual controls, then removing them would put costs ahead of safety. Meanwhile the whole argument for a pro is to nullify the argument about the computer's lack of awareness. I'd rather just have a competent driver in the seat, and encourage that as much as humanly possible than hand my agency to some hellish oversight system that treats me as a statistic. People who want to spend every minute of their travel time on facebook should take taxis or trains wherever they can. Why sacrifice autonomy, privacy, and safety to cater to this childish impulsivity?
In a critical situation, the last thing I'd want to do is hand control over to someone else who doesn't have skin in the game. Driving in rain/snow is not 'that' hard. It just requires a bit of practice and common sense. Frankly, if the situation is so bad that I'd need a 'pro', it's probably best to just pull over and wait for the calamity to pass. In split second situations, there's no time switch controls anyway.
Yes, whereas massive numbers of computers are hacked all the time, causing all sorts of issues. Instead of one human going nuts and causing an accident, we'll have dozens, hundreds, or thousands of compromised or badly programmed cars killing many times more people. If we can't even guarantee security of our currently networked devices, then it's only a matter of time before these cars are hacked through the wireless mesh. They will be very tempting targets.
Assuming you're doing what you're supposed to behind the wheel, you're watching the cars around you as well as your environment. You see that truck with the loose cargo that looks unbalanced? That object in the road, is it a plastic bag or a rock? You see a car two cars in front and one lane to your right.. By the type of car, it's behavior over the last 2 miles, and its condition, you know there's a high probability of erratic or aggressive driving. You know to watch that one. Good luck programming a computer with this. Humans are slower and less predictable, but they are much more aware of details in their environment and this more than makes up for those weaknesses. A computer is just a state machine programmed by someone else making assumptions and using heuristics to guess which situation the car is in atm. Google gave a talk about their system, and it works just like that.
A proper human driver is miles ahead of any computer. If the problem is inattentive driving, then the answer is to fix that, not to encourage more dependence and laziness.
Cars outpaced horsemanship because they were faster and could reliably go longer distances. Self driving cars come with rather heavy leashes that current cars do not, mostly due to crappy politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Was that 'trucks' game called "Over the Road Racing" by any chance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Few are saying "there is one solution: nuclear". Many are saying any workable solution must include it. Eg: electric cars with panels + nuclear powered grid/charging stations.
You forgot the leftist SJ/entitlement warriors posting from the environmentally toxic, overcrowded, urban sprawls who couldn't give a crap how much business is killed as long as their EBT cards are kept full. You know, the places that are fueled by the coal you mentioned?
Perhaps that's because paranoia has changed, not the allergies themselves. The 'zomg safety' soccer mom mentality has taken over. The fact that it encourages slavish, unquestioning acceptance of and obedience to authority is a 'mere' side effect.
Yeah, but you don't allow advertisers to fill your front lawn with billboards, stand outside shouting at you from megaphones, and spy on the details of everything you're doing.
Of course not, lets reenforce this race to the bottom where no one has control over anything in their lives, reenforcing ignorance and learned helplessness. God forbid someone have control over his machine!
Windows has defaulted to auto updating since XP. That does cover most of the average users, who never change the settings. Taking the control away for the few times it is needed is ridiculous.
Most clueless users do have autopatching turned on in previous windows versions. It's the default. Forcing it is a problem, though, if a patch breaks something.
It should detect that the cached files are corrupt, delete them and redownload. Microsoft really loves to make a process out of moving files around.
Change for changes sake is not a valid reason for it.
"What?!?! No! No one EVER made them like this!!"
This is the mentality that's made modern software easier to use for very simple tasks at the expense of making it a lot harder to do complex tasks (or simple tasks with different options). Today's answer to 'the customer doesn't know what he wants' is to strip out all the advanced settings and flexibility and give the user a fisher price turd. Fuck that.
That's true, especially in GUI land. Another example is an insane customer who read about some bullshit paradigm on the net and wants his project to use it, even though it makes no sense, will cost more, and kill performance.
Kinda hard to do at this point since, as you say, they're all the same. Finding a job where you can 'do what you love' is also bullshit. Employers want to turn creative endeavors into life sucking factory work that can be done by migrants for pennies. I suspect we're already suffering from it considering all the stupidly designed software coming from the big players. I remember a time where software from the giants might have had bugs, and the occasional design blunder, but otherwise worked well enough for the most part. A lot of today's software is HARDER to use than it was in 1998. That's retarded.
Seems to be a common trend in a lot of software nowadays, especially with GUI design and forced obsolescence of local storage.
Win81 introduced the new task manager, and it is far from better. The new processes tab just takes up more space and taskman now defaults to it every time it's loaded. Oh, and the 'fewer details' mode is worse than useless, it's just yet one more extra click to get at what is needed.
Non offensive UI? You mean the one that doesn't let the user set the desired colors and metrics without tons of hacks? There's way too much white and there's no easy way to change it without resorting to the butt ugly high contrast themes. The start menu is usable again, but hardly as good as the old ones because it still has a lot of extra scrolling and clicking to get at what is desired.
Having two control panels is also stupid. If each stuck with the settings for one specific interface (metro and classic), that's fine, but now you have to remember which settings are in which, and the new one is a pain to navigate, especially the 'personalize' panel. It's far worse than what they did when they went from the XP to vista style panel, changing easy to remember names to clunky phrasing.
Features can detract from the status of upgrade if they're worse than what they replaced.
A drone is not a person.
Actually, the point of having stable APIs and ABIs is so that other dependent binaries and code continue to work and compile even when changes are made to the underlying software.
How about failing to pay taxes (who cares if you're in debt and need to get to work to have a shot at paying them)? Most people who don't, don't because they can't. ..and what about your example about child support, you want those bureaucratic tyrants at DCF even more power?
Would you really want the police having remote control over every car? Cops already abuse the powers they do have so there's plenty of precedent.
The typical model involves boiling a frog by slowly turning up the heat. History has shown us this repeatedly, and today's culture has tolerated massive heating already.
So we should all give up autonomy, liberty, and arguably, safety, so those short-sighted fools can play with their phones an extra hour or two a day? If driver's licenses don't filter out enough incompetence then the answer is to fix that.
So then if the remote 'pro' control is inferior to having manual controls, then removing them would put costs ahead of safety. Meanwhile the whole argument for a pro is to nullify the argument about the computer's lack of awareness. I'd rather just have a competent driver in the seat, and encourage that as much as humanly possible than hand my agency to some hellish oversight system that treats me as a statistic. People who want to spend every minute of their travel time on facebook should take taxis or trains wherever they can. Why sacrifice autonomy, privacy, and safety to cater to this childish impulsivity?
In a critical situation, the last thing I'd want to do is hand control over to someone else who doesn't have skin in the game. Driving in rain/snow is not 'that' hard. It just requires a bit of practice and common sense. Frankly, if the situation is so bad that I'd need a 'pro', it's probably best to just pull over and wait for the calamity to pass. In split second situations, there's no time switch controls anyway.
Of course. It's not right, either.
Why not just bring the nazis into it and go for full godwin?
Yes, whereas massive numbers of computers are hacked all the time, causing all sorts of issues. Instead of one human going nuts and causing an accident, we'll have dozens, hundreds, or thousands of compromised or badly programmed cars killing many times more people. If we can't even guarantee security of our currently networked devices, then it's only a matter of time before these cars are hacked through the wireless mesh. They will be very tempting targets.
Assuming you're doing what you're supposed to behind the wheel, you're watching the cars around you as well as your environment. You see that truck with the loose cargo that looks unbalanced? That object in the road, is it a plastic bag or a rock? You see a car two cars in front and one lane to your right.. By the type of car, it's behavior over the last 2 miles, and its condition, you know there's a high probability of erratic or aggressive driving. You know to watch that one. Good luck programming a computer with this. Humans are slower and less predictable, but they are much more aware of details in their environment and this more than makes up for those weaknesses. A computer is just a state machine programmed by someone else making assumptions and using heuristics to guess which situation the car is in atm. Google gave a talk about their system, and it works just like that.
A proper human driver is miles ahead of any computer. If the problem is inattentive driving, then the answer is to fix that, not to encourage more dependence and laziness.
Cars outpaced horsemanship because they were faster and could reliably go longer distances. Self driving cars come with rather heavy leashes that current cars do not, mostly due to crappy politics.
As opposed to legions of badly programmed or hacked computers?