Everyone complains about one little update breaking your PC, or random things not working, but my Windows 11 laptop for work has been a nightmare, too.
I'm always terrified to let them install the latest version update as it has done everything from break all my taskbar shortcuts to make my computer blue screen on boot.
My fingerprint reader didn't work on it until I manually installed the fingerprint driver.
My friend had Outlook start deleting all of his emails on loading Outlook after a minor update for reasons that even the helpdesk couldn't parse.
I understand that Linux is rougher around the edges in some ways, but I think we are just all used to the friction Windows has (like that bizarre right-click menu behind a button on the right-click menu thing).
I've spent time on a Mac, too, and while it has way less "huh, that just doesn't work today, okay" moments, it's not perfect either. No OS is.
My hope is not that everyone in the world will switch to Linux. I don't think "the year of Linux" will ever happen. But I wish we didn't only have two poles of articles when it comes to people coming to Linux: The "I switched to Linux and it was so easy and I'm never going back and Window sux" or the "I switched to Linux and it killed my dog and ate all my food and I had to quit my job just to play Stardew Valley on it."
It's an OS. No OS is perfect. Linux is more customizable but more breakable. MacOS is less customizable, but more stable. Windows is an ad-laden AI hellscape that still works better with most software because most software is written for it.
This sort of thing has existed for a while, but it's not picked up in the mainstream for two main reasons (at least based on my anecdotal evidence).
1. The friction between a zipped file and an unzipped file isn't enough to make the majority of users take the time to build out an automation. This is especially true now that in Windows you can open a zip file by double-clicking it, peruse the files, and open them from within the zip into your temp storage.
2. It's a little bit of a security risk. Downloaders are (generally) less vulnerable to side channel attacks, but the unzip software people usually use (7-zip, Window's native utilize, WinRAR) are slightly more vulnerable. This risk goes up with any automation software as a) you aren't auditing what you're actually unzipping, and b) the automation can be compromised.
But if you want to try this out, just search for "auto unzip" software and you'll find plenty of tools. You could also set up a cronjob on your Linux machine to run every so often and just scan a folder for zip files and unzip them automatically, with the option to trigger via alias'd command.
Wasn't that an edge case, though? Not even done by a bad actor, just someone misguided? And it was discovered and quickly corrected, unlike what would happen on something owned by a massive FAANG-style corp.
I have been schooled many times on the failures of Wikipedia, why I shouldn't waste my time editing it, how the editors are toxic; but ultimately, I can't help but buy into the idea of a crowdsourced, centrally administrated, store of knowledge.
I wouldn't base critical decisions off of Wikipedia alone, but it sure helps me understand things in general.
> Not even done by a bad actor, just someone misguided?
I'm not sure how the actor's good intentions makes the information on the wiki accurate?
> quickly corrected
As others have pointed out, it was certainly not "quickly" corrected. And to clarify on "corrected", about half the content on that wiki was simply deleted. A bunch of actual useful edits were definitely removed. And that didn't happen before the Scottish government used it as a source.
There is no evidence in the article that it does. "Google is providing Pentagon with access to TensorFlow" means nothing because TensorFlow is open source.
We're using GoFundMe as a bandaid for healthcare, to the degree that the CEO went to beg Congress to pass more government assistance in COVID-laden 2021.
How much money does it take to manage and develop a web browser? Was it necessary for them to create a whole new way to deliver ads to support it? I feel like a lot of these tech nonprofits like Mozilla and Wikipedia are constantly begging for money despite their overall costs not needing to be that high, but they have this idea that have to continually develop new features and grow rather than just continue to deliver the same stable product.
Putting aside the whole "I'm rich and aimless, what should I do" thing the author's got going on, I found the product they got rich for (Loom) to be fascinating as a statement on where we are right now.
It's essentially just a program that allows you to record a video of yourself while iterating through a presentation or screen share and then share it for feedback.
Powerpoint has this as a native feature with OneDrive. There are other screenshare programs that do the same thing.
The whole incentive for using it (according to the video) is to "avoid another all hands meeting." And AI is involved somehow?
I find it so fascinating how companies seem to be aware that the way many big companies work (usually in office, in meetings, sometimes on video calls) is flawed, but rather than revisit the model, we just try to map the existing structure onto new expensive shiny tools.
The only benefit I see to having someone send me a video of them reading their presentation or narrating their screen share is that I can watch it on 2x speed asynchronously. At that point, why not just send me a set of bullet points and the presentation or screenshots?
I look at these products and I get the same feeling I do when I watch a road worker paint a tiny bike lane on an existing 4 lane megaroad with no barrier. You're not fixing the problem - you're just causing new ones. The whole system has to shift somehow.
Loom is one of my least favorite products because it enables lazy creators to offload the work of organizing and editing their thoughts onto the viewers. So instead of one person spending 30 minutes distilling their thoughts into a coherent narrative once, each member of their audience is forced to do that work separately.
Its helpful in certain cases for sure but you hit the nail on the head. Totally enables a lazy approach where everyone now needs to waste time watching a video so collectively the cost is much higher in terms of time spent.
Many people don't absorb information the same way. A visual demonstration tends to help me understand things in a quarter the time reading about it might. I know I'm not alone in this regard. You can always increase video speed to increase information density. Being able to accommodate folks with different learning styles is part of being in a team.
I 100% agree that a visual demonstration is very valuable, however my objection is less about information density and more about structure and clarity. In my experience these videos are rarely carefully planned and structured keynotes, but rather improvised, meandering, stream of consciousness brain dumps.
Sounds like a proverbial multibillion dollar todo list SaaS.
Kinda wish big money would have left the CS-related space right about ~10 years ago, when things weren't quite as nonsensical (and culturally decrepit), so all the serial careerists would have chased something more viscerally useful, like maybe bracing us for the impacts of global warming.
Our company is currently six people. We have a software-updates channel in Slack where I post our changelog for the team to read. I am very meticulous about these posts because I know very frequently we'll get asked "when did such and such change" and I can go back and reference these posts. And also its frequently the only way sales and our executive will know about changes, having not been directly involved. So yeah - I take a lot of time to make these posts concise, easy to understand etc.
I constantly get asked to make a Loom demonstrating the changes. Which makes sense... but is also frustrating. And I always make the point that these videos aren't searchable (sure they have AI summaries or whatever but those are in Loom, not Slack).
I used to work for a company that used Loom. It was always used for internal demos, ie "I made a new feature" or "I encountered a bug." It was perfect for that. That being said, we probably weren't the target market because we didn't pay for it.
Everything and everyone seem to only be concerned about money. In music, in art, in popular culture, in the contemporary "thought leaders"..
It was the inevitable but hard to predict outcome of capitalism, the utter dissolution of everything that cannot be converted to capital, and the monetisation of everything else that could.
The zeitgeist is a thin, inconsistent and ever changing set of ethics (which of course are also swayed wildly by capital) and everything else is about money.
All the previous values are not only waining, they are also mocked.
A lack of greed is considered a lack of ambition, piety is disregarded as antiquated and evil, honour and shame are non existent.
We are living through tremendous sociopolitical changes, the most substantial and the most high paced humanity has ever faced.
I just hope it goes the right way eventually, although it is almost certain that none of us will be here to witness it. The only thing we can do is surf the wave and do our best to make things better.
It's odd that they include the phrase "a board game invented in prison" in every photo caption. Is this an AI caption thing that repeats the same descriptor each time?
> Dana Lopez sands a wooden token for poleana, a board game invented in prison, in his workshop in Mexico State, Mexico, Friday, Oct. 25, 2024. (AP Photo/Ginnette Riquelme)
> Jonathan Rulleri, the founder of Poleanas Canada Frogs, holds up a poleana board, a game he invented in prison, to be raffled off before the start of a tournament in Mexico City, Sunday, Nov. 17, 2024.
> A player moves his piece in poleana, a board game invented in prison, during a tournament in Mexico City, Sunday, Nov. 17, 2024
> Dana Lopez, right, paints a board for poleana, a board game invented in prison, while her son Kevin plays in their workshop in the State of Mexico, Mexico, Friday, Oct. 25, 2024
> Residents play poleana, a board game invented in prison, in Mexico City, Sunday, Dec. 8, 2024
I imagine it's because the photos can sometimes be used in other contexts divorced from article, and they just don't bother to write more than one caption for this purpose.
I'm always terrified to let them install the latest version update as it has done everything from break all my taskbar shortcuts to make my computer blue screen on boot.
My fingerprint reader didn't work on it until I manually installed the fingerprint driver.
My friend had Outlook start deleting all of his emails on loading Outlook after a minor update for reasons that even the helpdesk couldn't parse.
I understand that Linux is rougher around the edges in some ways, but I think we are just all used to the friction Windows has (like that bizarre right-click menu behind a button on the right-click menu thing).
I've spent time on a Mac, too, and while it has way less "huh, that just doesn't work today, okay" moments, it's not perfect either. No OS is.
My hope is not that everyone in the world will switch to Linux. I don't think "the year of Linux" will ever happen. But I wish we didn't only have two poles of articles when it comes to people coming to Linux: The "I switched to Linux and it was so easy and I'm never going back and Window sux" or the "I switched to Linux and it killed my dog and ate all my food and I had to quit my job just to play Stardew Valley on it."
It's an OS. No OS is perfect. Linux is more customizable but more breakable. MacOS is less customizable, but more stable. Windows is an ad-laden AI hellscape that still works better with most software because most software is written for it.
reply