> Sadly marketing drones think everybody wants a Tesla-style "everything is a screen" design whereas a 1999 Toyota pretty much had it right.
they also had to redesign the door handle and people have gotten stuck in the cars because of that and died. not just one isolated incident... more than one case of the car door not working because it's electrical only and the backup physical release mechanism is under a door panel you need to pop off and reach inside to pull after you just got into an accident and are physically disoriented.
What the fsck possessed manufacturers to come up with that stupid recessed door handle? I think I might actually hate that more than touch screen climate controls.
Airplanes have had fully manual flush door/hatch handles for decades, and a handful of cars have imitated them. The electric retracting handles are pure gimmick.
Look at that door handle. Fully flush, NACA profile scoop in the bodywork to insert your finger behind the trailing edge of the door and flick the little lever up to unlatch it.
Give me that, please. I wish I'd never sold my 1991 Citroën AX GT, it was so quick and quiet. Hardly any wind noise, so it must have been very aerodynamic.
Apparently some engines now have a solenoid-operated shroud that pops up to surround the water pump impeller, so if the coolant is still warming up it doesn't circulate. This is supposed to reduce the parasitic load on the engine from the ancillaries.
I can't help but think that the water pump must require about 3 brake gerbil power to turn, and the weight of the solenoid, plunger, spring, shroud, and extra cabling - not to mention more seals to go hard and leak - probably takes more power to haul around.
I don't really care about a car's 0-60 time or fractions of a mile per gallon. If you want to save fuel, lighten your right foot.
I want the car to be simple enough to be reliable and repairable when it eventually does go wrong.
I agree with everything you said, but I believe the pump shroud is for faster engine warmup, not saving a fraction of a horsepower. Cold engines run rich, producing more hydrocarbon emissions, and the cold startup phase emissions are heavily penalized. There’s also additional wear on the engine due to cold oil and looser tolerances, which affects nearly every aspect of the engine.
It might be, yeah. But why wouldn't the thermostat solve that problem, since it won't let water through the rad? And wouldn't the faster warmup come at the expense of the heater taking longer?
If you really wanted to not run the coolant pump until you'd got the engine a little warmer I would have thought a magnetic clutch like an aircon compressor would have been better. Although these days, maybe even an electric pump could be more efficient.
The thermostat bypasses the radiator when cold, but not the engine. The coolant has to be allowed to flow in order for the hot coolant to fully open the thermostat. Being electronically controlled means there just needs to be a sensor near a known hot spot to trigger flow from the pump.
I’m not familiar with the impeller shroud you mentioned, but I looked it up and the description seems to agree: “This pump includes the shroud and control valve to restrict flow while the engine heats up.”
Whether or not it affects the time required for the heater core to be operational would depend on how they decided to route it, and if the solenoid offers variable positioning. I imagine it is variable, otherwise they’d create thermal shock every time the engine heated up and the pump suddenly started flowing colder coolant through the block, so technically it should be possible to fully replicate the general functioning of the thermostat and heater core. Now that I think about it, it’s most certainly variable and it’s why they didn’t go with a clutch system.
It's not variable, it just pulls in and out with a solenoid, either fully surrounding the pump or fully retracted.
I hadn't thought about the thermal shock thing but I did wonder how it could possibly help the coolant warm up if it's not circulating at least through the block. The engine doesn't warm up evenly.
Oh wow, it’s upsetting that it’s not variable. The total system might hold 2x (or more) of the amount of coolant in the engine water jacket. When the coolant around the engine gets up to ~200 degrees and the pump suddenly snaps to 100% it’s going to flood the engine with coolant at ambient temperature. Imagine getting the engine up to operating temperature then dropping it into a swimming pool; even in the kitchen you find out that’s what causes pans to warp and glassware to shatter, and the engine is just a funny shaped pan with bolts.
My only other guess is that it’s not 100% on/off, like maybe a bit is still allowed to flow when “off”, but then it would still need to bring the entire coolant mass up to temperature so I’m not sure how that would be a benefit for faster warmup. Either there’s some clever engineering I’m not seeing, or you’re buying a few points of regulatory compliance for them by needing to replace head bolts and gaskets sooner.
in addition... you need a real id or a passport to fly. a lot of people have extreme anxiety about flying. those are big hurdles that a train does not have.
I made an appointment at the DMV, walked in, waited about 10 minutes, answered a few questions, and walked out with a piece of paper saying I'd get the real ID mailed to me, which happened.
As for getting a birth certificate, I googled how to get a birth certificate from XX state, followed the directions, and got a birth certificate in the mail.
looked into it more and the docs say that an index out of bounds will return nil. also says if offset == size and length >= 0 it will return an empty array.
```
If offset == self.size and size >= 0, returns a new empty array.
If size is negative, returns nil.
```
either way if you are doing stuff with arrays and not checking bounds you can throw an `Array(some_array.slice(x, x+100))` and it will always behave.
Sure, the docs seem to be accurate, but that only explains "what will this do?", not "why is this what it will do?" It's not what I expect most people would come up with if they designed this API, so I have to wonder why they didn't pick something more intuitive
the docs say... if index is out of range return nil. the edge case is that if you specify the exact end index of the array and want a slice of that index to 100 it will return an empty array. if you go out of bounds it informs you that you are out of bounds with nil. not sure it's the best api but probably is mimicking some C api somewhere as a lot of ruby does that. that said it will never error on this alone but it will almost certainly error if you chain it with something not expecting nil.
The easiest way to get around that if you are not carefully using the ranges would be to do `Array(array.slice(a, b))` as that will guarantee an array even if it's invalid. you could override slice if you really wanted to but that would be a performance penalty if you are doing it often.
Indeed. I had heard that it was a carryover from C; but for an "implicit is better than explicit" and "magic ducktyping, it just works, I promise" language, like Ruby, this feels like a direct contradiction to its intended behavior and this specific example has always stood out to me in a "... but why?" sort of way.
Yeah, I'd argue that it would be less confusing to return the same thing even if it's inconsistent with some C API that plenty of Ruby programmers might never have encountered. I'm honestly not sure I even understand what the C API is that's being referred to; slices and bounds checks aren't things I typically associate with being built into C.
It does seem like linux is having its moment right now. there's the money and effort valve is putting into KDE making the steamdeck and steammachine polished for their hardware which helps all users of KDE. cachyos is making having a rolling distro really smooth and snappy on old hardware and making games work mostly ootb. stuff like winboat and wine will let you use the few windows apps you need. you are kinda stuck though if you want to use something like fusion360 or solidworks. freecad has improved quite a bit but it's still like gimp where it's slightly worse UX in a lot of ways.
Now… maybe we could condense the 10,000 pointless distros down to a dozen? Oops, nope. Now 10,001, except this one has the menu bar in the middle of the screen and it moves around.
The distros are not pointless. For every one of them there was a human being that wanted something to work differently and the nature of open source let them do it. That should be celebrated and the day we loose that flexibility would be a very sad day.
This. Not to mention that for the mainstream users there are mainstream distros that are largely the same they have always been: Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint, so I never really understood the issue of having tons of distros out there for enthusiasts.
I think that both perspectives are right. We should celebrate diversity, but there's also power in consensus.
There needs to be some competition between ideas, but if every bit of disagreement about direction ends in "I'm going to build my own distro, with blackjack and hookers", then we as a community won't ever end up building something that can compete with the megacorps.
you don't think that it's relevant and concerning that the director of the FBI didn't take operational security seriously enough that his account got compromised? even if they didn't get anything incriminating (which maybe they did and are going to blackmail him later) that show a shocking lack of competency for someone in that kind of position.
i think the facts of the matter are that a gmail vulnerability is on the very low likelihood kind of event. they wouldn't burn their insanely valuable vulnerability on showing how much of a fratboy kash is. the most likely possibility is that he either clicked on something dumb and gave access through phishing(really bad) or had a really weak password without 2fa(also really bad).
True, but don't you think the FBI director should be held to higher standards of security hygiene than average people? Because I'm interpreting your tone as "it could happen to anyone". At some point the doubt is gone and there's no more benefit to give...
reading all these comments about windows having better shortcuts and window management features makes me feel like i'm taking crazy pills. windows for me was hands down the worst experience in ux. the shortcuts in macos are so well thought out and consistent.
now i'm using kde in linux land and it's the best and most customizable experience. I can't imagine going back to windows ever and would be missing a lot from linux if i went back to macos(though it would be fine).
I give you a well thought out macos shortcut for example. Ok, it is for a niche feature people rarely use... Screenshots, put straight to the clipboard.
On windows you have 2 options, bot pretty unintuitive:
1. You can either press PrintScreen button... (OK boomer, who uses a full size keyboard? My RGB clicky-keys 57% keyboard doesn't even have backspace, return, escape or delete, I don't even know when I saw a keyboard with Printscreen. My Neofetch-fork does save the screen, and otherwise no need for screenshots...)
2. Or you may press Win+Shift+S. Ok it is hard to memorize, how does S even relate to Screenshot?
Meanwhile on the intuitive MacOs to do this you only have to press Command+Option+Shift+4. So intuitive and easy!!! Also way easier to press, just try it! Only 4 keys to press at the same time, in a very convenient layout, way better than that illogical windows shortcut.
Sarcasm aside: It is clear why Microsoft is well known for the fact that in the 1990s they put a lot of effort to usability research, and why Apple is famous about Steve Jobs being the BDFL, and things had to fit his personal taste.
there's good reason the equivalent shift-command-s isn't bound to screenshot by default... it's the command to save a file and there's no good way to do partial screenshot and full screen screenshot with just command-shift-s + option if you want the option to put it into memory instead of a file. they chose command-shift-3 for full screen screenshot. command shift 4 for partial screenshot and add option to do either of those into memory which is a very common paradigm in macos shortcuts. the option key does something slightly different to the original shortcut in system shortcuts. in any event windows didn't get the non-printscreen version of a screenshot tool until very late in the game and osx had it in for a long time.
that issue isn't even an issue if you really want screenshots to be something else. you can change basically any shortcut in one place in macos. same with kde.
I don’t see much difference to be honest. I didn’t pick up Mac OS until later in life, so windows shortcuts are embedded in my brain. That said, I find Mac shortcuts just as simple to memorize. I’ve used cmd shift 4 thousands of times now and I don’t even think about it, I just press it.
Command+Shift+4 is area snipping, as you said, but pops up the viewer window
Command+Control+Shift+4 is snipping, but to clipboard. I mixed up the shortcuts, yet my fingers are getting used to it anyways, still I find it terrible default UX compared to other desktops.
It probably depends pretty heavily on your workflow. MacOS is designed around doing things visually with a trackpad. If you don't want to work that way, you're just out of luck, because that's the "right way" and if you disagree you're wrong. An example using my preferred workflow: I like to map the applications I use to <meta> (or option on mac) + number keys on the keyboard. So <meta>+1 is my editor. <meta>+2 is my terminal. <meta>+3 is my browser. Etc. If I have multiple windows open, just hit that combo again to cycle in a least-recently-used cycle. I don't have to raise all of the windows from the dock with my mouse and then go find the one I want. I don't have to open some mission control thing and go hunting for a window. I don't have to swipe to another space to remember where I put the window. I don't have to command+tab to a certain number of times to get to the window. I know exactly how to get the application I want with 1-3 key presses. Then once I've raised the window I want, I often want to tile it to one side or the other or fullscreen it with another keyboard shortcut.
Getting this to work on MacOS is a huge PITA. I tried app shortcuts in settings and they'd just randomly not work sometimes for some apps. Apps can override global shortcuts? What??? I tried the "shortcuts" app and it also similarly wouldn't work for some apps and would often forget my key bindings on an update. Tiling via the keyboard would randomly not work either. Multiple apps couldn't fix it. I finally found hammerspoon and scripted an option that consistently works. Rectangle finally solved my tiling issues. But why do I need 3rd party apps that involve writing my own scripts to get basic OS behavior? This is stock Windows behavior.
Beyond that it's just a bunch of papercuts. My dock randomly appears on the wrong screen. My windows sometimes don't get focus when I click on them. The coreutils are old and suck compared to the linux equivalents. Things built cross-platform are often the worst on Mac. Even though they're both sitting behind virtualization, WSL just feels much more integrated than running containers on mac. My usb mic randomly stops working...I've literally had more mic problems on Mac than I did on Linux. Sometimes I need to force kill my browser, and it'll sit for several minutes as a zombie descendant of pid 1 before getting cleaned up, preventing me from opening a new instance of the thing that should be killed. When I had initially mapped tiling to <option>+something, and it didn't work, I'd get a fun unicode character in my text instead, so I had to install an ascii-only keyboard layout to stop myself from looking like a moron who couldn't type. I'm guessing if you're a mac native, the shortcuts make more sense, but after 20 years of windows/linux shortcuts burned into my brain, moving to a mac for work has made me have to pointlessly relearn everything, and it still feels very unnatural.
The hardware is great, but the OS makes me hate this machine with a passion.
Not really. If we only need it for petrochemical products, like medical plastics etc, losing 20% of available crude globally is a non-issue.
We can probably stand to use a lot less plastics too. Outside of medicine it's mostly replaceable, and reducing our usage to less than 80% of current usage would be trivial if we didn't burn it for energy.
In that scenario Iran can keep their strait. We won't need them.
the only two things that would make linux unstoppable would be affinity being first class and having something like fusion360 or solidworks work. there are web based versions of solidworks and another option that escapes me atm that would work but that's the web and it's not the same as native imo. i know there are some opensource projects out there but the ones i've seen have been not as good.
I think AI will help with some of this. We already have an 18-year-old building a Lightroom replacement with Gemini (RapidRAW). We just need to get past the phase of everyone abusing AI and spreading crap all over the place.
they also had to redesign the door handle and people have gotten stuck in the cars because of that and died. not just one isolated incident... more than one case of the car door not working because it's electrical only and the backup physical release mechanism is under a door panel you need to pop off and reach inside to pull after you just got into an accident and are physically disoriented.
reply