The only people who wouldn't agree with what brudgers is saying are obviously people who didn't have bad parents (bad, as in, resorting to any type of abuse because they are incapable of even sorting out their own thoughts and emotions)
Tbf after reading the article, it doesn't mention why thorium was abandoned in the 50s/60s
Article doesn't mention how China's new thorium reactors are different and/or how they extended existing designs
Yeah, true, article doesn't really tell us anything new
Harsh, perhaps, but well deserved (Technology Review used to produce interesting articles back in the day but now just create clickbait, so I'm triggered in this regard).
The reasoning for abandoning it has been communicated as both that thorium technology doesn't align with weapons research, and that working with molten salt at scale is more challenging than water.
I've not seen anything yet that gives details on China's advancements, only that they're actually moving forward with it. I've a notion they are not incentivized to share that information.
Disclaimer: i'm just a random geek on teh interwebs who saw the LFTR Ted Talk way back when and has been waiting for it to deliver the goods for real.
> Taxation without representation could not be juvenile thinking, it's a founding concept of my country which seems to be lost today
If by "my country" you mean the US, it's perfectly happy with taxation without representation. Current examples include the District of Columbia, certain situations in U.S. territories, and permanent residents. Past examples e.g. women.
If someone's maintaining an old/obscure email client, I would expect them to be importing a TLS library under the "don't roll your own crypto" principle. Assuming it's been updated at some point in the last ~15 years, it's probably capable of auto-negotiating to something better than 3DES.
And if it hasn't been updated for that long, it probably doesn't support TLS 1.2 and is getting rejected from just about everything for that reason.
What is it that makes slashed zeroes so nuch more appealing than the other kinds of "zeroes"?
Slashed zeroes are definitely much better than those nasty dotted inverse donut zeroes
How does a dot in a zero even make any kinda logical sense? It's like a piece of dough floating in midair in the center of a donut
Dotted zeroes [insert copypasta] bad
I don't even know why I'm so obsessed with the slash in zeroes
I will defend the honor of dotted zeros! I really like the zero in Space Mono, I think that nailed the retro future aesthetic.
IMH(and no design school)O when the character is oblong and the dot is a circle, it creates a similar contrast to the straight slash through an ellipse, but with less visual weight.
Yeah the dot is mostly a manner of preference. It looks less crowded than slashed zero maybe? The dotted zero does disambiguate from U+00D8 [LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O WITH STROKE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98).
Depends on whether you are talking about an abstract physics model or actually existing rocks on earth. (And actually gravitational force is proportional to both masses.)
The actual argument would be people voting with their wallets and moving away from the Apple ecosystem, but this something impossible at least in the USA due to these bullshit "blue bubbles"
For most of the people here they don't. In popular culture and especially among teens and non-technical twenty-somethings there's this absurd "eww green text!" thing. A blue bubble is a status symbol for some reason, even though there's lots of Android phones that cost as much as iPhones.
At this point this is not an argument anymore, it’s just a thought terminating cliche.
Expecting users to change their daily habits in order to marginally improve the operating system of a trillion dollar company feels naive and a bit disrespectful to people who actually use these machines for work.
Even developers… the vast majority of developers ignored Apple for decades (and Apple was also hostile) and it managed to grow despite that.
Might as well ask people to contribute to Gnome or whatever so in the future everyone can go somewhere better. Feels way more feasible.
But the opposite is assuming that Apple has a "responsibility" towards its existing users and has to acknowledge their expectations from them.
A sentiment which famously led Steve Jobs to respond that he doesn't understand this, because "people pay us to make that decision for them" and "If people like our products they will buy them; if they don't, they won't" [0]
So according to Steve Jobs himself, the only Apple-acknowledged way to disagree with Apple is to NOT buy their products, and by extend into the services-world of today it means STOP USING their products.
Now Steve Jobs doesn't officially run this company anymore, but I don't see any indication that this philosophy has changed in any way.
I don't think that's the opposite. The opposite is admitting that people have more than one reason to choose computers, and "voting with your wallet" only works for easily replaceable items, like groceries, clothing, etc.
Most people are not going to migrate to Android, Windows, Linux or whatever else just to make macOS marginally better.
And it's fine: marginal quality improvements of a product are not the "responsibility" of consumers.
I don't think you're taking their argument in good faith. At least my read on what's being said here is that the psyops lock-in effects that Apple uses are too strong.
It's not just "blue bubbles," but "blue bubbles" seems like a good shorthand to me. It's also things like Hand-off, or Universal Control, or getting Messages on both iPhone and Mac seamlessly, or being on the same WiFi network allowing your iPhone/Watch to work as a tv remote for the Apple TV even if you're just visiting a friend. Features that any platform can and does enable, but that do to Apples vertical can work seamlessly out of the box, across all the product lines, while securing network access in the ways most users will want, creating a continuous buy-in loop wherein the more Apple products you buy, the more incentive there is to buy exclusively Apple.
And it's a collective "you." If your entire family uses exclusively Apple products, then you'll be the only person who can't easily use eg the Apple TV in the living room, or the person "messing up" the group chats with "User reacted with Emoji Heart to [3 paragraph text message]," or the one trying to decide between competing network KVM software platforms so that you can use your tablet when your 12-yo can just set their tablet next to their laptop and get a second screen without any setup. Nevermind that these are all social engineering techniques that only exist BECAUSE Apple chose not to play nice with others, they still socially reinforce a deeper commitment to Apple products with each additional Apple product in the ecosystem.
I say this as someone "stuck in the blue bubble" with eyes open about what's going on. I'll keep picking Apple as long as they're a hardware-oriented company, because their incentives are best aligned with mine for the consumer features they are delivering (for now): consumer integration that sells hardware. It's insidious in its own way, but not like "hardware that sells eyeballs" (Google/Meta) or "business integration that sells compliance" (Microsoft).
reply