> you have no way of telling what someone thinks of tattoos.
Disgust is one of the most easily telegraphed human reactions. Also, haters with suboptimal impulse control can't avoid using any and every soapbox at their disposal to make sure you know where they stand on the matter.
Every time an OS upgrade disrupts some UI paradigm or process I've got deeply ingrained into my mental model of what I do with my computers, I marvel at how my mother has kept doing her own thing without giving a fuck about _any_ computer interaction paradigm† from our Macintosh SE to her current M2 Air.
She's by far the least tech-oriented close relative I have. And she has the longest Mac-only usage and ownership streak of anyone I know in meatspace, too.
† Except for dark patterns, because even the ones that don't give a fuck about computers can be quick to notice when things change for bamboozlement reasons instead of mere vanity or tool complexity increase.
I think that's just down to the fact that she's always having to relearn the interface anyhow. I have tech illiterate family members who always manage to do whatever they intended with the device, just in the most insane ways because to them there are no conventions and habits, only whatever they figured out.
I agree with you, but at the same time I find myself having to relearn interfaces all the frigging time anyway.
I get it, I can't expect to get into "the zone" without investment into detailed and up-to-date knowledge of my current environment, and any relearning is at best merely incremental and at worst a brand new trend that is (or will become) widespread enough to be unavoidable.
But I can't stop envying the superficially "naive" stoicism of those waning generations who only wanted some kind of glorified typewriter and anything else they've got along the way is still gravy on the top.
> The court has become “more and more obsessed with language and grammar in recent years,” says Stanford Law professor Jeff Fisher. “Oral argument these days can seem like being in a sixth grade English class.”
> “The Court has had cases, for example, that turned on the word ‘so’” and “the use of a definite article instead of indefinite (‘the’ instead of ‘a’),” he says. “This is all a product of the ascendancy of ‘textualism’—the theory of statutory construction that aims to discern precisely what the words Congress enacted mean, as opposed to what Congress probably intended to say.”
Great news, if true, for nerds in comment sections everywhere trying to get away with treating the law as code by nitpicking the letter of the law.
I think this will have the effect of increasing the latitude for judicial activism as unlikely interpretations of law as it is written become accepted on the basis of (ever-flexible) grammatical arguments.
Can someone explain to me the thinking behind textualism? Isn't it obvious that language is imprecise and context matters? I just don't get it. I also don't understand why laws don't come with comments to better define the intended context.
The law is a written thing. What is written down is the law, is an important concept for a nation of laws. If you are to be governed by laws it’s important that said laws are enforced and it’s not arbitrary, so therefore we aught to follow what the law says and not what we think the intention of the law maker was. If there is ambiguity then the law maker can and should change the law.
If there is a law that fines you for wearing a blue shirt and you get fined for wearing a red shirt, but the court says “we know the intention was red shirt” then that is arbitrary enforcement of the law, we are just at the whims of the officials in the government and not being run by the laws.
Of course in practice you want to be somewhere in-between extremes. You probably don't want to allow daft arguments about specific wording when it's pretty clear there's a correct interpretation. On the other hand you don't want guilty/not-guilty to become entirely detached from the text of law. It's tricky stuff with a lot of grey area which is why judges are important people.
If the objective is to re-interpret long established laws to be mean something else, focusing on the grammatical details is as good of a justification as anything.
Context and intent matters, but context and intent are very subjective. Justices are apt to read the context and intent that they want to interpret legislation in a way they personally think would be beneficial. If you want an example of this, see Scalia's dissent in King v. Burwell. It's very entertaining.
A textualist approach can also unfortunately lead to biased decisions, but only to the extent Congress is imprecise with language. A textualist approach has the benefit of discouraging Congress from crafting bad legislation that requires judicial interpretation in the first place.
It's not a black and white issue easily swept under the rug by an elitist platitude about what the cowering masses deserve. There's a lot of installation cases (older hardware -> newest systems) where System Integrity Protection will be partially lowered by default[1], and most installations will need to keep it that way.
That needn't be a show stopper, but before somebody starts patching with OCLP, some deliberation about their threat model and their macOS security expectations would be healthy. Specially for hand-me-down hardware that ends up in less tech-savvy hands.
Exactly. I use (and support) lots of open-source software and trust it. But a hacked OS is too fundamental, and I don't want to have to remember, "Oh yeah, don't do any banking on this."
More like try watching a comedy where nobody cared about getting the room tone to blend things right, no foley and sound effects work was done, and there was no provision in the budget for fixing things in ADR. See if you make it through the first 10 minutes before feeling the full ticket price was a scam.
Some kind of immersion is a prerequisite to a worthwhile experience. Sound is a pretty cheap and effective feedback medium for player actions, it quickly helps to define and telegraph changes in environments and settings (¿is this a safe encounter or the prelude to a boss fight?) and is crucial in helping to keep engagement during non-playable segments (in the earlier days, sometimes even printing dialogue text to screen was accompanied by sound effects to avoid alienating the player).
I've had my fair share of highlighting/annotating shenanigans with macOS built-in software and I've found Skim (free, BSD licensed) to be a highly competent replacement, with the only caveat that you have to remember to export the annotated PDFs if you want to be able to see your changes from any other application.
Anyone tired of Apple's contrast-killing orangey background and missing a true yellow color for their highlights should give it a try. (No affiliation, just glad it exists.)
I strongly suspect that those get caught up on "social" or "sharing" icons, often indicated by a "social" class, or "share-daddy" specifically (I block that last a heck of a lot myself).
