I agree on all points except re: the mini iPad. I have no use for a full-size iPad, but I have the 9.7" Pro and Mini 4, which are perfectly sized, in my humble opinion.
Steve Jobs revolutionized many industries -- music, mobile, laptops, animation and so on… he wanted to revolutionize education as well. That aim was best served with the original 9" tablet iPad. It stoked the way kids and kids-in-adults would consume content -- learn / read / watch videos before going to bed/sleep or in the classroom.
A slate-like form functionally draws a better parallel to the stone slates we used to have in schools back in the day! iPad Mini on the other hand makes people lose their focus from the original intent of the product i.e. revolution of education. It does fit the palm but doesn't help the cause at all.
iPad proper is easy to tap/touch, carry, flip pages on: more or less like an evolved form of Kindle but a lot more (also the reason why iPad Air still does better than the rest). We already know to whom this product appeals the most. Another reason why Jobs was dead against letting in the porn usecase on the iPad was because he wanted to start with children on board -- again to push for revolutionizing education. Child-safe and all that.
This CEO has failed that goal objectively.
Tim (and his team) don't even know what they want -- their launches signal that they have nothing on their minds except making more money in the name of some marketing revolution. And when something will do well they will surely hide behind that success (like the touchbar MBP) because really deep within they are running blind. Apple will continue to introduce more product lines to open up additional revenue streams and that is all there is to it.
My 2 cents/opinion: Tim Cook, with all due respect, is just a salesman. He thinks revolutionary products are about tech, design, form and function whereas those are merely a few vectors that lead to a revolution but not the revolution itself. I don't think their heart or mind is in the right place.
I believe it's more of a convenience, and React-based projects are setup for it. You can avoid dealing with the global cascade and there's no need to maintain a parallel set of files for styling; it's all in the JavaScript.
> wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable?
No, not exactly.
WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption.[1]
I would definitely say the DNC leak was restricted official materials involving corruption.
Hypernap may be a native app, but it's certainly not beautiful or fully featured. It uses the most basic interface elements thrown together in a messy soup. I have immense respect for people who manage to develop native apps, but when the interface looks like it was implemented as someone's very first experiment in XCode... well, there's a reason you don't pay much.
I don't understand why developers throw their arms in the air over pricing. Try out the app; if it has everything you will ever need out of such a tool and it greatly improves your productivity every single day... a one-time $50 payment is nothing. It's the cost of going out for dinner one evening.
It doesn't have to be 12x better. It only has to save you $45 worth of time more than a $5 alternative, or $50 more than a free alternative. Most engineers are paid on the order of $30-$150/hour, depending on whether full-time, contractor, level of experience, etc. So, it has to save about 1.5 hours over the alternatives to be worth the price.
I don't know if it does that, as I've never used it, and don't use macOS.
There are other things it could save instead of or in addition to time: Hassle, maybe it doesn't have any external dependencies or complicated setup; stress, maybe it works reliably while others are buggy and unreliable; etc.
Again, I don't know. And, I tend to choose OSS solutions, even when it costs me more time/hassle/stress. But, there's a number of reasons one might choose a more expensive tool that does roughly the same job as lower cost alternatives, and it might be the right economic decision to do so.
And the same can be said about the digital version. You can use it in ways that you can't use a physical one. Which is better is completely a matter of preference, IMO.
Physical: It's pleasant, intuitive, and the tactile aspects change as you go through the book. Page layout and the feel of flipping through the book can be nice mnemonic devices.
Digital: I can carry a few thousand books on my pocket, put copies on all my devices, do full text searches, follow hyperlinks in the document, etc.
I do think it is meant to be a catchy marketing play on "You Don't Know X" but the author also describes it as a reference to the fact that "knowing" JavaScript can only ever be temporal:
No matter how much you feel you've mastered JavaScript to this point, the truth is that JavaScript is never going to stop evolving, and moreover, the rate of evolution is increasing rapidly. This fact is almost a metaphor for the spirit of this series, to embrace that we'll never fully know every part of JS, because as soon as you master it all, there's going to be new stuff coming down the line that you'll need to learn.[1]
