>Believe it or not, full screen apps are a Windows thing.
Nope. It’s just that maximizing—single action to expand a window the whole screen minus the OS docks/taskbars—is present in every widely used OS except for Mac OS.
>they haven’t let go of the idea that all apps need to use the whole screen at all times
Not sure where you’re getting “at all times” from. Windows and Linux desktops all easily support having windows take up less than the whole screen. In fact, it’s easier than in Mac OS because of window snapping to sides and corners. It’s only that Mac OS makes it very clumsy to get the effect that maximizing has on every other OS.
Most 21st desktop UIs are, to a greater or a lesser degree, Windows ripoffs. Most of Win95 or later, but sometimes you can trace a specific version -- e.g. KDE apes Windows 98 in program design as well as function.
(Rendering filer window contents as HTML before displaying them using the browser engine: this was designed by Microsoft to evade prosecution by the US DOJ for anticompetitive bundling of IE with Windows. It tried to claim that IE was integral by, for example, rejigging Explorer to render using IE. The Win 95 and 95B versions do not do it; nor did NT 4 at launch.)
If you believe that all GUIs do this, that suggests that the only desktop GUIs you've seen are ones that are copies of the Windows design.
To the best of my ability to recall that long ago, before Windows 3 and OS/2, most GUIs didn't have a maximise function.
Examples: AmigaOS; DR GEM; classic MacOS; Sun OpenLook; Acorn RISC OS.
Prior to full-screen mode on macOS, you would option-click the window resize button to resize it to the full size of the screen. This still works. It just doesn’t snap.
Option-click maximizes to full screen minus menu bar and desktop volume icons.
Apps like games and screen savers don't seem top have trouble covering up the entire desktop and menu bar.
I prefer it to the current macOS Finder where zooming covers up the menu bar and desktop volume icons, and where there doesn't seem to be an easy way to zoom to content.
In the government context, this problem is very aptly dealt with by distinguishing “content neutrality” from “viewpoint neutrality”. That’s why the government can punish spam emailers without violating the first amendment.
I'm sorry, please clarify. What does the 'government aspect' have to do with 'twitter removing other forms of censorship'? What is 'content neutrality' and how is it different from 'viewpoint neutrality'? How does pointing out that 'censoring' in regards to removing objectionable content by a corporation relate to the first amendment at all, and what does being 'principled' have to do with it?
Maybe this is more productive: What point were you trying to make with your spam comment? And how isn’t it addressed by twitter abiding by viewpoint neutrality but not content neutrality?
This is a false sense of understanding that many Linux users develop. You basically built a puzzle by putting together the pieces that fit together. And you have the illusion that you learned something about the picture drawn on the pieces.
You don’t really understand anything more except how to configure a system with a poorly designed configuration system. Installing a difficult-to-use Linux distribution teaches you nothing about operating systems, compilers, linkers & loaders, shared libraries, or anything else about the foundations of modern computing.
IMHO in most cases the "sense of understanding" comes from all the related materials which you read when installing a "difficult" system: it is difficult not because inherent complexity but for lacking abstracting tools (like GUI wizards) which forces the user to learn more in order to understand the "limited" provided interface. I remember my first (Softlanding?) Linux installs (by mid nineties) reading about hard disk geometry, the mandatory kernel recompilation for the network card drivers, the soft links when upgrading shared libraries, the monitor frequencies for X11, and a big etc. which previously (with DOS/Win 3.x) never had to deal with.
I think it’s a continuum. Sure, I freely admit that I’m still rather ignorant when it comes to the low-level details of my computer. But compared to the understanding I get from Windows or Ubuntu? From that point of view, I’ve learnt a lot.
Besides, it’s not like this knowledge is useless. I now find myself being able to diagnose and fix problems with my system which previously I was clueless about. And it makes it a lot easier for me to learn the lower-level details if I so choose.
So I agree it has to do with bad governance. But you deflect all blame away from the people in those poorly governed country, instead blaming wealthy people in other countries. I’ll say though, the worst thing the West has done to the third world is insist on democracy. Peasants don’t know what they need government to do, and the political classes in those countries don’t have the maturity to steer them.
People in those poorly governed countries don't always have a choice. You could be living in such a country, see everything that's wrong with your political system and yet be punished for it nevertheless. There is a flawed assumption which infers that because the majority of people in a specific country are idiots, everyone who lives in that country should be punished... Imagine how hard life is for intelligent people in those countries who are ruled by corrupt fools, surrounded by gullible fools and utterly powerless to do anything about it. People can't choose the country they were born in so they should not be punished on that basis.
I keep seeing the word "punished" used as though there are some parents somwhere who are meteing out deliberate action against their children. It's not like that. It's just bad situations happening to adults and children alike.
The only antidote we know of is having democracy and free(ish) markets to allow as much agency as possible to accumulate to individuals, rather than to state officials.
> Imagine how hard life is for intelligent people in those countries who are ruled by corrupt idiots, surrounded by idiots and utterly powerless to do anything about it.
I think the "those countries" in your sentence could very easily include many rich countries as well as the set of countries you were originally contemplating.
What are you talking about? Everyone is eating bigger pieces of pie these days. A lot of the things we take for granted weren’t even available to wealthy people one or two hundred years ago. Electricity, running water, sewage, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, effective surgery, motorized transport, sturdy housing. Not to mention the increasingly universal availability of education. Sure, some people still live in squalor, but it’s a rapidly shrinking percent of the world.
the developing world does not have access to TV Refrigerator and to a lesser extent Cellphone and our society and tech as we know it cannot produce the energy they need to power these appliances
That’s a deceptive analysis because catch-up growth is easier. That’s why the Asian Tigers could grow at breakneck speeds, right until they caught up to Western development levels and stagnated just like everyone else.
That’s only because of political entrenchment. If Europe loosened their labor laws and made other reforms to bring them in line with American business law, they would probably catch up to American GDP per capita pretty quickly. As it stands, US GDP per capita is 40% higher then even Germany. Do you think the Germans aren’t capable of producing at the same level as the US?
It does not seem like you want to give any contrasting explanation so much as a thought.
Your 40% gap turns into an 18% gap. Further more libertarian economies don't look particularly exceptional.
Together this suggest that the differences in GDP are much more easily explained by existing wealth and foreign policy/trade, instead of domestic factors.
And who appointed the judges those prosecutors will need to prepare cases for and convince? Which party is the party of deregulation (particularly financial deregulation)?
Do you think conservative judges aren’t receptive to fraud cases? Republican appointees regularly give the longest sentences to white collar criminals. Your comment is clearly written about someone who actually knows nothing about law except what the political media prints. And no one has deregulated or legalized outright fraud, which is what happened here.
Do you have this stat? conservative-aligned judges do give harsher sentences to white-collar crimes? Because in my country, this is pretty much the opposite.
They even bail them out of prison for "medical reasons" and then we can see them on the dancefloor at christmas. Hopefully we'll get US-like gun laws (and US will uban sniper rifles and sniper AP rounds, as their mass killing power is low).
That has to do with questions of what exactly the law prohibits. A lot of white collar law deals with the very murky line between sharp, but legal, business practices and prohibited conduct. Those kinds of issues don’t usually rear their heads in other kinds of cases, which instead tend to be contested on adequacy of evidence and criminal procedure (Miranda warnings, illegal search and seizure, etc.) grounds.
>Believe it or not, full screen apps are a Windows thing.
Nope. It’s just that maximizing—single action to expand a window the whole screen minus the OS docks/taskbars—is present in every widely used OS except for Mac OS.
>they haven’t let go of the idea that all apps need to use the whole screen at all times
Not sure where you’re getting “at all times” from. Windows and Linux desktops all easily support having windows take up less than the whole screen. In fact, it’s easier than in Mac OS because of window snapping to sides and corners. It’s only that Mac OS makes it very clumsy to get the effect that maximizing has on every other OS.