Scroll bars have always been both control (press here to move around) and indicator (how much of this document is there, and how far through it am I?).
Always-on-screen scrollbars are only useless if you think that indication is useless. Many people find it quite valuable.
I'm constantly searching for the scroll bar position on mobile FF because its barely visible. And that's at least on a device where you can make the argument that horizontal screen real estate is limited, unlike a desktop PC where hiding scoll bars to save space makes zero sense at all.
More to the point, the indicator doesn’t need to always be visible to be useful. Appearing only when the viewport is noving works fine on the iPhone, for instance, because slighly moving the viewpoint to reveal it is a convenient action, and less well on desktop PCs where your hands are less likely to remain near movement controls at all times.
It’s also applicaction specific: I care a lot more about relative viewport size and position when reading a long document than I do when I’m entering commands at the bottom of a terminal’s scrollback buffer.
I don't disagree with your overall point. However, I don't find wiggling the scroll wheel on my mouse or a quick two finger swipe on a good touchpad any less convenient than using my thumb to do the same jiggle on my phone.
I do, possibly because I rarely use laptops and tend to lean back away from my desk when reading material on my desktop with its 55” display.
No matter, this is exactly the sort of thing that can and should be implemented as a systemwide user option, possibly with app- or even app-profile level overrides for cases like terminal emulators where users are less likely to prefer full-time scrollbars.
I mean, I think that's exactly the parent poster's point. It's not an absolute "can this person communicate efficiently on CommunicationBench 3.0-beta7". It's "would I, personally, do well sitting next to this person every day and communicating constantly with them, or would I struggle with that?" There's a very personal piece to this that is both a little arbitrary, but completely practical.
(Caveat: I've always been interviewing for members of a small team who I might very literally be sitting next to every day and communicating constantly with. BigCo interviewing is different.)
They really are extremely effective drugs when used correctly. That's why the calls to ban them (as seen elsewhere in this thread) are not terribly compelling. There's no replacement for what they do.
That said: do not abuse benzos. They will fuck you up.
I was prescribed temazepam for insomnia. It was the only sleep medication that worked, and it was the best sleep I've had in my life. It stopped being effective after around 30 days (or maybe 60, I forget). That was the end of that. I could have argued for a higher dose or a refill or whatever, but... you don't fuck with benzos.
Benzos can fuck you up good and proper without abuse. I was prescribed some for panic attacks. Take as needed, up to every 4 hours.
I took one a day for 4 days, as the panic would flare up right before I tried to sleep. I figured, I could be taking 6 a day, so 1 a day shouldn't hurt. And it was only 4 days in a row. No problem.
Day 5. Bang. Dt's. Immediate anxiety attack. Suicidal thoughts. Brain zaps. High blood pressure. Vertigo.
They are no joke, but doctors throw them around like they used to with opiates.
An yet, I've been on and off them for decades. No problem.
But many people have trouble and I am still at risk.
Benzos are miracle drugs for many including myself, but have to be taken carefully, and discontinued slowly (hyperbolic taper) if withdrawal symptoms are too bad.
>They really are extremely effective drugs when used correctly. That's why the calls to ban them (as seen elsewhere in this thread) are not terribly compelling. There's no replacement for what they do.
>That said: do not abuse benzos. They will fuck you up.
This is pretty much my perspective, except I'd say that it doesn't even necessarily require abuse per se. I'd say just be very careful when using them, and get off of them ASAP. Myself, I only take them if there's a procedure of some sort they're called for.
I'd say awareness is more called for than a total ban. A total ban would be messed up because there is zero replacement for them for what they do -none.
There seems to be a reduction in psychological dependence in people treated with benzos and barbiturates for seizure disorders compared to people who don't have seizure disorders.
I think other disorders in gaba/glutamate functioning (or in an adjacent disorder that affects these systems) could be similar.
My guess is that low doses of benzos used to treat neurological disorders have a lower risk because GABA/Glutamate/related systems in that population are pathologically dysfunctional and benefit more directly from these medications.
This needs the caveat that following the maxim "do not abuse benzos" means telling well meaning doctors no if they suggest taking benzos consistently for even a few days. Which is a bit of a stretch of the definition of abuse.
It seems that you got lucky, which is wonderful but not necessarily actionable for others.
Not quite luck, there was a bit more to it than that. Temazepam has a bit different risk profile than some of the others. And the stop signal was developing tolerance; increasing dose would have been the exact thing to do if I wanted to get addicted. So I didn't ask for that!
My personal opinion is that, under reasonable circumstances, if you type the words yourself (that is, if your fingers make the keyboard clack), you own them. That definition explicitly excludes copy-and-paste.
The simple act of forcing a roundtrip through your brain and muscles might seem like a small barrier, but I think it's actually a big step in terms of forcing you to interact with the text and take ownership. It's also not practical to do for large blocks of text, and likely will find you putting your stamp on and slightly rewriting even medium-length passages. Both of which are features of the definition.
Some of that is also that what "native UI" means has shifted a bit. To look at Windows, Win95 had a thoroughly considered UI design that was very well adapted to both what it needed to do and the hard constraints on it. Win11 is... kind of a shitshow. (Are parts of it still from Windows 3.1? I haven't tried to track them down... but in Win10 there were a few dark corners.) It made sense to match the native UI in the Win95 days. It often doesn't now, it's simply not a target worth hitting. You could just use Win32 and target the older Win95 look, but apart from appearance issues, it was designed to work well in 1995, and we simply demand different things from our UIs now. Like support for touchscreens. Old Win32 apps are painful on touchscreens. (But, often, awesome without a mouse.) And those are real considerations, not oooh-shiny-new-thing designer BS.
Yes, modern Windows design is a bit of a mess, caused by both the designer bug of redesigning everything (we have had at least 3 different Windows design languages prevalent over the last 10 years) and Windows having to support extremely old legacy software. The second was almost nonexistent when Windows 95 was designed, they could have a true clean slate, so the comparison isn't as fair. But still, even with the abundance of native UI frameworks, the point holds true that no new software uses any of them, no matter if it's Win32 or WinUI. They could implement them very easily, and some hobbyist software does so, and it looks very native and in-line with the rest of Windows 11, but they choose not to.
And yes, the 3.11 ODBC file selector is still in Windows 11. Praise be to legacy components.
You don't really get an FPGA for capability. CPUs are much more capable, and they're general-purpose so they can do absolutely anything with about the same efficiency and just a little more code.
You get an FPGA for timing. They're less capable, but (in many common design architectures), they output their results once per clock, every clock, on time, every time. If you can hit a fabric clock of say 100MHz, clocking all the weird logic you can stuff in there, it gives 100 million outputs per second, never skipping a single one for any reason (short of total failure). The penalty is that making a small change to your desired "program" can be very expensive, and many things won't be realistically possible at all. Or at least won't fit into a part that you can buy. But things like audio, video, and high-frequency trading love being able to guarantee timing.
(Of course there are other ways to write your FPGA HDL, but that's one of the more common ones. And you do see DDR-style clocking, and similar, every now and then.)
> with about the same efficiency and just a little more code.
It depends. For some things, CPUs don't even come close. An XCVU13P FPGA can handle 1.2Tbps of full-duplex Ethernet @ 1 billion pps. And that part costs less than a grand at moderate qty, and with significantly less power consumption than a CPU that'd be capable of operating a dataplane at these speeds.
The point I was trying to make is that the CPU is a general-purpose creature and doesn't really care what you want it to do. If you had a CPU that could handle 1.2Tbps of Ethernet packets at 1Gpps, it could do a whole lot of other things involving 1.2Tbps of data flow too, very easily, if someone wrote the software. And more. (But you're probably not getting 2.4Tbps out of it, no matter what you do.)
An FPGA can not. There's plenty of things that those XCVU13Ps just can't do, or would do worse than a $1 microcontroller. (Setting aside for a moment implementing a CPU inside the FPGA... which does actually happen in just about every large-enough FPGA design, which is its own discussion....)
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. An FPGA is inherently more general than a CPU because it implements any digital logic including a CPU. They're just more expensive and have clock speed limitations. Saying if you had a CPU that could do 1.2Tbps is just as silly as saying if you had an FPGA that easily operated at 5GHz.
Well holy shit. I didn't expect to wake up this morning and see the "outside" guy from my thesis committee (aka, the only one who wasn't a rubber stamp) winning the Nobel Prize.
Francis isn't the first Nobel Prize winner I've crossed paths with. But I think he's the only one I'd call a "decent human being". (When I use it, that phrase has a meaning roughly comparable to "nontrivial", so, saying it is nontrivial.) He was well enough liked by faculty and students during my time at UW-Madison.
It's important to note that he's not getting the prize for "conceiving of IceCube" like some people are saying. It's for "conceiving of IceCube and somehow actually making it happen". The latter is the achievement.
It doesn't even have to be transparent! (I think.) Big red "FIRE" letters and either a visible handle to open or very obvious instructions would probably be acceptable.
This works for deuterium to hydrogen, but only barely (0.06%!). And that's a 2:1 mass ratio. Uranium separation is 238:235, roughly, or 1.013:1. Not so easy!
0.06% is the deuterium impurity in the product, not HPLC yield. Getting 6mg from 100g means their separation was almost perfect. But I agree it's probably harder with uranium.
Always-on-screen scrollbars are only useless if you think that indication is useless. Many people find it quite valuable.
reply