Eh, not nearly as thought-provoking as it thinks it is. The sections about the old Settings app and how making all of the icons gray was an improvement contradict the complaints made about the current versions.
The old single-view Settings app was more mobile-device like with all-or-nothing visual context, whereas the current Settings app with the sidebar and main display pane gives the user immediate understanding of where they are in the settings tree. It takes advantage of the larger display size of a desktop device.
The all-gray icons everywhere mirrors the same monochromatic issues of the current macOS version.
However, seeing all of the OS versions side-by-side made me realize that Catalina's visual design was probably my favorite, combining minimalistic visual flair and functionality while holding onto rich gradients and color palettes that made it easy to scan and find controls and actions.
There's a difference between being unaware of something and actively denying it like the responses in this poll. It's good to also have knowledge of the events you called out, but I bet more people are aware of them than you're giving credit. A lot of Jews are pretty aware that the Nazi Holocaust targeted other groups of people as well, including Romani, Slavs, and the mentally handicapped.
By your logic, as long as a tragic historical event is referenced over and over again, it's ok for lots of people to doubt or play down its significance. Are you understanding of large numbers of people being against any of the recent black civil rights touch-points, since slavery, Jim Crow, and racism against blacks has been _the_ talking point and justification for contentious events in the US for the last 5 years?
It's fascinating that for the last couple of decades, Holocaust denialism was seen by US liberals as this inhuman and inexcusable philosophy. However, now that it's not just the "evil" right-wingers being called out for buying into it, a common and acceptable response has effectively become "eh, what do the Jews expect?" I'm not aligning with either political philosophy, just calling out the hypocrisy.
Sorry, but NO. Please re-read my italicized & shouty & "Please re-read...before you" words another 3 more times. Then me how you interpreted that to mean "it's okay". Without assuming that I took the same Moral Philosophy 483 class as you, and subscribe to the deductive methods which you learned there.
Also notice - my analysis was history/sociology/psychology, without reference to culture wars or chain-of-logic moral judgement of people. Vs. your analysis seems to be very much the latter.
Your theoretical examples imply that you think the age range called out in this article headline refers to children, when it's actually 18-29 year olds. These are legal adults that responded to this poll, not kids who may not have yet gone through the requisite history classes. Are you really using belief in the Easter Bunny as a "whatabout" argument to hand-wave away the significantly higher rate of Holocaust denialism among this age range?
Ok. Fair enough. Strike Easter Buddy and replace it with "Won't get pregnant if you have sex standing up."
As for History class. I remember in HS we never made it to mid 20th century. And nonetheless you're assuming that taking a class will become someone dogma. That's not how hate, propaganda, ignorance, works.
The fact is, The Economist's "argument" is flawed from the start. It's a silly and senseless way to do news / journalism. And no one is catching that? What does that tell us? Yeah, ironic.
The Economist did an article about this as well and pointed out that math scores were already sliding downward in the US prior to 2019. They argued that COVID is only partly to blame for the decrease.
It's a really vague ask and the article doesn't explain the specifics of what constitutes "plastic surgery filters." Are you no longer allowed to have pics with those Snapchat-esque glowing faces or big eyes? Is the detection system able to differentiate between a filter and actual plastic surgery? It's also a bit of a can of worms if Meta no longer allows certain modifications to images of people on its platform "for the sake of the children."
Let's not pretend like young people chasing sex and beauty is some brand new concept only concocted in the last 15 years by the evil developers at Facebook.
> It's a really vague ask and the article doesn't explain the specifics of what constitutes "plastic surgery filters."
They had specific rules in place with a ban, then Zuck removed the ban. It's not like there wasn't a line in the sand here.
> It's also a bit of a can of worms if Meta no longer allows certain modifications to images of people on its platform "for the sake of the children."
That's not what's being discussed here. There's been no proposal to ban images. The proposal is to ban camera filters. Nothing would be stopping you from modifying and posting images. Nobody is having their freedoms taken away (and having Meta offer you certain kinds of camera filters by default is in no way a form of censorship).
> Let's not pretend like young people chasing sex and beauty is some brand new concept only concocted in the last 15 years by the evil developers at Facebook.
Let's also not pretend that Facebook doesn't advertise filters in Facebook and Instagram, pushing kids to use them. Fifteen years ago you could photoshop a picture. Today, kids are being _actively solicited_ by social media to use these filters.
Researchers are actively telling us that these are harmful to kids' self-images (we've known this for many years!). They accomplish no useful outcome, and the largest net effect is harm.
I think that's just being wise by broadening your horizons. You've already gotten the Army's take on this matter from your training.
After a decade of both civilian and Army experience, the one thing I can say the US military teaches better than any other organization is how to lead people. It has its share of leaders that fail upwards just like anywhere else, but on average the people in upper levels got there primarily on meritocracy. Your Soldiers are a big part of that, as they can actively prop you up if you do them right or bring you down should you fail them.
My napkin theory is that any profession which has a known risk of serious injury or death requires more competent leadership abilities in order to align an organization in the direction you want or need it to go (everything I've said here probably applies for first-responders as well). The fear and stress that comes with these kinds of jobs requires a certain finesse and connection from leaders with subordinates in order to convince them to put themselves in harms way for the sake of the "mission."
Yes, I think you're right. By the time I was a senior lieutenant, junior captain, in my mid-twenties I had probably internalized a lot of what the Army teaches. At that point I was looking to fill in what I felt were specific gaps; detailed things about managing time and information in a knowledge / office work environment (whereas most Army training focuses on the tactical, combat environment), effectively delegating and coaching and giving feedback to subordinates, running a staff meeting, etc. I found specific and helpful tips for that stuff in the business management / consulting literature.
That army metaphor is used by the late PATRICK WINSTON -0:19: The Uniform Code of Military Justice specifies court martial for any officer who sends a soldier into battle without a weapon. There ought to be a similar protection for students because students shouldn't go out into life without the ability to communicate, .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unzc731iCUY&t=520s
Since getting into weed, it's surprised me how little the anxiety-inducing effects of psychedelics are brought up. I tried smoking non-medicinal weed for the first time recently and was not prepared for the massive panic attack that I had when taking what would be considered a typical dose of THC (10mg). Psychedelics cause a very different kind of loss of control from what you get on alcohol that my mind just does not seem capable of handling.
I've probed other people about the anxiety and fear I experienced, and have since learned that it's actually a fairly common feeling that even experienced users get. However, it's just considered part of the trip and requires experience to understand how to manage it. I wish I could reach a tolerance level that would allow me to have a more reliably enjoyable psychedelic experience, because I feel like I'm missing out on something that so many others seem to get positive results from.
I'm definitely not suggesting that you continue to use it if you aren't getting good results. With that said, I would try taking at least a 1:1 dose of CBD with it, as well as starting at a very small THC dosage. You can always take more, but never less. When I used larger dosages, I had full blown panic attacks that mimicked the type I had on large doses of LSD. I enjoy using edibles from a legit shop, because I can tell exactly how many milligrams are in each one. I will commonly take a 5mg edible and divide it into thirds, and may take two thirds over the course of 5 to 6 hours.
In theory, the idea of distributed, or at least decentralized online communities is something I like and want to see a return to. However, I think the folks championing this stuff need to set more realistic expectations.
Anyone whose spent awhile in a hobbyist forum or IRC network has likely experienced that they're just as, if not more prone to moderator drama than even Reddit. Wait until an admin rage-deletes a whole instance over an argument with someone or one community brigades/DOS's another and then you'll get to see the dark side of the "good ol'" community-run forum days.
The old single-view Settings app was more mobile-device like with all-or-nothing visual context, whereas the current Settings app with the sidebar and main display pane gives the user immediate understanding of where they are in the settings tree. It takes advantage of the larger display size of a desktop device.
The all-gray icons everywhere mirrors the same monochromatic issues of the current macOS version.
However, seeing all of the OS versions side-by-side made me realize that Catalina's visual design was probably my favorite, combining minimalistic visual flair and functionality while holding onto rich gradients and color palettes that made it easy to scan and find controls and actions.