The reason for minification is not hiding the source code (which is impossible), but to reduce the payload size served to clients. Web pages (even web apps) are documents fully available to clients where users can choose to view, inspect and even modify their source code.
It's simply amazing. I was looking for a ~$6000 USD 14in laptop with good specs. NOTHING compares to what Apple has right now. I looked at Framework, some gaming laptops, ThinkPads, Dells and most of them would require 16+ inches to get specs similar to a MBP 14 Ultra with 128GB unified ram and 8tb disk. ...
Apple has done an amazing job integrating all that hardware. And I say this as someone who was looking to buy a notebook to install Linux, as its my favorite OS.
So what im doing is put Ubuntu Server Arm + kde-desktop in VMware and use it as my main dev env.
Tiger and Snow Leopard in particular were very solid releases.
Heck, the aluminum Macbooks from that era are still the foundation of Apple's laptop design. And they didn't have the butterfly keyboard fiasco!
But this is a bit of a irrelevant distraction. Apple under Jobs wasn't loved for quality of hardware, it was loved for telling a better story of progress of personal computing. From the iMac "make it simpler by going back to basics, but future-looking basics" to "easier to manage, funner to use music players" through showing how smartphones and then tablets could be far more functional and usable than MS', Palm's, or Nokia's visions. The watch is the next best category-definer since then, and the iCloud cross-device stuff generally feels better-done than competitors still, but otherwise... refine, refine, refine, and slowly add more ads and upsells. Microsoft or anyone else could run that playbook, in a way that they never could match the Apple playbook from 1997 to 2011.
(One side question here is "are there new segments out there waiting to be invented?" which I don't know the answer to. But even so, "becoming just another upsell-pushing, ad-driven, software-subscription-service provider" wasn't a necessary path.)
Snow Leopard eventually became a solid release. At launch it had many bugs, including some that lost customer data.
It’s tempting to compare one’s memory of an old late-cycle OS, after all the UI changes have been accepted and the bugs squashed, to the day-1 release of a new OS today, when UI changes seem new and weird and there are tons of bugs they knowingly shipped to hit the launch date (just like with Snow Leopard). But it’s not really a fair comparison.
iOS and ipadOS have gotten massively better over the years. The gap between them and macos has been slowly closing. Still a lot to go, but so much has improved.
Apple's classic Mac GUIs were beautiful and discoverable, with clear, visible controls/affordances.
Running Apple's "Macintosh" screen saver reminds me that Apple used to care about every pixel. Now even basic user interface elements like the menu bar are clunky, with things like the Window menu not aligning properly (even on a wide display where there is more than enough space.) Menus getting lost behind the notch is another annoying problem.
It seems like Microsoft learned from Apple's original approach somewhat, at least for Windows 95 through Windows 7 (though I think for a while there was a dead zone below the start menu, a fairly obvious mistake), but Apple seems to have strayed from the path with an invisible, gestural interface.
From a UI standpoint, I agree. There’s nothing like the classic Mac interface and its associated Apple Human Interface Guidelines for GUI software. I love Jobs-era Mac OS X, but the classic Mac and its ecosystem of applications were something special.
However, when it comes to UX, stability is a major component, and this is where Mac OS X is vastly superior to cooperative multitasking, lack-of-memory-protection Mac OS 9 and below. I prefer the classic Mac UI, but Mac OS X had a better UX.
Love Atomic Shrimp. There is so much variety in his content, and always a focus on curiosity, trial and error, and learning things. One of the most positive channels on Youtube.
Does it really need to think about the song contents? It can just cluster you with other people that listen to similar music and then propose music they listen to that you haven't heard.
That's one method they use, but "just cluster" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. It's why Erik Bernhardsson came up with the Approximate Nearest Neighbors Oh Yeah algorithm (or ANNOY for short)
> We use it at Spotify for music recommendations. After running matrix factorization algorithms, every user/item can be represented as a vector in f-dimensional space. This library helps us search for similar users/items. We have many millions of tracks in a high-dimensional space, so memory usage is a prime concern.
I guess where I was getting at is they do not technically even need to know genres to recommend songs. In practice though, they probably have to know them anyway for playlists, but I assume they can have the song owners provide that when the songs are uploaded, and artists specify it when they create their profile.
I was at a security conference recently and one of the presentations had some TLP:RED slides in it.
I couldn't help but find that pointless. The conference is open to the public, the only barrier to entry being a small amount of money to purchase a ticket. How would that prevent bad actors from signing up to access the sensitive information?
It absolutely makes sense when used within an organization where access/membership is properly vetted, but there, I feel like there was no point.
You're completely right: if that's not an invite only or vetted conference (that exist), this is just a marketing gimmick
to grab people attention. People who do that either don't understand what you feel intuitively, or do this attention grabbing thing intentionally. Just like "no media" presentations that just post their slides online later.
You're right that it doesn't make sense. It suggests a failure in data handling (who can I share this with?).
A lot of these are borrowed from the US .gov in which prosecution is a relatively effective way to get compliance with these policies, but, and I'll take some license here, are copied to appear sophisticated by unsophisticated players outside of that.
That original Glacier API was infamous for being extremely cheap to write to but prohibitively expensive to read from. Something like 10 cents per list objects request or something ridiculous like that. Can't remember the specifics but I do remember reading blog posts from people that wanted to restore a couple files and had to pay several thousand dollars for that.
I believe that they did alter the pricing at some point. Regardless, the move to just a storage class on S3 made everything much simpler.
My VW Golf has ABS based tire pressure monitoring and for the most part it works. The disadvantage is that it can only tell you if one tire is flat. If they all get slowly flat over time there won't be a significant discrepancy between tires and they will not trigger any warning.
I consider that a worthy tradeoff though, I can just check the pressure once in a while and I get to save money on my winter wheel set.
The thing is that there is a greater incentive to shrink than to inflate prices. Or at least, to do a combination of the two.
Price-conscious consumers will probably choose the shrunk item over another brand that increased their price, even though the price per unit might be the same.
Do you have price per unit on the price tags in your grocery stores? They have to show that by law in my country, not sure if it makes a huge difference because not everyone knows to compare though.
We do have unit prices, but sometimes they vary the unit from product to product within the same product category, making them useless for comparison. This one is by weight, this one is by volume, this one is by count. At that point you have to do all the math yourself, which most people won't.
I don't know whether that's done intentionally. Hanlon's Razor says to assume not without proof.
Some stores where I live have this, but others don't. And at some stores that do show it, the only reasonable prices are the items that are "on sale". And the sale prices don't have the price per unit, of course.
We do, but not everyone looks at them. I certainly do not always look at it.
A pet peeve of mine is tissues/toilet paper/paper towels. Sometimes the price is "per roll", sometimes it is "per sheets". Sometimes it's even different between different package sizes of the same product. It's infuriating to have to bust out the calculator to figure out if the deal on the 6 pack is a better price than the regular priced 12 pack.
However I agree that in the end outside of making it more readable, it's not making a huge difference.
reply