I've been trying to find a decent 16'' laptop (to replace my thinkpad x1 carbon).
Been running linux (popos) for donkey years and I entertained the thought I should go back to Apple and get the MacbookPro-16 (which is probably the best laptop you can buy imho).
Then I remembered all this crap that Apple does and dismissed it.
A few years ago I got the m1 macbook air (lovely hardware!). Some software update fully bricked it, which is really annoying already. Then I found out the only way to restore it was to connect it to another macbook. That was it for me.
Google play store and steam are the same. This is regulatory. Hating a company for maximising profits is really something you should aim at legislation to control unchecked capitalism.
Except neither of those two are the exclusive way to install software on a computer that you own. All 3 have their issues, but Apple is uniquely bad in this way. I don't find myself Hating Steam/Valve.
The article presents its thesis ad nauseum, the idea that "everyone is always mentally reframing the game into the TV view, even if they think they aren't", but never makes any effort to prove the thesis or provide supporting evidence. I'm not convinced he even defines what "reframing it in my mind" even means. Throughout the entire article, the question in my mind is "in what way? What does 'reframing' it look like? What exactly are you claiming I'm doing?", and at no point is that question answered.
A hypothetical is set up where a woman gets to see one great play close up, but the rest of the game happens nowhere near her seat. If your thesis was that "football is better on TV because you get all these unique angles and instant replays that you can't get from the one seat's position", this would be a solid argument. But the thesis is that "we all imagine the TVs camera angle in our heads", and at the end of this hypothetical, you simply assert that this is what she's doing the rest of the game. "It must be true because it must be true", this is just a circular argument.
There is a bit about how every game in modern day is being recorded on cell phones, which is truly irrelevant. That games are being recorded by audience members is a. true of all sports and b. unrelated to what each person is thinking about in their heads in the moment, whether they are or are not the ones doing the recording. That recording, after all, is only from the perspective of the one seat, their present view of the game is unaltered by the presence of cameras in the audience.
There's another point, perhaps meant to follow from the previous irrelevant point, about memories of a party vs a video recording of a party. The idea is that if you watch the recording for a month, that recording will be the only thing you remember, but it's extremely unclear in what way this is meant to relate to the thesis. What you supposedly imagine in your head in the perceptual present has nothing to do with what you remember a month later, and it's not remotely surprising that reinforcing the memory of a recording over the course of a month will cause it to be more easily recalled than memories from the event itself. It's common knowledge that the human brain does not commit every detail and every moment to memory, and it's trivial to demonstrate that this is true: simply attempt to remember what color shirt you wore last Wednesday. There is interesting psychology here, but its simply not related to the premise in any way.
Then there's the throwaway comment about it being "fascism", where you seem to reduce the definition to just "mild behavioral conditioning". This is both based on your premise, which you have not provided proof for, and goes nowhere. It doesn't lead to any further point or conclusion, it's just an aside, "by the way I think that means it's fascism because I think that word means mind control". Even if we assume your premise is true, its more than a little bit of a stretch to say that counts as "mind control". All you've done is dilute the meaning of the word to the point of banality.
Maybe, but also maybe not. Ten thousand people giving ten thousand uncorrelated responses is also a possible, not unlikely result of such a test. There's also the question of whether or not your methodology for "measuring" what is effective and what isn't is even possible, let alone sufficient for a definitive conclusion.
1. I find it pretty suspect you intentionally don't use the default syntax highlighting in vscode, the editor you're using, as your baseline. Many of your comments just wouldn't hold nearly as much water if you did.
2. having keywords vs variable names vs functions be different colors helps you find misspellings, not the other way around. But that's almost beside the point, because it's your linter/intellisense/error checker's job to let you know when you have an obvious syntax error. You're also taking this as if you've just discovered this code block in the ether and have to debug it, rather that the reality that if you had actually been the author, you would have immediately noticed it, even without red squiggles, because it would be immediately obvious when you type it that it doesn't highlight as a keyword. Human brains are hardwired for pattern recognition, one could even argue it's the only thing the human brain is even good at.
3. I'm not sure where the notion of comments being grey is "tradition", but in practically every editor I've used, the default color for comments is a pretty easy to pick out green. Comments usually stick out like a sore thumb, in fact, as they typically don't share their color with any other syntax. Again, this points to you specifically picking out a non-default theme to make your points against.
4. "... gets so bad you can't see the base color" this isn't so much a thing, rather, the base color just isn't white. Which is because most people would agree that pure white on black is not pleasant to look at for long periods of time. There's a reason you don't see many dark mode highlighters use white. Again, default for vscode is a pleasant light blue. Plenty of contrast, but not so harsh it strains your eyes.
5. This is the most psychological, and subjective one, but plain, unhighlighted text just doesn't look like code. It looks like plaintext. Because plaintext is unstructured. Syntax highlighting brings out (highlights) the inherent structure of code. And that's kind of the entire point; it's there to show the structure. It may help you spot a typo, but that's not why it's there. That's an incidental perk. It's there because our brains are really good at pattern recognition, and having syntax follow a predictable color scheme taps in to that pattern recognition.
reply