I might be wrong on this, but I vaguely recall that on macOS back when you could commonly option-click to reveal advanced options, if you held option when clicking a sort it would change how it sorted from alphabetical to lexical or vice versa. I’m not a thousand percent sure of it, though, I think when I needed it I was able to set a directory preference via terminal to change how a specific directory was sorted and it was an option there. MacOS had (or has) a lot of buried options which I presume date back to its origins as a Unix as well as a convenience to its developers. A lot of the command line utilities were hacked calls to graphical settings code though, so it wasn’t very stable version to version as the UI calls changed and nobody prioritized non-UI bug fixes or breaking changes. These days CLI is nearly forgotten or assumed to be an exploit vector - see Screen Time data for example.
I agree with most of this post, except the part where you could actually do it. I’ll be the first to admit that I was not in server rooms back then but I’ve heard from those who were. The biggest advantage Amazon had, for many years, over their competitors, is that they would take your order and tell you it was completed and wait to charge your card until it shipped because it was cheaper to write your order down than to spend expensive session compute waiting for the payment to go through. That kind of optimization was necessary because all the networks were slower or flaky then, including payment processing, and often relied on batch processing overnight that has become less visible today.
Meanwhile on the client side, web technologies had a lot of implicit defaults assuming pages on sites rather than apps and experiences. For example, we didn’t originally have a way for JS to preserve back/forward buttons functionality when navigating in a SPA without using hash tags in the URL. Without CSS features for it, support for RTL and LTR on the same website was basically nonexistent. I won’t even get started on charset, poorer support for dates that persists to this day, limited offline modes in a time when being offline was more common, and how browsers varied tremendously across platforms and versions back then with their own unique set of JS APIs and unique ideas of how to render webpages.
It took the original acid test and a bunch more tests that followed before we had anything close to cross browser standards for newer web features. I still remember the snowman hack to get IE to submit forms with UTF-8 encoding, and that wasn’t as bad as quirks mode or IE 5.
Actually maybe I disagree with most of this post. Don’t get me wrong, I can see how it could have been done, but it’s reductive to the extreme to say the only reason web services were jank is because UX polish didn’t exist. If anything, the web is the reason UX is so good today - apps and desktop platforms continuously copied the web for the past 28 years, from Windows ME with single-click everywhere to Spotify and other electron apps invading the OS. I’m not going to devalue the HIG or equivalent, but desktop apps tended to evolve slowly, with each new OS release, while web apps evolved quickly, with each new website needing to write its own cross platform conventions and thus needing its own design language.
Edit: I just noticed the list of supported countries (in my link below) includes Canada but excludes the French-speaking province of Quebec. It seems a bit spiteful to go so far as to ensure a service can be legally delivered in such a long list of countries and then exclude Quebec. Hm, I was about to use Puerto Rico as an example, but it’s not in the list as well, but perhaps it’s considered part of the United States here.
Now back to the comment I’d written at first:
It does seem to be, in typical large corporation fashion, a bit too complicated to set up. For example, there are three ways to add parental supervision, including a mode where you can transition from YouTube Kids to the full YouTube experience while still preserving those controls until a child is 13: https://support.google.com/youtubekids/answer/10495678?sjid=...
That said, all it would take is an open web browser and a not signed in YouTube account for kids to bypass these controls. But I suppose that’s not actually the point - the point of channel filtering is to reduce the harm recommendation engines and spammy content might have. The gotcha is that recommendation engines are everywhere now, spammy content is pervasive, and even AI responses in Google are arguably now a source of noise to be filtered.
I will say, however, it’s great to have an ad-free family plan for YouTube. I wish you could add more accounts to it, but for now I’m getting by with YouTube brand (sub-)accounts to create separate lists of subscriptions, histories and recommendations while still staying ad-free in apps.
And tools adults might find useful, I expect kids and teens would find useful too - for example, browser extensions to customize your YouTube experience.
As long as we have an open web for e.g. YouTube, we do have independent options, if geeky enough to pursue them. :)
Unfiltered web browsers might be harder to come by these days than when I was growing up, but they still exist. I remember finding out by accident that certain restricted apps would pull up help pages, and from there I could click a link that would take me to an unrestricted web browser due to a bug in the code. I also remember computers where you could show up with pocket apps on a floppy or USB key and bring your own unrestricted web browser. On top of that, just because the web is restricted often doesn’t mean YouTube is restricted. For example, schools need YouTube to show educational content, so it often is unrestricted even when the rest of the web is restricted e.g. by dns.
Electronics and tightly sealed houses, both of which the Amish might avoid, together allow for a lot more formaldehyde build up indoors. My pet theory (with no proven evidence except my own two eyes, as someone possibly affected by formaldehyde, which means the details are just guesswork right now) is that formaldehyde indoors is responsible for the increase in reported allergies, poor vision (glasses), asthma, ADHD, and possibly increases in divorce rates or staying single - by which I mean that it can cause irritability.
I figure it is the primary cause of road rage, that it can possibly bind to and release microparticulate of metals like iron and aluminum, that it can store itself not just as a solid at room temperature but also in the rubber parts of a scooter while it charges or silicone or foam parts of a CPAP as you breathe in and out (you naturally produce formaldehyde, but increased presence in your exhaled breath has been associated with cancer, for example).
It also causes insomnia and can cause very low humidity in an enclosed space, which might both increase static shocks but also possibly break electronics when combined with its effect on certain metals mentioned earlier.
I’ve an even crazier pet theory that in the presence of other VOCs and sunlight, formaldehyde can multiply, but I don’t have anything to back that up. Formaldehyde with CO2 and UVA can react to become ozone, but ozone with UVA and other VOCs can become formaldehyde. As a result, on a particularly sunny day, I think even outdoor formaldehyde levels can rise and cause the day to feel even warmer than it otherwise should, and that it’s the formaldehyde that can then cause more inattentive accidents.
I’ve another theory that if you take something on to a train with micro metal particulate offgassing and formaldehyde, that it will bind itself to the heat of the wheels over the tracks and be released along with microparticulate from the metal rails every time the train runs by.
I could give more evidence of why this might be so, such as increased rates of emergency repairs of train tracks in my area, Toronto, and a study from 2017 that says Torontos subways have the most metal particulate in NA, but since it’s just speculation right now, take everything I said with a grain of salt, please.
I should add that burning natural gas indoors without appropriate airflow is a wonderful way to introduce a lot of formaldehyde to your living quarters over the years. If I could ban all forms of combustion indoors, I would, I really would.
The actual answer is pretty much in the article and what you would expect:
"The prevalence of allergic sensitization - the development of antibodies to allergens and the first step to developing an allergy - was six times higher in the Hutterites. The researchers first ruled out a genetic cause; in fact, an analysis showed that the Amish and Hutterite children were remarkably similar in their ancestral roots. Instead, the main difference between these two populations seemed to be the amount of exposure as young children to farm animals or barns.
“The Hutterite kids and pregnant moms don’t go into the animal barns. Kids aren’t really exposed to the animal barns until they’re like 12 or so, when they start learning how to do the work on the farm,” Ober said. “The Amish kids are in and out of the cow barns all day long from an early age.”
When analyzing samples of Amish and Hutterite house dust, they found a microbial load almost seven times higher in Amish homes. Later experiments showed that the airways of mice that inhaled Amish dust had dramatically reduced asthmalike symptoms when exposed to allergens. Mice that inhaled Hutterite dust did not receive the same benefit."
Good points. And it probably isn’t formaldehyde. The only thing I’ll add is that formaldehyde can inhibit or kill bacteria. And I also recently learned the hard way that limonene or other terpenes (from fruits or cleaning products or air fresheners for example) can react with ozone and produce formaldehyde even in the absence of combustion. And I’ve a strong opinion now that science and society ignores the dangers of formaldehyde and VOCs about as much as we used to ignore germs and other things we can’t usually see. Until heat pumps with fresh air exchanges are considered standard or specified by housing code, we will probably always have to deal with VOCs as we don’t have an accurate way to measure them and identity their sources except in industrial contexts. Saying this because while an open window is the cheapest way to get fresh air, it often isn’t the temperature or humidity we expect.
Isn’t it possible though, that if a role is gender stereotyped or if senior managers are a particular gender, that those of the other gender might need to prove themselves more to get the same job? That managers tend to hire people who appear to fit in, which usually means they are more like themselves, or those who already have the job? Also, it seems weird to suggest that only women have the failings you’ve noted, as men can also have the same shortcomings. In a way, this entire discussion is really highlighting that while some get hired, some do not, and somehow blames those who do not get hired as failures who should not get hired rather than as disadvantaged individuals due to circumstances partly or fully beyond their control.
An interesting point about choosing to leave the workforce to care for children is that re-entry into the workforce or even the ability to work and care for children is something a social net could be established to support. If we have networks that allow army recruits to enter the workforce after their service, we could do the same for parents, but instead social nets seem to devalue the act of raising children, maybe because they are driven too much by short term profit. Taxpayers accept that too, preferring tax breaks for families with children over support networks and job opportunities to re-enter the workforce full-time. One imagines it again is about hiring those like you - managers hiring individuals who worked from home are unlikely to have worked from home - they needed the time in industry to become experienced managers.
Edit: upon rereading my last comment, it is possible that work from home norms established under covid might be the best thing to happen to stay at home parents and their continued full time employment. This could then boost the number of relatively younger parents who could continue in the workforce after mat leave while also providing child care. But it’s not a replacement for better social nets and better social norms.
> Also, it seems weird to suggest that only women have the failings you’ve noted, as men can also have the same shortcomings.
Why would you portray these as “shortcomings?” E.g. my wife is probably counted as part of the income disparity between men and women, because after our third child she decided she didn’t want to keep working. The choice to do that wasn’t unweighted random coin flip as between the two of us. Indeed, she wouldn’t have married me if she perceived there was a possibility I’d want to quit my demanding full time job and be the primary caregiver.
My observation in my 40s is that near-zero of the successful women in my circles "married down" but some ended up remaining single as a result of expectations mismatch. Most who ran the risk of doing so were advised strongly against it by parents. My single-at-40 female friends are by far my most successful female friends.
Quite the opposite amongst my male cohort who universally all had no problem finding a partner, but also had no concern about their patterns income potential.
The one woman we know who makes more than her husband probably only ended up that way because they've been together since they were 19, and at the time their career paths actually would have lead to the husband having higher income expectation.
There were definitely mental health / marital conflicts wrapped up in this, and the fact that she is the primary breadwinner is treated like a shameful embarrassment that she only confessed to my wife after 25 years of friendship.
The commenter was not saying that women do not face discrimination, they were saying that salary (as in hourly cash for a given job) was not one place with sizable discrimination.
To be clear if women faced strong discrimination against being promoted it would not show up in that metric, it debunks only a very specific type of discrimination on average
Or perhaps formaldehyde release from hair spray and other chemicals partly due to the heat of the hair dryer, but also released because of the agitation and wind.
Technically I think perfume, sweat and trace amounts of smoking residue, including formaldehyde, from personal belongings could probably also raise VOCs as hotels often have very, very poor airflow by design - open windows and balconies have historically encouraged smokers so they were removed, but now you can rarely find any hotels with fresh air in the rooms, and those you find often smell of cigarette smoke for obvious reasons. (Smokers will often stay at hotels with airflow or balconies and take advantage of these features when they can. Also, airing out a room will kill a scent temporarily but only cleaning the room or replacing natural textiles will permanently remove the scent when the window is closed.)
Can’t speak to this exact circumstance, but more generally: The ONT translates the SFP+ networking to fibre optic, but the modem is still somewhat necessary for logins if you use PPPoE as a wrapper for example. In telecom fibre optic, it often also assigns a particular vlan to internet packets and separate vlans for TV and phone. But I’m not an expert here, just explaining why I needed a modem function in my router as well as a media converter to house the ONT.
As far as I know, nobody uses separate boxes for the modem and router, that kind of thinking died when wifi became more widespread and included by default with ISP plans.
I wouldn't really call that a "modem" though, it's not really doing modulation/demodulation work to convert between media types. The terminology I usually hear for the provider's box handling any final authentication and VLAN splitting is usually a "residential gateway", which can be configured to bridge to a client's equipment.
Definitely splitting hairs here though on terminology.
The component that does the PPPoE and VoIP VLAN is typically just referred to as a router (or a "residential gateway" for companies that want to sound less technical), I've never heard as it referred to as a modem, usually the ONT is referred to as a modem as it's MODulating/DEModulating the optical signal.
I vaguely remember that being the start of the browser prompts to set your current browser as the default. It was so hard to just configure that they had to build a way to set it within the browser.
You saw that again in more modern times when Microsoft removed support for the APIs they provided to set browser defaults, forcing browser makers to write step by step instructions on what to click to set the default browser.
I believe they walked that back, but it left such a bad taste that I switched my installation of Windows from default mode to EU mode in order to avoid it. And come to think of it, I haven’t used my windows machine for much outside of AI in about 6 months.
But Microsoft is not alone in these sort of defaults games - every OS or browser maker, Apple, Google, Firefox, wants to create moats so they can more easily monetize your usage of a product. I never thought I’d prefer the business model of free to play games, where they just outright ask you for money and have to keep finding new ways to entertain instead of relying on hard to change defaults and selling your data.
An app being able to see itself as the default browser sounds like such a dangerous API, especially if it can be done silently without the user realizing it.
