The real issue is that you can´t disable this CRAP.
Why can´t Apple allow for a setting to 100% disable this bad idea of an UI/UX experience? How much drugs do you need to consume, in order to assume that people who use a computer for professional work want this interface?
What was the user requirement for it?
"lets waste as much UI as possible and make it very, very hard to work on Mac OS!"
What did people expect to happen? Nobody seems to ask the question why military is being deployed to US cities. What would be your assumption if the same happens in Africa or South America? Seriously, how stupid can people be ...
I have many friends who already left the US or prepared to leave at a moments notice. None of them are actually political, but they are aware that 1984 is already fully implemented and at any point in time it could get very, very ugly very quickly.
Just to be clear: Russia has invaded Ukraine, has declared that the country has no right to exist and ukraine people will be exterminated, but it is NATO that is the aggressor?
No one unarmed was exterminated and no one say that will be exterminated. You're exaggerating. None of the unarmed people were harmed on purpose. Yes, there are crimes in war. And there are precedents when the perpetrators were arrested. Yes, some words about "existing" really don't sound nice and strange, but if you really want to figure all out, then you need to watch the original full speeches, rather than quotes selected by interested Western media. But Ukraine and West reaction is not adequate. Ukraine nationalis really comitted bloody crimes, even european court confirmed it(https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-ukraine-2). Ukraine and the West could really fight for their territories without war by peaceful ways. Ukraine also had no plans to hold a referendum on joining NATO, although not all people who support the West and the European Union would support joining the NATO military alliance. No Russia will be able to hold the territories if the entire civilian population went on strike against it. Sorry if you're not interested in looking into this deeply and you can't be persuaded.
For one thing, when you invade a foreign country, "we're only killing people who are armed and trying to defend their homeland" doesn't make it any less of a crime.
But also, the civilians who got shot in Bucha, and countless others in similar situation, would very much disagree.
I am sorry, but this question shows how deep you are in the bubble.
People don´t care, never did.
Example: after Jamal Khashoggi was murdered, people still suck up to MbS. Money rules the world.
After what we learned about Guantanamo Bay, nobody should be allowed to call the US a democratic country. But we all decided to ignore the facts, as watching Netflix is way to nice.
This is standard practice in basically every country. Try to cross a border with a pile of cash and see what happens. Police finds a box of cash in your car? You better explain where it came from and why you drive it around.
There is so much weird hate for the government in the comments, but please provide a single sane scenario where you need to send cash instead of a bank transfer that is not about avoiding laws/taxes.
There are NONE. You send the cash because you did something against the law.
So by all means, the police should keep the money until you simple prove the non-existing totally legit reason why you could not use a bank transfer. I understand the problem with this, but you don´t prove that you are innocent; but large amounts of cash are usually connected to crime and it is your job to explain why not.
> please provide a single sane scenario where you need to send cash instead of a bank transfer that is not about avoiding laws/taxes.
What if I really want this Chevy Suburban for $11,950 where the seller is strictly saying 'cash only'? Sure maybe buying that particular vehicle with a quarter million miles on it doesn't qualify as "sane", but it doesn't appear to be illegal.
> This is standard practice in basically every country.
The United States is NOT every country. We have a Constitution that makes this behavior unacceptable.
> So by all means, the police should keep the money until you simple prove the non-existing totally legit reason why you could not use a bank transfer. I understand the problem with this, but you don´t prove that you are innocent; but large amounts of cash are usually connected to crime and it is your job to explain why not.
Once again, I’m not sure where you’re from, but here in America, we’re innocent until proven guilty, and that’s a pretty big deal. Also, the burden of proof is on law enforcement to prove that a citizen is guilty of a crime, not on the citizen to prove that they’re innocent.
Legally, it’s entirely irrelevant that you or anyone in law enforcement believe it to be strange that someone is either carrying large amounts of cash or sending cash via mail—it’s perfectly legal behavior.
My grandma has never ever put a single dollar in the bank, because she doesn’t trust them. I don’t have her experience, but she should be able to do as she pleases with her cash without law enforcement treating her as a criminal just so they can steal her money. It’s that simple.
> large amounts of cash are usually connected to crime
According to whom? Most of us living in western (and purportedly freedom-respecting) countries are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
It's undemocratic and frankly vile to openly support violation of our constitutional rights like this, instead of campaigning for laws to be changed if you disagree with them.
There is a simple solution for this problem: increase the payout for people who are affected by overweight vehicles.
Have a law, define a target weight + speed and then make it REALLY expensive to insure or kill people with your car.
Also in the law: if you drive around without insurance, the car is instantly taken away from you, as it is a weapon to conduct a crime :-)
Still people will drive big cars around, but the market will limit the number of people who can pay for it. And of course: new cars only and when ownership is transferred. No additional tax for existing owners.
The market would solve this problem VERY VERY quickly.
Truckers are required to have commercial licenses which makes traffic violations considerably harsher and more expensive. It would make sense to at least extend that to all vehicles over 5,000 lbs. Someone speeding in an F350 can cause a LOT more damage than someone speeding in a Miata, so penalties should be proportional.
The article has a clickbait title. It is also wrong.
NOT every company should give stock options to its employees, because
... it only makes sense if long term success of the company can be significant influenced by its employees. Also, those stock options can be a barrier to growth and become a liability if needed adjustments are blocked in order to protect "stockholder"
NOT all employees should get stock options, specially not the ones who contribute very little to the value generated.
NOT all employees want stock options, as people just want to take the actual money and be free to switch companies. The stock options are a way to control employees.
employee stock options are interesting when the allow to vote on the board. THIS is amazing - and almost nobody does it, because it would actually shift power to the employees.
In most companies, giving stock options is almost a scam; you save actual money for salaries, pretend to share revenues (you don´t) and lock-in high value employees. Also you spread your stocks so you are more protected against hostile takeovers.
Stock options are a great way for the actual owners to save money and actually become more powerful.
We should all support this law, just with one addition:
All data shared by politicians, public servants and all of their family members within the EU has to be shared, analysed for corruption + stored forever.
If we are all considered pedophiles,
then all politicians are criminals.
Yes, a few people will be wrongly accused and we all loose our freedom.
HOWEVER, with every election we will get a small chance that the previous administration will get audited and corruption and other crimes will get uncovered.
I created a startup 2 years ago around a gigantic rabbit hole: understanding cause-and-effect and how you can move towards the outcome you want in a consistent way.
In case you want to have unlimited fun yourself, ask yourself: "What is the purpose of X?" and then "how can you measure/assess the fit-for-purpose of it?"
Possible Side-effects:
#1 you might get disgusted and even angry with the self-declared "experts" who have not even understood the basic concepts.
#2 you might learn how little you understand yourself and how deep the rabbit hole goles.
Example in Software Development: Understand the quality dimensions for a "definition of ready" and what impact a good/used DoR has compared to a bad/not used DoR for the efficiency and effectiveness of a software development process.
Why can´t Apple allow for a setting to 100% disable this bad idea of an UI/UX experience? How much drugs do you need to consume, in order to assume that people who use a computer for professional work want this interface?
What was the user requirement for it? "lets waste as much UI as possible and make it very, very hard to work on Mac OS!"
Who approves this kind of bad UI/UX?