VerifiedReports

This is a fresh install. The CLI brokenness is documented in this and across several bugs marked as dupes: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/20115

And if you try to use the "regular" VS Code plug-in mode, it fails with error 3221225477. A search will turn up reports on that too.

If you query Claude itself on this, it will acknowledge that both of these are known problems: "Oh, you've hit this known issue." But no support for paying customers, who are promised a follow-up E-mail after reporting a problem. BULLSHIT. A week later, I haven't heard a peep, and what I paid for is thus far useless.

The VS Code plug-in is broken on Windows. The command-line interface is broken on Windows.

I just signed up as a paying customer, only to find that Claude is totally unusable for my purposes at the moment. There's also no support (shocker), despite their claims that you'll be E-mailed by the support team if you file a report.

Not sure what this is replying to...

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes... because of the mess Apple made, I am always signed into two accounts. My non-E-mail one for all purchases, and the E-mail one for iCloud.

Thanks for the reply.

I was there '90s-2000ish.

Meanwhile, kudos to you for working on LibreDWG. I use FreeCAD quite a bit; do you think your work will be incorporated there?

They're as bad as they can be; it's just that in others there's at least some competition.

- former employee

It is, but unfortunately it is missing from the title.

Interesting. But WTF is a "primary" Apple account? My original Apple ID isn't an E-mail address, so they forced me (and others in that situation) to create another one for iCloud because that one inexplicably has to be an E-mail address.

I use both for quite a few things. Which one is "primary?"

Good list.

WTF happened to iOS text selection? It's a shitshow now. First Apple decided that the cursor shouldn't snap to the space between characters. WHY? Why would I want to start a selection in the middle of a character? Oh yeah: I never would, and can't anyway. So why does the cursor go there?

Then there's the fact that if you press and hold and release, the "select all" option (and others) doesn't appear anymore. Try again. Try again. And then after the fifth? Seventh? try, suddenly you get the floating menu.

And then there's the now-often-useless magnifying glass, which frequently appears offscreen or behind the stupid notch.

And the window resizing. Ugh. It wasn't until what, the mid-2000s that you could resize an Apple window by anything other than THE LOWER-RIGHT CORNER. No other corners, and no edges. The sheer stupidity of this was galling.

When Apple finally "fixed" that, they did so in typical Apple fashion: grudgingly. They refuse to put frames on windows, so there's no clear area in which the cursor should become the resizing cursor. Is it any wonder that the resizing behavior is flaky as hell? And now it's even worse.

Autodesk can just die at this point.

It's an anti-customer, anti-industry, anti-everyone succubus riding on tired legacy trash and incompetent court rulings that allow it (and other corporations) to steal from customers and creators of all kinds... even musicians.

Is what?

What is "scaffolding?"

Atrocious is the word. It's incredible how much time in my day is wasted just hunting for shit in Explorer, scrolling through screen after screen of redundant shadow copies of my user directories... many of which are "prohibited." Or bringing my Explorer windows back to the foreground.

Or trying to make fonts work.

Apps now lack menus and title bars. it's often impossible to tell what app a window belongs to! WTF? Critical functions are now buried under hamburger buttons all over the place.

The File dialog in several apps (notably Office) has been replaced with a bizarre full-page text-based mess, which doesn't show where you are or let you navigate the file system to where you want to be.

Disgraceful.

And yet Apple CREATED the multiple-accounts problem for millions of people by implementing their idiotic "Apple ID must be an E-mail address" policy.

So of course people thought that when they changed jobs, cable companies, or whatever... they needed to create a new Apple ID with their new E-mail address. This was reinforced when Apple further stupidified their policy by requiring your ID to be a WORKING E-mail address (originally it didn't actually have to work).

After the outcry over people's App Store and other purchases being scattered across multiple IDs, Apple finally publicly and huffily declared that they weren't going to fix the problem they created by letting people consolidate accounts.

The moral: Don't force people to use E-mail addresses as user IDs. It's stupid on several levels.

Yes, Finder has always sucked. We were promised a "ground-up rewrite" years ago... don't know what happened there.

Microsoft has degraded Explorer, though. For example, you used to be able tell which directories were empty by simply noting whether there was a + symbol next to them. Clever and time-saving.

Now, not only did MS replace the universally-understood + sign with a stupid triangle, but it now HIDES all the triangles unless you happen to roll the cursor into the left pane. WTF, WHY?

Oh, and if you select multiple files in Explorer and right-click to say "Open with..." NOPE! Microsoft inexplicably removes "open with" if you select multiple files, even files of identical type (PNGs, for example).

The opening of multiple files was fully functional 30 years ago. WTF?

Thanks, but right-clicking on every hit, one at a time, and invoking a context menu option to see where it resides would take longer than searching for, downloading, and installing a competent file-search utility like EasyFind.

Thanks, but having to click on every single result one at a time and peer at a path bar somewhere is far from acceptable. This prevents you from sorting results by location, and skipping hits on volumes you know to be irrelevant.

Thanks, but the point is to see the locations IN the result list, so you can eliminate hits that you know are irrelevant (like ones on backup volumes that aren't current, or whatever). Having to click on every hit, one at a time, and hold a secret hotkey is not just undiscoverable but absurdly cumbersome.

Amen. App-store search is an offense sham, wasting users' time and stealing from developers.

And +1 to pitiful Mail search.

But Apple has long suffered from a peculiar learning disability in regard to search. Not only does Finder fail to find files matching search strings that it's showing you IN THE CURRENT DIRECTORY... but both Finder and Spotlight provide no option to include WHERE it found stuff in search results. You can't even add "path" to the result columns as an OPTION. So if it finds a bunch of files with the same name... oh well.

Leave it to Apple to field a search facility that refuses to tell you WHERE it found stuff.

Apple's app-store "results" have long been absolute bullshit. Apple lied to judges, developers, and the public about the app store. I wrote an application for a popular company; and even if you searched for the company's exact name, the application didn't show up in the top 300 results (which is where I gave up scrolling).

Instead, Apple delivered results with misspellings of the company name or applications that didn't contain any portion or variant of the search string AT ALL. Not in the app name, description, publisher name... anywhere.

I complained to Apple and got a boilerplate bullshit response. Then I raised a threat of legal action for Apple's hijacking and perversion of our trademark in their search results. This at least provoked a specific response, where Apple claimed that publisher name is "one of the top three" criteria for app-store search.

BULLSHIT.

Sure, NP. Not attacking you at all. Just Apple's hypocrisy.

But all of Apple's UI missteps probably don't compare with the festering rot of glaring incompetence that has destroyed Windows and Office in this millennium alone.

Apple's guidelines have long been flouted by Apple itself, not to mention that they're replete with stupid ideas.

I've developed a few iOS apps, and one of my favorite Apple "guidelines" (which they essentially enforced at the OS level without developer choice) was that, upon launch, your app should show a fake UI while doing startup tasks in the background. The recommendation was part of Apple's admonishment against splash screens. Think about how dumb this is, and how it makes your app look inept. Apparently plenty of developers did, and shunned this dumb idea; because Apple then forced it on developers whenever technically possible.

Upon your app going into the background or being kicked out of memory, Apple will take a screenshot of what your app is showing. When the user returns to your application, Apple will present this old screen shot; but none of the controls on it will work. The user can tap away furiously, but nothing will happen. When the app returns to functionality, the screen will be replaced by the real UI.

The problem here goes beyond ineptitude into a major privacy issue. You can think you "closed" or changed what an application is showing before handing your device to someone, only to find that Apple still shows a screen shot of its old contents in the open-apps stack. This could be a disaster.

No; they're actually doing it!

But... your point is valid. I didn't interpret the original comment as being limited to app icons, but on another read you are right; it does emphasize them.

app icons ≠ icons for functions within an app

But you knew that.

It was not a screen-saver. Less ghosting? Most likely. But the fact remains that reading text off of a light bulb blasting in your face all day sucks, and once upon a time people knew that... but "forgot" it when vendors shoved inverse color schemes on them by default.

"80's and 90's had a general concept of a desktop with windows as paper documents"

Yes, I noted that; but the analogy to a piece of paper fails because paper does not EMIT light.

Everyone with sufficient computing experience calls "light" schemes inverted. This was even documented in instruction manuals from the early PC era: https://imgur.com/a/aLV8tn0

GUIs' beneficial "skeuomorphism" probably peaked around the mid-'90s, where controls and their states were clearly demarcated but not absurdly photo-realistic. The bevel on a button told you if it was depressed or not, but that amounted to flipping the brightness on a couple of pixel-wide outlines.

Apple did contribute to the backlash (and the over-correction to no design at all, AKA "flat") with their brain-dead skeuomorphic UI. One example hobbled iTunes for years: Apple depicted the current-track display at the top of the iTunes window as an "LCD" with a glass window over it; obviously you wouldn't try to interact or press on a glass-covered LCD. But in iTunes, there were controls hidden in there. WTF? Why would you ever even attempt to click in it?

Equally stupid was Game Center, where Apple depicted controls as painted onto the felt of a Blackjack table. Who the hell would attempt to "operate" the paint on a felt gambling-table surface?

You must be a huge fan of purposefully obscure HN titles.

And Concentration. Click on the giraffe to get to the Print dialog!

Hm... what was the Print dialog hidden under again?

Has this buzzword even been around 20 years?

No, it isn't. Making your entire screen dark for all content isn't a solution for a dumb GUI color scheme.

"Back in the day, light mode wasn’t called “light mode”. It was just the way that computers were, we didn’t really think about turning everything light or dark. Sure, some applications were often dark (photo editors, IDEs, terminals) but everything else was light, and that was fine."

Several incorrect statements there. "Back in the day," computers displayed white text on a dark background (usually a blue background) out of the box. This was deemed the most legible. The opposite was called "inverse." The Atari 8-bit and Commodore 64 computers (and possibly others) even had dedicated keys that toggled between regular and inverse text; it is called that in the manual.

Word even had a checkbox option in it entitled "Blue background, white text." It wasn't removed until 2007, concurrent with lots of other UI regressions in Windows. Microsoft also removed the color-scheme editor from Windows, with which people had been able to set up global color schemes (including "dark" ones) since 1991.

When people finally realized how dumb it is to read dark text off the surface of a glaring light bulb all day, companies had to run around slapping hard-coded "dark modes" onto everything... after abandoning better solutions (user-defined system-wide color schemes) that had existed since the early '90s on every platform except the vaunted Mac.

So how did we end up suffering through decades of inverse GUIs? I've always attributed it to

1. The "desktop publishing" fad of the late '80s / early '90s, which sought to make the screen analogous to a piece of paper.

2. The Mac, which imitated Xerox's GUI, which was inverse. Possibly related to #1.

3. Windows defaulting to an inverse scheme (although it provided a way to easily change the global scheme), as it imitated the Mac.