I used the Windows 3 UI, complete with File Manager, until 1996. I didn't mind it at all. But I thought the Windows 95 Explorer was an amazing tool when it was launched, and as soon as Win NT got Explorer with NT 4, I switched to it.
I have never been unhappy.
I can tile 2 windows side-by-side in moments if I want that old source-and-destination layout. It works absolutely great.
I tried Total Commander, and Midnight Commander too, and they don't do anything I can't do in seconds anyway. I really don't get it. It's not that I dislike them, but I am perfectly happy with the replacement.
I am not saying anything is wrong with the OFM model but when it went away in the OSes I used 30 years ago, I didn't miss it.
The best are the youtube movies that try to explain to amateurs how to use the horrible built in windows file manager WITH A MOUSE!.... while there is total commander.
Windows Explorer? It's not that bad. Granted, I only ever use it with the keyboard. But then you can tile two windows side-by-side (or four) and it's a bit like a commander of sorts.
The only time I ever have to use the mouse in WE is when I try to move to the Quick Access side-bar: sometimes focus gets lost somewhere around all the bloody menus I never use and I can't place it where I want it. It's weird and I'm not describing it clearly because it happens only occasionally and I don't understand exactly how.
MC needs a shakeup from its current maintenance mode, since many state-of-the-art features, especially around copying, should be added. Unfortunately, not much has changed in the last decade.
There are serious problems if they are lacking ideas while employing some of the supposedly best talent in the industry. Once your idea is out of the bag there is no way for you to control what happens with it.
There is ample room to extend, but it costs money or the designers are in a bubble or they are afraid to innovate. The worst is that they now copied Pixel's ugly island :DDDDD. Oh dear god. At least it doesn’t look like some brutalist artist’s fever dream, just like we've seen it on the Pixel phones.
This is good, although the artificial meat industry needs stricter legislation, because companies should not be allowed to patent solutions intended to replace traditional methods of mass food production.
I'm not following your reasoning. Your only objection is that this technology has the potential to meaningfully replace meat production? And therefore, because it is so amazing, no one should be allowed to profit off of it after they do a big chunk of initial R&D?
This legislation is not doing anything at all to help the research go further. It's a bare-naked stifling of a technology that threatens to thin the wallets of a few rich, loud constituents with lobbyists in the building, and probably a healthy dose of emotional whining about some kind of values or tradition being under attack.
Make sure no one is cutting corners in a way that will poison people when food is involved, but otherwise, just let the free market do its thing. I thought that was meant to be the American way.
Yep, innovation shouldn't be blocked just to protect old interests. What happens if labgrown meat replaces traditional farming?
Right now, anyone can raise animals—even a few chickens or cows—with little money or tech. That's how small farmers, rural families, and backyard producers have fed themselves for centuries. It's about independence, not just food. It's about control over your own livelihood.
Lab-grown meat is different. It needs expensive tech, sterile labs, patents, and big investors. If it becomes the main source of meat, only a few corporations will control the whole system.
Worse, future laws could ban personal animal farming—citing environment or health reasons—and make lab meat the only legal option. Suddenly, you can't raise your own food anymore. You can only buy it from a company.
That's not progress. That's a takeover. We're trading decentralized, accessible food production for a centralized, corporate-controlled model most people can't join.
We shouldn't stop innovation. But we should make sure it doesn't erase the ability of ordinary people to grow their own food. Regulation isn't about protecting tradition; it's about protecting choice, fairness, and food sovereignty.
Let innovation thrive, but not at the cost of our freedom to feed ourselves.
