Given that they exist primarily as an anti-trust policy for Google, and word on the street is that they've laid-off most of their actual developers, good on your company!
Wrong place to share. The harmless people here will nitpick you to death as the adult version of sucking-up to teacher & showing how smart they are. The dangerous ones will silently steal the better parts of your idea & run with them, but with better funding & connections.
They all embed themselves deeply into our communications, for not-so-altruistic purposes--allegedly to "serve us better", realistically to train the shit out of their AIs in the hopes of growing (or at least maintaining) market share. If people weren't such cattle, a hard line would have already been drawn. If...
> get rid of all the footguns about expanding unquoted variables
The shell's power & it's footguns are one in the same. "Fix" them, and becomes a general-purpose language--a jack of all trades & master of none. CS professors will love it, but doing anything meaningful in the shell will look more like a one-page python script instead of the l337 one-liners the Jersey boys graced us with.
I've seen so many "bash but with type inference, unit testing, and all those nice features to make your code safer."
I want to see someone try "bash but we really embrace the insanity."
For instance, make recursively affecting all files in subdirectories the default? Or have a global option where any prompt is automatically answered with yes? Maybe some heuristics to detect if the user wants unquoted variables expanded?
RDP also does its fair share of raster shuffling. Where it has the edge is that most windows programs still use GDI (i.e. windows native draw commands), and RDP can send a lot of that as commands instead of pixels.
Xwindows used to have the same advantage, but lost it for most modern applications (i.e. ones written in GTK or Qt, which pre-rasterize almost everything for simplified cross-platform compatibility). Nowadays, unless you restrict yourself to classic X applications, X forwarding is going to be a slower, dumber, version of VNC.
Mac has so many fades & animations that, raster or command, it will probably always be slower.
After mastering *nix userland, Windows is suffocating. Not having ads slipstreamed into my start menu, or not having the calculator take 10sec to start due to telemetry, or not having my CPU/HD/RAM hammered by Cortana no matter how many different ways I disabled it, or not having updates+reboots forcing themselves at the absolute worst time, or...
The advantage over OSX is commodity hardware: easy upgrades/downgrades/repairs, & lower cost. Swapping HD in my macbook involved ordering special screwdrivers & prybars, then at least 30min worth of disassembly/re-assembly. Last linux/PC upgrade consisted of slapping the old HD into the new PC and powering on--10 minutes max. Aside from that, OSX is nice.
> "...not having the calculator take 10sec to start due to telemetry..."
Calculator fires up in 2 seconds even on my elderly Intel m3-6y30 machine.
Not to pick on the parent poster, since I've seen far too many on HN say the same thing, but if the person who started this topic wants a prime addition to "unpopular opinions here that should not be", it's that those who aren't skilled enough to use Windows properly are also pretty much guaranteed not to be skilled enough to use other operating systems which expose much more complexity to the user, like Linux, properly either.
Not a CPU issue, but a network timeout one. Disconnect from ethernet/wifi, try again, report back. Circa 2016, it took 5-10 sec before it would give up on phoning-home & finally open. I put wireshark on it & timed it myself. No idea what it does now.
With Windows, who can tell? And that's the real issue. Is it a bug? Is it Micrsoft telemetry? Is it Microsoft being underhanded (which happens!)?
I've noticed that Windows programmers are very quick to work around what they perceive as bugs in underlying library code, and opaqueness in both code and motives is why.
Aside from that, amen. "Get a byte, get a byte, get a byte byte byte" is a breath of fresh air compared to MS documentation. The situation has improved--if only because we can go to StackOverflow and ask Jon Skeet for the answer--but in the bad old days (where you might as well be on a desert island with your MSDN DVDs) it was pure pain.
Our technician caste dislikes religious doctrines. Most of these doctrines discourage--or even prohibit--our most treasured creature comforts, so of course, we take the easy way out and shun these doctrines. And we pay for this. Boy do we ever pay!
Such people have spiritual holes, which they deny, but are there none the less. They try to fill these holes with material comforts--food, sex, pills, money, et. al. The problem is: you can't fill a spiritual hole with material substance, but in our ignorance we keep piling-on. More restaurants, more drugs, more trips, more money, more hookups--metabolizing the earth, degrading the body, poisoning the children. None of it will ever be enough, because we are using the wrong medicine & operating on false premises.
> Such people have spiritual holes, which they deny, but are there none the less. They try to fill these holes with material comforts--food, sex, pills, money, et. al.
What about people who are agnostic, don't abuse these things, and feel happy? Do they have spiritual holes?
> More restaurants, more drugs, more trips, more money, more hookups
All of these things are on the decline in the United States among young people. They are using drugs/alcohol and having sex less frequently than any previous generation. They are also the least religious.
Is it possible that agnosticism is not a predictor of pleasure-seeking activities?
You say they are using fewer drugs, but I don't see that. They've merely upgraded their dealers--from street hoods to doctors & pharmacists. Talking to kids today (and hearing about all of their drugs) is almost as boring as talking to my grandparents (and hearing about all of their drugs): SSRIs, ADHD meds (and how do I convince my doc to prescribe them), hormone treatments (for the trans & the old farts trying to re-live their 20s), PrEP, finasteride, dick pills (because they've already messed that up in their 20s with the hair pills), etc. From this board alone, I know more about adderall & HRT that I ever wanted to.
And I would be interested to know more about all of these self-denying agnostics you've claimed. Closest thing I have seen to what you have said "in the wild" would be ordinary status-chasing--foregoing the booze and the broads for clicks & social-climbing--which is no better, and no less material, than the comforts I've already listed.
OP asked "What are some unpopular opinions here that should not be?"
OP didn't ask for explanations, long or brief.
If you want those, that's what we have scripture for. "Which scripture?!" you may ask. I prefer the New Testament. Nearly any scripture is preferable to the modern materialist quantity-cult--even ones outside of the Abrahamic fold.
This is a rip-off of freelancer Karin Kirk's original article[0] on Yale Climate Connections. Her primary sources in that article are federal agency websites[1-4] and address the points of mass energy production & vehicle consumption by type. And going solely by that math, it's a slam-dunk.
The problem--same as with any other modern system--is that there are far more variables to consider to arrive at total system-wide costs, many of these are "trust me" trade secrets of various manufacturers, and the feds themselves (thanks to regulatory capture) have also been known to fudge numbers in the favor of one private interest over another, so even those numbers aren't above cross-examination.
This is not a pro or anti EV post as much as a humility one. I see a bunch of web developers nerd-sniping each other over personal recollections of industry PR (everthing in the media, pro or con, is somebody's PR, BTW).
Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding. TCO is going to be a fairly good approximation of overall system-wide efficiency. Companies can only loss-lead for so long before going bankrupt, and they can only externalize costs for so long before being sued into oblivion. If EVs truly are this superior, nothing is going to stop them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peiter_Zatko