It's actually quite pleasant user experience for scrolling. Some interactions are better with a pointer, others are better with touch.
You can try it on an iPad with Magic Keyboard attached, it's very good to be able to do precision through the trackpad and then casually move large things on the screen with your fingers.
Honestly I just hate having fingerprints on a screen. And I use pageup/pagedown mostly which to me is better than scrolling.
Trackpad is nice for a device you can lay flat on a table or keep on one hand while sitting on the sofa, not too much when the device has a keyboard permanently attached to it and it cannot fold. I know I have a thinkpad like that and I never use the touchscreen.
Yesterday someone online told me I'm a boomer because (among the many other issues I mentioned) I said that apple computers lack page up/down keys which is annoying.
Two keys rather than one, but makes up for it by not being way off in some oddball part of the keyboard. You can one-hand it pretty easily, since there's an "option" right next to the arrow keys.
As a stolid classic-era Thinkpad user I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that the strain of having to hold down another key as I scroll rapidly would get tiring rather quickly. Perhaps if there was a Cmd lock it would be fine.
As long as there's a way to maintain the current display density, that would be just fine.
However, like on Windows, I suspect macOS would increase the tap target size on lots of the touchable elements. Even if I don't use the touchscreen, I would still have to pay the touch target real estate tax in my applications.
That's a fair ask. My dream would be a simple toggle in something like control center for macOS that can flip between "touch mode" and "desktop mode" with most of the under the hood stuff being the same and just UI changes for the task. No doubt this would create new hurdles for software devs but again I'm dreaming here. Windows 10 actually had this with "tablet mode" in the notification center but I think they already soured people on the touch Windows thing by this point. I think Apple could reasonable do it better if they had the will but they'd much rather you buy and iPad for touch and a mac for desktop and everyone who doesn't want an extra device for certain use cases is left out in the rain.
> They showed that colonizing the guts of young mice with this bacterial species inhibited their performance on the object recognition and maze escape tasks, and that this deficit correlated with a reduction of activity in the hippocampus.
Is it that they're privacy obsessed, or rather that most people have a passion for self destruction and exhibition?
If you think about it, the "dork" position was the one that was most normal, it's the status-quo. The people wanting to record in lockerooms and what not is not the status-quo. They win because most people are short-sighted, or even secretly love hurting themselves.
People don't care about privacy as long as a faceless corporation is doing the spying. People very much care if it has a plausible path to embarrassing or creepy situations involving actual people in your life. The chilling effect of ubiquitous phone cameras is well documented now this would amp it up by a 100. Many cool clubs already put stickers on phone cameras.
> People don't care about privacy as long as a faceless corporation is doing the spying.
This isn't true. Most everyone hates the fact they are being surveilled, but it is pervasive and people only can deal with so many complications in life.
Avoiding surveillance is not a decision or action, it is 1000 decisions and actions. Endless decisions and actions.
In my experience most people don't care at all. Even if you tell them about these topics, they find it weird, and tinfoil-hat adjacent. "If you have nothing to hide..." and "why would anyone care about my data in particular?"
Most "progressive" policies are, and have always been, scams aimed at tricking people into allowing the state to consolidate more power to use for ulterior purposes.
A great deal of regulation is sold to the public in the name of "safety", "equality", etc., but actually functions to entrench vested interests or inhibit competition in various industries.
Political solutions to social problems will always be turned to the advantage of whomever has the most political influence -- and that's always some narrow faction, and not the public at large.
reply