vor_

Unfortunately, I'm really not a fan of using Lua for anything beyond simple scripting.

With non-public companies?

They broke Mission Control, and people have definitely noticed it. But with regard to smaller details, Apple used to take pride in paying attention to such things. Scott Forstall would go over Apple's interfaces using a photography loupe. Your "who cares" sloppy attitude is a relatively new thing in the Apple world.

"Every OS is going to have bugs" isn't a convincing response when Apple marketed this as a stability release. Neither does "works on my machine." You can't state with that level of certainty that they're using multiple utilities to manage the menu.

Mission Control in particular is widely reported as being broken. There are funny gifs going around on social media of the UI bugs in Golden Gate (e.g., the Siri "minigame" that moves a control across the screen). Some users are complaining that Golden Gate is an even buggier release than Tahoe in their experience.

There was a time when OS X really did feel like a polished, premium experience. There's a major software quality issue at Apple that's been complained about for years and has become very obvious in the last couple of releases. One of the social issues with criticizing Apple is that some of the more devoted users feel inclined to defend macOS regardless because, frankly, they spent a lot of money on the hardware.

> Why are you looking at the Mission Control app icon at 20x zoom?

Apple used to. Scott Forstall famously used a photographer's loupe to inspect the UIs Apple was putting out.

> It was “physically impossible with current technology for humans to survive a trip” to the Moon when the space race kicked off, too.

No, it wasn't. For one thing, the moon is a heck of a lot closer than Mars.

> The whole POINT of the space race was inventing the technology to solve those problems.

The point of the space race was to demonstrate technological superiority, especially with regard to missile capabilities, in the Cold War.

Calling people "lame" isn't going to address the realities of space travel, from the destructive effects of radiation on pregnancies to the physical and cognitive decline from living in a non-Earth environment for extended periods of time, effects that have been measured in astronauts who spent time on the ISS. Sending humans to Mars would practically be a death sentence for that subset of the species.

Respectfully, this is one of the many starry-eyed "we seek to achieve the impossible" posts in these comments that refuses to address the practical realities. You're not going to erase radiation exposure with a motivational speech.

Your response is interesting because it mirrors the attitude described in the article. Space travel advocates are so enamored with the idea that they're dismissive of practical realities. We're just supposed to try regardless as if reality will make way by sheer will. The measured physical and cognitive decline of living in a non-Earth environment for prolonged periods of time? The effects of radiation exposure on childbirth? Bah, the ambition to achieve the impossible conquers all!

People have been complaining about military spending for generations. There's a war happening right now that has generated significant controversy.

That's not the same way at all.

You're fixating on the emotional issues of eating meat, but that's not even the primary interest in the technology.

Check out MacPorts. They support all the way back to Leopard!

Huh? That's an ad for one of Apple's services.

Of course he wasn't right. Apps instantly became a signature part of the iPhone experience and a huge success story for the platform.

Jobs wasn't always correct about things. There are a large number of examples where he wasn't.

> Blows my mind that so many people just have this hardened internalized idea that we're somehow significantly different than any other animal.

But we are significantly different, and there's always a danger of anthropomorphizing other species to explain behavior that we assume we understand because it reminds us of how we feel about things. That's why the paper calls for more study of "post-mortem attentive responses" in animal behavior to gain more insight into their cognitive capabilities.

It was a successful pop-sci book when it came out, but its conclusions continue to be met with a lot of skepticism today.

I think cross-platform Swift is likely to always be a niche like it was with Objective-C. Apple has too much control over the language and too much of a vested interest in retaining that control and modifying the language for its own needs. E.g., the stuff that got shoved in to support SwiftUI with none of the typical review processes until AFTER Apple had already built a shipping framework on it. It was around that time IBM announced it was abandoning server-side Swift as well.

Oh, are only positive reactions allowed?

The number of keywords in Swift is not an uncommon criticism . Even Chris Lattner is critical of the direction Swift went in after its inception. I'm not sure what you're referring to with "order matters," but SwiftUI's issues go far beyond the order of the modifiers used.

It's been over a decade since Swift came out, and cross-platform Swift remains extremely niche. I think that ship has sailed and that Swift is in the same situation Objective-C was, perceived as being an Apple language for Apple platforms, controlled by Apple.

I think a lot of the cross-platform interest from other companies diminished after features like result builders were quietly dropped in to support SwiftUI, with the usual community review process happening after it was already revealed at WWDC and shipping in Xcode (!). It's clear that Apple runs the show, and like Objective-C, it seems destined to be primarily an Apple language for Apple platforms and tools.

Check out MacPorts. It was the original package manager, still going strong, and it supports Macs going all the way back to the Leopard era. It also always used /opt instead of taking over /usr/bin like Homebrew.

Ask MacPorts, which goes all the way back to Leopard-era PowerPC!

How does MacPorts manage to do it?

Years, honestly. After all, Intel Macs just received a major macOS release from Apple only 12 months ago. MacPorts manages to support all the way back to Leopard!

Yes, the pride in aggressively dropping support for Macs that just received a major OS release from Apple only 12 months ago (and they were selling just three years ago) is a little off-putting.

Check out MacPorts. They have installers going all the way back to Leopard.

The polite Homebrew project that used to market themselves with "MacPorts driving you to drink?" on their website.

Respectfully, what a stubborn position to take. You don't want to listen to anyone else, and you don't want to be taught any new information about it that might change your mind.

Debian supports swap files and has information about setting them up in the Debian wiki, so I don't know why you're implying they've taken a stand on the issue.

> Why isn't the game industry moving to it then?

The most obvious answer is that requires official support from the platform manufacturers.