This headline has annoyed me. macOS Tahoe 26.3 has been working absolutely fine for me, and probably millions of others.
It isn't working for _you_, and you don't know why yet. This isn't yet useful information and doesn't indicate that the entire OS is broken (universally).
I totally agree. As HN is focused on developers.
I think author should report and investigate of course. But, currently there’s one report with nothing informative except the pink (which from my knowledge is related to metal).
But the author wouldn't get clicks if they wrote a more truthful and less clickbaity headline, such as "My computer doesn't work since I upgraded to 26.3 and I have no idea why".
I tend to view these reports through 2 user lenses. User 1 - the user who generally uses signed, safe software, using the device for non-engineering productivity, content consumption, and creative uses.
Then there is the user 2s. Thats the user with the unsigned software. That download and compiles the random “Show HN” without deep examination. That is experimenting at the lower levels, and might have written some home brewed scripts and apps running on their device.
Generally the user 1s aren’t complaining about updates unless there is an controversial UI or UX change. These are the more reliable reference group for the overall success or failure of an OS update.
User 2s contain all the edge cases configurations that the OS publisher can never fully test for, and generally just aren't reliable evaluators of OS updates.
> Bom's spokesperson told the BBC it had received about 400,000 items of feedback on the new site, which accounted for less than 1% of the 55 million visits in the past month.
This is a _remarkably_ bad attempt to make the complaints look reduced in comparison to usage. Amazing that any organisation would try this line.
The base rate of giving feedback on a weather website has to be incredibly low. I've never done it in my life. It's kind of like saying that less than 1% of constituents have phoned their congressperson about Bill XYZ; doesn't really mean anything. If every one of those visits is a page load or something 1% would be incredibly high.
Because it implicitly suggests that 99% of the visitors are happy with the website. Without knowing the number of unique visitors during that month, and the number of people that complained, this is meaningless.
You're right, and thanks for the note - gave me a chance to reflect. I think what I mean is more along the lines that while a right to reply would have been polite, it isn't required of a blogger, and wouldn't change the substance of the post much, which is largely about a pattern of behaviour rather than specifics. Michael's attempts to dismiss/discredit the post based on a process which generally only applies to the press is what sits badly with me.
Thank you for acknowledging! Most people I know don't have the guts to. Keep doing this!
Also, I was defending Michael, because I'm not a fan of witch-hunts. I truly believe the article is exaggerated, even if there are bits of truth. The author himself is a master affiliate marketer, it's a grey area to say the least. It wouldn't be difficult for me to "spin" some things he's done in a bad way, and make a 10 page article out of it, but that would be wrong.
They enforced ARC without any notice which failed deliverability by about 50% for my catch-all address. I only noticed when someone told me they had emailed and it didn’t come through.
I just don’t trust them now. That was a huge misstep.
It isn't working for _you_, and you don't know why yet. This isn't yet useful information and doesn't indicate that the entire OS is broken (universally).
reply