Well, having lived there I'd describe it thus: You might get shouted at for taking a harmless picture at a conference; They brag about their great "data protection" laws, and the same same day you read in the news how yet another of their universities got hacked and how some incompetent government agency leaked the sensitive private information of hundreds of thousands of their citizens. Not that anyone cares or that anyone would get punished for it. But don't you dare forget adding cookie popups to your website or trying to build a finance app without extremely invasive and questionable KYC.

Privacy-mindedness with German characteristics.

I would claim those people from Germany who are very privacy-minded indeed have a huge distrust of these data collections exactly because they know that sooner or later someone will crack these systems.

They didn't use to, this has become a thing over the past few years as MSM outlets have completely given up on journalistic standards, including editorial ones.

And since that happened on all nodes around the same time, it took out the entire cluster. If you are not familiar, random, uncontrolled node restarts in any kind of multi node database or search product are a great way to trigger outages. So, not great.

I've had quite a few encounters with the oomkiller killing processes that were important and didn't need killing. Or as I like to phrase it "killing the one reason this server exists".

These days the way to size a server is "have enough memory to run whatever you need running + at least half a GB for whatever apt might randomly demand at any point". And guess what, memory tends to be expensive in cloud environments so people tend to get vms with as little as half a GB of ram.

The old web was a very different place, it wasn't as centralized and there were significantly fewer people around. There were specific forums that you'd go to for specific topics. Say you were interested in West African dances - there was usually the one forum where all the West African dance nerds hung out. At most a couple of different ones. And they were very small communities. If there were issues with the admins or moderation users could and did do mass walk-outs and create a new place.

Sadly the hardware is amazing and so much more efficient compared to Intel/AMD x86. We need M-series chips for Linux.

MacOS is, in my experience, incredibly clunky due to this mismatch. You can fix some (e.g. use AltTab for sane alttabbing), but not others (how can i prevent the next application window popping up when minimizing one)

I think this paradim is also what's makes the Mac OS feel snappy. If basically having multiple windows for one software open is "holding it wrong", the OS is pushing you into one application, one window paradigm. As long as you do that, everything is pretty quick. But don't dare open two browser windows, or even worse, two windows of a word processor. The performance will degrade (and you'll keep searching for your windows...)

Thank you for articulating this so well.

When I bought a new M1 MacBook Air for my kid, I hadn’t used OSX in years, and was excited to try a super-polished Unix. Holy heck I couldn’t believe how work hostile it was. I want apps tiled so I can quickly jump betwee - not to go to the top of the screen to get bottom tile’s menu.

And the state of finder (other than preview) is something out of Redhat 5.1.

And the response is always “you’re holding it wrong.”

I have used Macs since the late 80s, there have always been teething problems, duds and effups, but nothing that wasn't addressed by independent Mac devs. How can Apple make everyone happy?

But these days? With codex/claude/et al, you can make your Mac sing to whatever tune you prefer. I feel a bit bad for indies, but they still have not-prosumer market to make their living. I now just make my own apps to replace what I've bought in the past.

Cheers

That being said, the security design that creates this problem is quite impressive, and I think much more tight than most people realize is happening on stock macOS. I just wish that I could unlock my whole home directory from the CLI somehow when I do my non-time-machine backup.

And mind you this is psychology, the entire discipline is only borderline scientific anyway. But even studies in the hard sciences are very often flawed if not outright fabricated. Adjusting data sets to fit the desired result (who'd ever know as long as you do it properly), changing the experiment and measure until they get what they they want, repeated measuring until the "right" data for the paper appeared randomly - those are all things I personally observed in the lab.

Not to even get started on the house of cards that is basing ones flawed assumptions on other flawed studies without even the slightest attempt at replicating their results first. It's standard practice to simply presume what's been published (especially by friendly authors) can be regarded as reliable.

This is a vague statement and it's super important to be precise when blaming someone. I think what you meant is - sketch out the graphs with patterns that support the alternative hypothesis/interesting result and then look for data that make the 'real' patterns look like those in the sketch?

I am think the idea that a thing is only a science if and only if it's empirical is actually harmful, science used to refer to a more generalized idea of study 'scientia' this could also be mathematics or theology. Then natural science begins to eat the term and becomes more limited. I think that the current place we are is one that is actually has a very dim view of anyone thinking about a topic and is naively optimistic about experimentation in general.

For if one looks at Aristotle theories ideas one may laugh given what we know now, despite using empirical reasoning for lots of his observations, Never the less I think where useful at the time as it's great for a theory to be good but failing that if a theory can usefully explain phenomena and provide one with mastery of phenomena in some limited way it's still useful.

Occam's often abused razor is a way of building theories like this and this whole process is similar to compression, given observable phenomena how do we explain phenomena in the most simple way, this process uses experimental and empirical data but requires thinking about the results of all experiments deeply.

From an outsiders view Natural science's largely seem to have pretty good major theories that lots of results of experiments can be used to correct constants of some kind in the theory and a well established field of study of theoretical physics that largely seems to be operating in the way I outlined.

But the social sciences are rather stupidly obsessed by these little experiment and no one has the guts to build bigger theories these days, for any theory of the human mind has to deal with many variables and if one wants to have descriptive theories of human mind then one needs to do a lot of thinking and theorizing and sometimes separate form empirical data and then arguing the theories using the data and reject the theories using the data, but also other kinds of analysis.

I have the most dim view of modern political science and sociology even more so, they tend to adopt this way of operating the most and to actually operate in that realm they need to theorize the most and experimental data is hard to do properly (and do not neglect history one bit, this is are experimental data and is as good as we can get).

Democracy with Brussels characteristics.

Existing legislation favors the haves, not the could-haves. And many people go to jail every year for breaking rules that big banks get a slap on the wrist for. Money laundering, terror financing, fraud,... Name a major bank and I'll list you some crimes no one ever spent a day in prison for. But that's fine because they have a license.

Just another day on Wikipedia.