I find them better than the multiple Echoes we have. Though they don't do as much, what HomePods do do is generally better than Amazon's attempts. Can't comment on Google's equivalent.
That quote intrigued me too. Surely RAW (which can be produced with an iPhone [and others...]) is what the author is looking for. Case of not RTFM'ing?
RAW is minimally processed data,
but it's still processed.
Also, it has a wider dynamic range than the 12 stops a human eye can produce within a given scene.
The ability of the iris to change size and the brain's ability to process what the eye sees gives the impression of a wider dynamic range.
In short, no image, with no process, accurately represents how the eye sees a scene.
I shoot in raw from my iPhone and Canon EOS R6 mark 2. For my iPhone I usually use Halide's Process Zero to remove all the computational photography garbage that I can from my images.
High speed rail in Europe (mainly France) runs at an average speed of 270km/h (167mph), usually city centre to city centre. It is often more convenient than flying, given check-in times and airport distance from cities. It’s certainly quicker than driving.
No, I'm not. All of these are, to the extent we know about them at all (which in some cases we don't know much), entirely unlike any Christmas traditions we have today which are claimed to be pagan in origin.
How do you know Christmas simply didn't align itself to those holidays themselves, because after all, a year end winter feast is nothing new in history? Or that the traditions we have today may have at once been part of such syncreticization but then died out until the modern day? In other words we don't necessarily have to see such traditions today per se for Christmas to have absorbed them over its time.
We don't. But we also don't know that they were, and we don't have enough quality evidence in favor of that hypothesis to justify the confidence with which it is asserted.
In the absence of evidence about the timing being affected by other festivals and in the presence of much evidence that all the actual traditions are far more recent than pagan, I don't believe it's fair to claim Christmas has pagan origins. The absolute best we can do is say that its timing may have been influenced by other, pre-Christian celebrations.
I agree but I also would be interested to see any proof for the claims you're talking about with regards to Christmas not having any pagan roots, where are you finding this information or rather, where can I read more?
I linked one example—a video on Christmas trees from a religious studies scholar. They have similar content on the date of Christmas, and there are plenty of sources on each other tradition.
Here's another one on Saturnalia from the same scholar:
One small exception
Russian empire turned a figure from Pagan mythology into a St Claus like figure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ded_Moroz
But my understanding is that him handing out gifts didn't come from Pagan traditions and was a result of largely copying Santa Claus traits.
Later during Soviet times secularish Christmas traditions including Ded Moroz were moved to New Year's.
Correct, but that's because most of the traditions have always been somewhat secular in nature (with religious significance strapped on after the tradition was already going) and have only become more so, not because they were borrowed/appropriated/adapted from a pre-Christian source.
Isn’t that a common feature of most forums? The orange site, in particular, isn’t generally regarded outside of its own bubble as a bastion of independent thought…
I find the Lobsters opinion bubble to be much narrower than HN.
HN these days definitely has its share of meme bubble opinions (like reading the comments on any social media thread), but Lobsters is narrow enough that I can often predict all the comments to a post just based on reading its contents myself. This makes the site pretty boring because if it's so easily to mentally simulate the responses, I may as well just ignore the comments. Tech link aggregators usually source links from all the same places (Mastodon, Bluesky, Twitter, RSS feeds) that I already do so Lobsters' value on top is minimal.
I don't know about lobsters, but every time I see an opinion posted on HN, it seems to get immediately followed by a contrary opinion. I've also changed the settings so the website no longer appears orange, but I'm probably still in the bubble anyways.
Lobsters is trying to do the same thing as Hacker News - avoid the Eternal September effect at all costs. It just has more direct and overt methods of maintaining and enforcing its culture than here, and that starts with barring the door against the rabble.
I wonder if the Dutch Strategy might work for a link aggregator: explicitly provide a well-signposted "front page", where the rabble congregates and the groupthink is at its Grundyest, yet implicitly expect any non-Septemberist discussions to occur well away from those few sacrificial links?
Those links are not sacrificial; it is everything else that is sacrificed. It is a healthy rabble, better called a bustle, that leads to the discovery of wisdom. Everything else is a non-event.
And in what sense are the Shakespearean monkeys an unhealthy rabble?
I'm currently vibing that those popular+attentionally-limited links are necessary, but not sufficient, for wisdom uncovery..
And that a healthier route may involve actively compensating for the intrinsic asymmetry between Rao's weird & hypernormal in his "new systems of survival".
(Contrast with Jane Jacobs' guardian/commercial, or Rao's latest Mandala/Machine dichotomy, when the yinyang dynamic is much more obvious)
As I mentioned to GP earlier, one design bug with the current dynamic is that there is no affordance* for the hook of enlightenment (moksha) to turn into sustainable (re)production (flow, aka samsara)
Imagine the Shakespearean monkeys, but with a mechanism to string together some of the shorter uncoveries..
Sorry, "dutch strategy" because the good burghers of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, etc. realised that although sailors have deplorable* morals, the burgher's prosperity depended upon having many sailors transiently around, so the burgher's solution was to create neighbourhoods catering to vice, with the idea that it would be tolerated there, and specifically there — far from the "good" neighbourhoods where their silk-skirted patent-leather-shod daughters hung out.
* we've already touched upon LaSalle(?)'s riposte to Bonaparte, right?
As a side effect you may observe that PhD cred'd professional designers (architects) are about as rare as nonsocialist(?) "Democratic Republics" (DRC?)
That's something that Slashdot does by limiting registrations. In contrast, by disallowing anonymous registrations (without a recommendation), Lobsters actively seeks out those who don't think differently at all, perpetuating its closed-mindedness.
They're optimizing for quality and civility - a certain standard of intellectual and emotional maturity - rather than controversy. Vetting through personal relationships and requiring reputation risk to let someone new in is an effective way to do that. Not every platform wants or needs to be a debate club.
I think that's certainly a goal of invite systems but I don't think Lobsters really lands this. The quality of its discussion isn't much to write home about. It is much friendlier to some opinions over others but quality is not the discriminator. If you write a middling article on Rust I can guarantee you that you'll get more positive feedback than a good article on Go or on LLMs simply because of the opinion bias of the community.
The long tail on this site is what keeps bringing me back, although I must admit it took both swapping to RSS and manually filtering with an acceptance of Sturgeon's Law to wade through the "Make Mone¥ Fa$t" slush.
(note that the —to my mind, misguided— focus on the front pages means TFA misses a lot of the overlap between the two sites)
The issue is much worse on Lobsters because of its registration policy which altogether prohibits anonymous registration and thereby a diversity of voices. People are likely to recommend those who think like them (for a new account) rather than ones who think differently.
> Long term MacOS nerds are the ones who got used to all the quirks and can't see anything at fault as they molded themselves into he platform with age, so to them everything is perfect. Meanwhile, new users to the platform will see things differently.
An easier way to phrase that is "people have confirmation bias." You clearly exhibit this in your post. New users depends on if they've used other desktop environments or not. I'm confident that someone who has never used a desktop computer before would be more productive on a Mac. Had they used Windows, they may be confused.
Now observe kids that have grown up with Siri/Alexa/hey Google being just there. My kid controls their multi-colored lights with Alexa. We taught them to search with voice on their (locked down) tablet before they could read and write. To them, it’s normal. Much like it’s normal for screens to respond to touch, and for photos and videos to be immediately viewed.
> Being certified Unix has nothing to with being based on Unix code…
Never has. In very simple terms, it was always about standardizing OS interfaces for variant Unices. Over time, it’s moved on to be aligned with POSIX.
Marketing. They called OS X, as it was at the time, ‘UNIX’ but didn’t pay the Open Group for certification. The Open Group sued, and Apple figured it was cheaper to certify, so they did, and have done ever since.
They claimed it and then had a choice of either compliant or pay $200 million.
Why did they claim it? They’re trying to justify the $475 million they already spent merging with NeXT? Early Mac OS X stuff wasn’t well received, especially their early server product based on Rhapsody.
Shift+ins is CUA, an actual standard. Which makes far more sense than parroting Microsoft’s decision to use CTRL as a modifier, aping Mac OSs keyboard shortcuts in Windows 3.1.
That’s fine for paste, but copy is the real problem. Also, shift and insert are very very far apart from each other and are not one-handable if you’re holding the mouse with the other hand.
Copy is Ctrl+Ins, cut is Shift+Del. Looking at my ANSI keyboard, all are achievable with one hand. Though, when these were designed, GUI’s on IBM based machines weren’t really a thing and two-handed keyboard shortcuts were common-place.
With a right handed mouse it’s hard to do Ctrl+Ins with my left hand. But it’s possible, I’ll admit. It’s just pretty suboptimal given how ergonomic Cmd+C is on a Mac keyboard (thumb on Cmd is way easier to reach for than pinky on ctrl, and reaching for ctrl+Ins is harder than either.)
Yeah, mice weren’t really a thing on the early IBM AT’s and clones when CUA was being developed. Mice were around and the GUI was very rudimentary (Windows 2.0), certainly when compared to System 4 and 5. In an ideal world, the Meta key, like those found on Sun keyboard, would have been brought over to AT keyboards to cover this.
This one: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-homepod/homepod Or this one: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-homepod/homepod-mini
I find them better than the multiple Echoes we have. Though they don't do as much, what HomePods do do is generally better than Amazon's attempts. Can't comment on Google's equivalent.
reply