I agree because it reads as it will process in the direction I normally read. But I do think one of the benefits of the function approach is that the scope isn't cluttered with staging variables.
For these reasons one of the things I like to do in Swift is set up a function called ƒ that takes a single closure parameter. This is super minimal because Swift doesn't require parenthesis for the trailing closure. It allows me to do the above inline without cluttering the scope while also not increasing the amount of redirection using discrete function declarations would cause.
The above then just looks like this:
ƒ {
var users = db.getUsers();
var expiredUsers = getExpiredUsers(users, Date.now());
var expiryEmails = generateExpiryEmails(expiredUsers);\
email.bulkSend(expiryEmails);
}
I suppose once you've lured them into reading a couple garbage pages you've successfully identified them as bots. You could then serve them garbage pages even for real urls as well just in case they ever got smart enough to try and back out of endless garbage. You could probably do a bunch of things that would only affect them specifically to increase their costs.
Apple still acts frivolously extreme about certain visual details on the interface. What feels different is that once we get away from the marketable still of an interface, the motivation just doesn't feel there to meet a higher quality vision, if there is one at all.
A lot of people will disagree that Apple had great attention to detail before because of the things they choose not to focus on. But I think what was counter arguable before is that they were meeting their own internal vision with a high expectation for quality, and that that vision covered every part of the experience. The counter argument doesn't feel as valid today.
With Apple's default apps, i kind of feel like the apps themselves are strategically designed to not be the best place to look for lesser trafficked use cases.
Visual customizations get upstreamed into the system accessibility settings. Extra functions are exposed exclusively in Shortcuts for you to hack together an automation feature yourself. For a fully feature supported app Apple would probably say go pay for an app (and them through fee) on the App Store.
For example with your future alarm.. you could get another app or you could create a 'Time of Day' Shortcut automation which checks everyday to see if the date is the date you want the alarm on; if it is the day create the alarm. Delete the alarm on the next day. A (not so) fun fact about automating Alarms before iOS 17: you could only delete alarms through Siri and not Shortcuts lol...
I agree. Rush hour commutes requires a fleet owner to essentially provide equivalently as many commuter cars as commuters. So commuters may as well have their own for all of the benefits of something being just yours.
I do think autonomous delivery services will be the more important use case. I expect people without personal vehicles to use delivery services much more ubiquitously, and will end up travelling themselves personally much less.
There will likely be a period where some of these commuters will actually loan out their vehicle for taxiing people or products for people while they work. I just imagine eventually we'd see stripped down for product delivery only vehicles, removing a lot of the demand for personal loaning.
It may very well be trivial for a few days, but it's worth considering the full length it could be in effect for. The emergency act after initial confirmation can be in effect for 30 days before reapproval (it can be voluntarily ended as it was in the convoy instance).
If we put someone in jail, as in to disable their ability to interface with society, we would have the expectation to feed and shelter them decently for that duration. Removing access to funds under the emergency act has no baseline duty of care expected from the government, despite government action disabling them from acquiring food or shelter independently in modern society for a number of days beyond which someone could starve. The number of days is unpredictably constrained by popular sentiment in a heated moment not a pre-encoded ethical baseline.
I don't think this hypothetical and the potential grave consequences is going to be often likely, yet i don't see why it need be a possibility to entertain.
Dieter Rams' style of industrial design has just dominated influencing electronic product design. More expressive industrial design at large isn't dead. Even in the electronics adjacent spaces you have boutique companies making interesting industrial designs for things like synths or computer keyboards.
Though I think there's another perspective to entertain here that isn't just about the industrial design style of the phone or display. Instead, think about how many discrete products general computing devices have subsumed. The disappointment comes across to me less that a slab is consumer computers dominate form, it's that the slab has made the rest of environment more sparse and now a slab is the sole focus point.
> Even in the electronics adjacent spaces you have boutique companies making interesting industrial designs for things like synths or computer keyboards.
Even desktop computers such as the Framework Desktop. [0]
If you want you can even make a completely disconnected city and bypass most traffic issues all together because of how supply and demand is fulfilled across the map.
Industrial development only requires a single road connected residential tile to grow off the full city's industrial demand. The same goes for Commercial. Residential will fully develop with just a single commercial tile on its road network.
It is broken in a realistic sense definitely, but it's also why I'll always play it regardless of which realistic transportation city game i'm also playing. I could never abstractly brush-in a city like I can in SC2k.
Funny enough, cities skylines, a much more modern game, had the exact same thing (at least at release). Simply disconnecting the residential areas removed their traffic altogether but left everything else working normally
> When a window is in the background it doesn't receive clicks, so you have to click on it twice.
This is sort of true but the full truth is less straight forward.
On unfocused apps you can still send through scrolling and (mostly) perform single clicks with command + click... you can also without focus send single clicks to certain controls the developer has ad hoc allowed 'click through' on...
For mouse oriented users I'd recommend trying a focus follows mouse experience like AutoRaise [1]. But I mean, it's not like this solution existing absolves Apple of the broader criticism here about what they prioritize and deprioritize for the default user interface experience.
For these reasons one of the things I like to do in Swift is set up a function called ƒ that takes a single closure parameter. This is super minimal because Swift doesn't require parenthesis for the trailing closure. It allows me to do the above inline without cluttering the scope while also not increasing the amount of redirection using discrete function declarations would cause.
The above then just looks like this:
reply