There's a fair bit of variance in the number of bills per congress, but not really in a way that correlates to the usage of the filibuster.
9,870 karma · joined August 9, 2010
I work at Wikimedia, but this is very much not me making official statements.
http://davidlynch.org/
You might be thinking of how it's not allowed to create a deficit after 10 years, but that's traditionally done by just saying "everything here expires after 10 years" and then leaning on a later congress to extend it.
(It's a little more complicated, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_... covers it.)
It's worth noting that the 3/5 requirement for most legislation is a recent development. Before around 2008 it was quite uncommon to require a filibuster-proof majority to pass legislation.
There's a count of the times this has come up on the senate's website: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm
Which does make it challenging for them, since Trump's an elderly man who doesn't look to be in particularly good health.
There's layers here, of course:
1. The founder shot themselves in the foot by not understanding an AI tool couldn't be trusted, so clearly they really were that oblivious.
2. ...the founder had direct production access hooked up to their regular coding environment. They were always going to shoot themselves in the foot eventually.
Jeff, I don't think you can impose on HN commenters what parts of your post they're allowed to engage with. Your intention might just have been to provide an example of something that (you think) supports a point that (you think) is already proven. But people aren't required to accept your priors when discussing your post, particularly when they're doing so off on some third-party forum.
Perhaps people are misunderstanding you... or perhaps they understand you perfectly well and disagree with you, and want to talk about that disagreement.
> In any case, have you ever complained about the video controls until now? I've never heard anyone make this complaint before. Who was asking for this change before it happened?
I don't think this matters. It's an improvement. Does every change to a product have to be driven by active complaints? Doing so feels like a way to get everything to just "good enough".
> I would emphasize that the goal is to watch the video, not to watch the controls.
Sort of. The goal is mostly to watch the video, sure, but sometimes the goal is to use the controls. When the goal is to watch the controls, it's best if they can be used as quickly as possible, so you can get right back to watching the video. For me, this change supports that.
> Apple could make it even easier for you to process the controls by completely blanking out the video, leaving only the controls, but that would be even worse, not better.
Yes, so I'm glad they found a happy medium where I can more-easily comprehend the controls and still see the video. Good call, Apple!
> This is an inconvenient workaround and not a solution to the problem.
Isn't it? I admit that it conforming to my prior behavior, because I never want to have the video covered up by the cursor, makes me find it not inconvenient at all... but I'm unlikely to be the only one with that preference. Plus, "the mouse recently moved and is now hovering over the video" feels like a pretty reasonable cue that the user might intend to interact with the controls, so Apple choosing to make it easy for me to quickly get the control I want the moment my cursor moves onto the video feels like it's making my video-watching experience better. And in the unlikely case that I was to overcome my distaste and just leave the cursor there, hey, it's only a few seconds before it hides the controls anyway.
I think it's a fair summary of what I understand your overall position to be. Specifically:
> This incorrectly assumes that an argument was being made. I already said: "I think you misunderstood the purpose of the post, which was simply to highlight the latest abomination, not to make a larger argument."
This is just "I'm not making an argument that they're merging, I'm stating it as an underlying assumption" which, again, distinction-without-a-difference.
It seems reasonable to, in this comment section over here, talk about the broader point of your opening assumption in the post. I don't have to accept your priors to talk about it, particularly not when the audience I was talking to was "readers of Hacker News, who may not have even considered this are-the-OSes-merging question before".
I don't think me disagreeing with you about the validity of your arguments violates any HN guidelines, though dang is certainly free to correct me.
Plus, even if I were to grant said underlying assumption as an inviolable topic that cannot be breached in discussion of this specific post, I'd then disagree that this is an example of it.
> Well, I didn't submit my post to HN. I'm not sure I wanted it to be on the front page.
I don't think I've ever seen you in HN comments for one of your posts not being somewhat-upset about people's responses to them. It's not the worst policy to avoid reading social media discussion about your posts, if it's making you unhappy.
> You don't have to darken the video in order to achieve brighter controls.
Sorry, I was apparently unclear about what my issue with Sequoia was, so let me rephrase. It's not the brightness, it's the outline. When I look at the Sequoia screenshot, I find my visual processing goes through two steps -- first I notice the overall button shapes, and second I identify their contents. Brightening the icons in Tahoe probably does help, but it's the reduction of the visual impact of the button-borders that really speeds my comprehension up.
> The other issue, I would say the main issue, is that the controls remain on top of the video for several seconds after you're done manipulating them.
They vanish instantly when you move the cursor off the video, which I reflexively do anyway because I don't want my cursor covering something I'm watching. (And in full-screen, the only time you couldn't do this, the background-darkening doesn't happen.)
Overall, particularly on my phone, it's just giving me an occasional pleasant burst of "ooh, shiny". On my laptop, I admittedly barely notice anything has changed.
(I don't personally have any legibility issues with it, though I'm willing to believe that's down to individual usage patterns.)
> A 391 word blog post is almost never going to be a comprehensive argument for anything. So if you're thinking "That's your argument???" well no, of course it's not.
Putting aside my disagreement with the larger argument.... If you want people who see your posts from the HN frontpage to go do independent research about the history of your ideas on the topic before responding, you're going to be left a frustrated and unhappy person. Really, you're lucky when people are replying to the actual content of your post rather than just the title and other people's comments. :-D
> I've never seen an case where the visibility/legibility of the controls were a problem. Do you have any examples?
Just looking at your comparison screenshots in your post, my focus is drawn to the control-icons much better in the Tahoe one. In the Sequoia screenshot the button-outlines draw more of my focus because of how they stand out, and that actually makes me take longer to parse what their contents are. The Tahoe version thus feels easier to quickly use to me.
This might be a personal thing to do with how our respective brains process visual information, but I think the Tahoe one is a genuine usability improvement.
...I'm admitting that people making this argument have suggested there were things that supported it before. Acknowledging that people have made prior claims I disagree with doesn't seem relevant?
> You could have chosen to ignore those opinions, if you believe they were largely irrelevant.
It was your opening paragraph that talked about merging the OSes. There's a reason I responded to it by assuming you thought the rest of your post supported your opening statement.
If you'd like, we really could just talk about whether the change to the video player behavior is a reasonable thing to apply to both platforms. I think it probably is, on balance, for the aforementioned control-visibility reasons. You?
(Though, sadly, I have to go pick up a child from school, so the rapid back-and-forth will have to cease for a bit.)
Jeff, they're a pair of closely-related operating systems that share a lot of common subsystems, and always have been. I don't want to say they'll never unify them more closely, but that's not something they seem to me to be doing. If you've been saying they've been merging them for 14 years, then they're really not making much progress on that.
> Why would you assume this? The two platforms are very different in physical characteristics.
Are you saying that the make-controls-more-visible argument doesn't apply? Because although I just threw that one out there without much thought, it really does seem reasonable on any device to me.
The argument apparently being that any change at all, if it was first made on iOS, must inherently be a sign that the two platforms are merging. Now, I don't really have an opinion about this behavior (I imagine it makes it easier for the controls to always be legible, regardless of what the video content looks like?), but I'd assume that any logic that holds for it being a good idea when applied on iOS would apply just as well on macOS. It doesn't have to be a sign that they're merging, just that similar reasons to make a change can exist in both places.
As such it seems like a particularly strange adjustment to hang a "macOS is turning into iOS" rant on. Particularly when there's things like "iPadOS just got macOS-style windowing and menu bars!" sitting right there.
(But maybe I'm out of touch!)
(Which is technically in line with you saying “17 series”, since there’s no number in the Air’s name. But your comment makes no sense unless you thought the Air was included in that, and so…)
See: https://www.telegraphindia.com/gallery/at-5-6mm-ultra-slim-i...
Perhaps selfishly, I'd rather get out of a trial in the motion to dismiss stage, rather than having to very-expensively argue the merits all the way to the end.
This summary looks acceptable: https://www.computerworld.com/article/4041433/spotlight-is-m...
(Context for the unfamiliar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTswXAFA18Y )
It's a quality drop for sure, but it's never extrapolating pixels that weren't optically there as software zoom does.