I sure like using it that way! I've told Windows users about the cube, and even shown them but AFAIK, not one of them has set their computer up that way, even though Windows lets you have multiple virtual desktops, although not as a cube. They tell me that they "just don't see the point."

Do you have any objective evidence to back up your assertion? Just because some stranger on the Internet insists that something is true, doesn't make it so. And yes, that includes my claims as well.

Indeed they are. I use the Desktop Cube with Rotate Cube and people find that very impressive. I also have Show Mouse and find it quite useful to turn on when something's happened and you can't see just where the mouse is.

...you might ask instead why we're still waiting for the Year of the Linux Desktop...

One big reason for that is that the meaning "the year of the Linux desktop" has changed. Back when the expression was coined, it meant the year when Linux was good enough for the average computer user to use it as their OS without needing regular intervention from a tech support guru just to keep it working and up to date. From my POV, that came almost a quarter of a century ago, but by that time, it had mutated to mean the year that Linux overtook Windows as a desktop OS. Will that ever happen? I can't say, but I'd think that the more MS treats their customers as a resource to be exploited he more likely it is to happen. I do know that I've migrated two middle aged women to Xubuntu at their request and they've been very happy with it ever since. I also showed a high school girl running Linux Mint what Compiz can do, and then told her how to install it. Once she knew that it was available from her software store, she was able to install it, have it run at login and configure it without asking one more question. I'd say that Linux is ready and more than ready for the average (bear) user to use as their Daily Driver and as far as market share, I'd think that the fact that its percentage of desktop use speaks for itself.

Funny, workers were quite productive on six day weeks back in the 40s and 50s when that was the norm. It wasn't until the 60s or so when regular workers started getting five day weeks, largely because of union efforts. Now, five day weeks are normal and workers feel put upon if they're asked to work six in an emergency.

I don't know about real Macs, but I have a Hackintosh that's ... um, OSX 10.8, on a midrange i7 with 8GB RAM and a fast SSD, and even doing nothing much (file manager, system settings and the like, no browser) it was sluggish to occasionally painful. Gave the system 32GB and suddenly it was much better.

If a version of OSX however-many-years-old is that bad with 8GB, I can't imagine current-OSX being pleasant.

It's their choice; they can either take a pay cut or start working at the office again. If the money means that much to them they'll come back to the office. Of course, that means that they'll be spending at least part of that money on their commute but probably not all of it. And, if they quit, that won't look good when they're interviewing for a next job along with the fact that since they quit, they aren't eligible for Unemployment.

I don't think you understood my post. I'm not saying that any companies are currently docking paychecks going to people who WFH and I'm not (exactly) saying that they should. I'm suggesting that CEOs are going to start seeing this as a way to get employees back to the office. And, although I didn't mention it before, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that some people would be willing to have their pay docked if it meant that they didn't have to commute any more.

Personally I'm waiting for some creative CEO to start using that fact to get people back to the office. Consider what would happen if your wages were restructured so that a percentage was allocated as compensation for your commute. As long as you're in the office every day, nothing changes. Yes, you can WFM, but if you do, you don't get that part of your wages for that day. Legal? Probably. Popular with the staff? Hell no! Would it get people back in the office? Some of them, probably; how many is anybody's guess.

What I've noticed more than that... over the past year or so, a vast uptick in the number of auto-generated videos. These drag together a lot of readily-available text and images on the nominal topic, so pass for "real" -- but the giveaway is that the narrator is text-to-speech, not a human. (It'll make mistakes like saying "one, six hundred" for "1,600".)

All such channels I've encountered have MILLIONS of subscribers, MILLIONS of rapidly-acquired views, but very few comments. (Like, 12M views in a week, but only 30 comments.)

I've concluded that these videos exist so that the channel owner can use another bot to generate millions of views and a whole lot of the shared ad revenue.

Which is probably starting to bleed Youtube beyond what they're used to.

And yes, probably because of the high view counts, those channels occasionally dominate my recommends (which are otherwise pretty good).

Giving people money for marrying is no different from fining people for not being married in the end.

No. The default result of a marriage is that one person continues to work and the other stays home and takes care of it. That means that one income is now supporting two people, and that's what the tax break is intended to address.

I do think that both parents regardless of their relationship with the other parent should see tax breaks for having children since having children should be promoted.

Really? Why do you think that a man should get tax breaks for fathering children if he's abandoned the relationship and makes no effort to help the mother either by being there or by paying child support?

Especially when you consider that she's said to have little patience for basic editing. I've not read any of her work (I'm not interested in that type of story.) but I understand that her syntax sometimes leaves quite a bit to desire. As an example, I once ran across a sample of her work where a misplaced modifier made it look like a woman's eyes were a gift from her father rather than the necklace she was wearing.

For the record, Steel has written at least 185 books.

Or, if you take her at her word, she's written one book at least 185 times.

While I'm sure a lot of those original movies are, in fact, total crap and deserve their obscurity, there are still going to be some diamonds in the rough - plenty of what are now regarded as classics (cult or otherwise) did not do well at the box office during their original runs.

In part, that's because a large percentage of them were originally made as B movies: low budget films intended to be the second part of a double feature. As examples, all of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies and all of the Charlie Chan movies were B; the only exception being the 1939 feature film The Hound of the Baskervilles that launched the series.