Do you have a source for that? The article seems to contradict this, from what I understand Ketamine is used for cases of treatment-resistant depression, i.e. many kinds of medications have been tried and failed.
There are many ways macOS improves over Linux desktops, but file explorers is not one of the arguments I would have made. Finder is practically unusable.
Honest question, what's wrong with Finder? I use ForkLift for the heavy lifting (lol), but it works just fine for "navigate to file, open/move/delete file, sort by size/date, tag files, find files".
Finder still can't handle SFTP connections. In 2021. I feel like I'm going insane, or I've missed some sort of critical update, but no, it's just sitting there.
It's incredibly useful basic functionality that both Finder and explorer inexplicably lack. This alone makes Linux desktops far more friendly even for novice users who want to do something beyond sharing gifs on web forums.
Novice users use flash drives or emails, they don't set up ssh servers. In fact, I've never seen a non-power user set up an ssh server except maybe if you count a consumer NAS (which usually show up as networked drives).
To that point, I'd be willing to bet money that any user that even has access to an ssh server they'd want to use either has the technical know how to set up those tools themselves, or has an IT person who can do so for them.
- It's slow
- Middle-click don't open the folder in a new tab
- It doesn't natively handle SFTP mounting
- The visual fixed arrangement of icons can be weird
Saving a file as /tmp/blah saves it as :tmp:blah the current directory, then you curse and have to press cmd shift g to pick a folder, paste the filename with path, remove the file name bit, then finally get to save your file.
Care to explain? I'm not saying Finder is great, but I find it perfectly usable and I've never noticed it drop features willy nilly (as was the case with Nautilus back in the day).
I have to use TotalFinder to be able to cut and paste files which I find very strange after all the years of experience on other OSes. I also resent not being able to conduct basic file management in file selection dialogs. Other missing features I have to hack around with scripts or add-ons: Copy terminal-friendly path, open current folder in terminal, create a blank text file here. Probably more.
you can move (cut + paste) in finder, it is hidden for some reason. instead of cmd + v, you need cmd + option + v and the file you copied will be pasted just like it was "cut".
I don't particularly like it, but I've not seen it crash or glitch out with the frequency that Linux file managers have ever since I've used them (a couple decades across a dozen or so desktop and laptop systems; mostly Nautilus, Dolphin [wasn't Konqueror also the file manager for a while, or am I mis-remembering?] and IIRC Thunar)
True that. Finder is only slightly better than nautilus, but it gets beaten up by Dolphin badly. It would win outright for me with the "Press F4 for an integrated shell" feature alone.
They are referring to the shell being integrated into Finder similar to the integrated terminal in Visual Studio Code or IntelliJ IDEs not launching a separate Terminal.app window.
You're probably joking sarcastically, but in case you aren't, you can click both sides of the track pad or three finger tap (if supported) to preform a middle click.
FYI, you can open a folder as a new tab (or window) using cmd+click in Finder. Myself, I still struggle trying to ctrl-click folders open in Dolphin instead of middle click.
Yes, but performance differences between various devices are still fairly significant, as per your own link[0], meaning we probably shouldn't disregard potential performance gains from minification in slower devices.
On the one hand, I understand that complete prohibition for drugs and alcohol just don't work. But I have a difficult time squaring that against my feelings towards tobacco, where I feel it would be so much easier for me to quit if I wasn't tempted by its availability at every corner store.
What are your thoughts on a retail cigarette sale system such as in Canada, where they may be available in every convenience store, but there can be absolutely no signage or advertising, and they're kept in an opaque cabinet with no labels on it?
By switching to flavored vape cartridges, which the FDA then helpfully made illegal in a fit of moral panic.
Pity, because as far as anyone can tell, vaping is at least two orders of magnitude less deleterious to health than smoking.
So these days I refill my old cartridges and nurse a grudge against FDA. I haven't backslid to smoking, but if they ban high-nicotine salt juice entirely, I don't know what I'm going to do.
I oppose prohibition for the moral reason that adults ought to be allowed to make these choices for themselves and the practical reason that it doesn't seem to work well anyway. but that's a fair point. this might actually be a good use case for zoning. imo the happy medium is "manufacturers are allowed to sell X, as long as they make it as safe as it intrinsically can be" and "you're allowed to buy X, but you might have to go out of your way to do it". people that want to avoid X or pretend it doesn't exist would have that option too.
What if you could buy individual cigarettes instead of a pack of 20? I feel like 20 is the exact amount you need to smoke to get hooked. If you could go buy like 1 or 2 so that you could enjoy a drink and social smoke with a friend, I feel like the rest of the pack would not be sitting around your house tempting you. Like why the fuck is it illegal for me to buy just 1 cigarette?! Why is it that I need to buy a pack of 20?
It's funny how many people on this page are having trouble acknowledging that this is a prevaricating puff piece. He wants to tell a story of his success, and leave in a way that doesn't tank the stock. So he lies a bit about the origin of the company, lies a bit more about their accomplishments, and so on.
I'm not protecting him, this is more like a PR stunt rather than a letter to his employees. Given the history, I can safely say that he might not care _that much_ as shown in this open letter
But are there any reports of people who use this getting locked out of their account? That would make me very leery as well. Otherwise, I wouldn't personally be worried, especially as the goal is to get off Google in the first place.
If you browse around on Goodreads, you find a lot of people that hit this milestone. But I don't really understand how. My e-reader tells me that based on the number of books I've read and the hours I've spent reading them, one book per week would be a full-time job. Although I recognize that I'm probably a much slower reader than average.
I hit 50+ two years ago but have trended near 45 for the past few years. My basic strategy is to replace the time I spend watching tv or doom scrolling (Twitter, HN, etc.) with reading a book instead. And diversify sufficiently in book style to make this sustainable (i.e. interesting). But I can't give up watching tv or doom scrolling completely, so that's some "efficiency" lost.
There are people who read significantly more than 50 books a year and that's nuts to me. Even hitting 60 would require a lot more effort and slight discomfort than I'm willing to go for.
That said, it's incredible that I've already got a to-read list longer than I could possibly read in my life.
I've been doing 100+ a year for several years now. It's not for everyone, and I don't know if I actually recommend it, but here's how:
- Audiobooks at 2-3x speed. I listen while doing chores, while walking my baby in a stroller, while eating (not socially), going to bed, driving, etc.
- Ebooks, with a text-to-speech reader (I use @Voice aloud on Android). It takes more work to get used to, but I find that I can listen at a faster speed (3-4x) due to the clarity and regularity of the sound. Whereas (for fiction) an audiobook is a performance by a professional actor, this method is much closer to reading a physical book – after a while the voice of the machine fades and your own brain adds the richness of voice and tone (like you do with a physical book).
For both options, it takes practice to reach the levels I'm at. I think it's worth doing so, as it's a skill which pays large dividends over time. I should also note that more than 50% of these "100+" books are heavy-plot fiction. I slow down the playback speed for non-fiction I need to think about more carefully, or types of fiction where the quality and subtly of the prose is a major feature.
> Anytime you see the word "Design" it refers to a field where we have little knowledge of how things truly work.
There are branches of science whose theories are more often derived from data and observation than from axioms. Just because you may not be able to break something down into first principles, does not mean that the knowledge is useless.
Design, too, can be data driven. UX and UI design can be analyzed using A/B tests, or by observing patterns of user behaviour.
It might be true that much of systems design is based on anecdotal evidence and intuition, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to ignore the field of design entirely.
For example, the concept of abstraction in software design may be based primarily on the intuition that human beings are bad at holding too much complexity in their minds. But any software developer who has written more than one program will agree that abstraction is crucial to good design.
>There are branches of science whose theories are more often derived from data and observation than from axioms. Just because you may not be able to break something down into first principles, does not mean that the knowledge is useless.
Yes science is different from logic. Programming functions happens in a limited axiomatic world that simulates logic. This makes computer science a bright target for mathematical formalization. This is entirely different from science.
>It might be true that much of systems design is based on anecdotal evidence and intuition, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to ignore the field of design entirely.
I never said ignore the field. Often we have no choice. No one calculate the best work of art. Art is created by design.
>For example, the concept of abstraction in software design may be based primarily on the intuition that human beings are bad at holding too much complexity in their minds. But any software developer who has written more than one program will agree that abstraction is crucial to good design.
The concept of abstraction, good abstractions and bad abstractions can be separated from design and formalized into exact definitions. That is my argument.
The reasoning behind why a human would want to do that is irrelevant.
> This makes computer science a bright target for mathematical formalization. This is entirely different from science.
Yes, but until computer science is fully formalized we will still need design, and can benefit from science. If/when it is fully formalized and creating software becomes an automate-able optimization problem, we will no longer need system designers. Or software developers, for that matter.
> I never said ignore the field.
Not explicitly, perhaps, but it really does read like that is what you're implying. You said multiple times that anyone labelled as an architect or designer knows nothing and is peddling bullshit. If we can agree that design is amenable to scientific inquiry, then it would make sense that some designers do know things.
Re-reading your original post, I realize now that I chose the wrong quote to respond to. I do agree with you that anything labeled as "design" is necessarily constrained by a lack of knowledge. Any time there are multiple ways to solve the same problem and there is no a priori way to figure out which solution is the best, we are forced to design. My point is that this describes software development, which as noted above has not been fully formalized. Writing software is design, and therefore needs designers.
> Often we have no choice. No one calculate the best work of art. Art is created by design.
Are you implying that when it comes to software, we do have a choice?
> The concept of abstraction, good abstractions and bad abstractions can be separated from design and formalized into exact definitions. That is my argument.
This is where you lose me, I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Abstraction is a design principle, and developers argue constantly about whether a given abstraction is good or necessary. The motivation behind abstraction as a principle hinges on how you define "too complex", and that sounds very subjective to me—the opposite of formal.
>This is where you lose me, I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Abstraction is a design principle, and developers argue constantly about whether a given abstraction is good or necessary. The motivation behind abstraction as a principle hinges on how you define "too complex", and that sounds very subjective to me—the opposite of formal.
It's subjective because it still exists in the realm of design. Once we formalize these notions the definitions become more clear. The key is formalization of fuzzy words. The definition of complexity is subjective yet there is a shared definition that we all agree on hence we won't be able to communicate. The key is pinpoint the exact shared metric that causes us to consider one piece of code more complex than another piece of code. Not an easy task. Formalization is very much a deep dive into our internal and linguistic psychology.
Take for example "luck." The concept of luck was formalized into a whole mathematical field called probability. Again not an easy task but doable for even fuzzy concepts like luck.
>Not explicitly, perhaps, but it really does read like that is what you're implying. You said multiple times that anyone labelled as an architect or designer knows nothing and is peddling bullshit. If we can agree that design is amenable to scientific inquiry, then it would make sense that some designers do know things.
Maybe a better way to put it is like this: Many design principles are bullshit simply because we don't know whether two opposing design principles are better or worse. There's a lot of rules of thumb that happen to work but there's a lot of stuff that's pure conjecture and unproven and even stuff that doesn't actually work. For example OOP was previously the defacto way of programming, now it's a highly questioned as a methodology. It brings all the "experts" who promoted it as the one true way into question.
Additionally if you meet someone with the title "Architect" a better title for them is "Technical Manager" because that's what they actually are. The title "Architect" implies that they have specialized formal knowledge when they in fact are usually just managers with more experience. Really that's the only difference, any typical engineer, holding all other things equal has pretty much the exact same informal knowledge that an architect has, after all it's all informal anyway.
>Are you implying that when it comes to software, we do have a choice?
I'm saying what you already know. We do have a choice to move software in the direction of formalized methods for things labeled as "design" no such choice exists for art.
Dude whats up with that comment. Are you mocking me?
No. I'm talking about how a computer is basically a logic simulator. You don't need to use empirical methods to prove things in a logic simulator, you just use logic.
Who does that? I think most people browse the web with many tabs open at once, and switch between them constantly. I don't think it should be on the user to resize their browser viewport every time they switch tabs to maintain a comfortable measure. That's the website's responsibility.
... no? You can switch between YouTube, magazines and wikipeida in a browser. Most written content sites enforce max widths for their content, so you can switch to them in a maximised window in which you were watching youtube without having to resize your window. Wikipedia is an outlier in that, and for no good reason.
I disagree. I want to be able to set the width to whatever I want; it is the user's job to set it to what they want. The website's responsibility is to not needlessly override the user's settings. If you want many tabs at once and switching, possibly with different widths, I think the best solution to that is split-screen (implemented in the browser), which solves many other problems too, actually.
