That's fine. You should use the tool you prefer! My preference is different. But this is one area that choice is good. The biggest challenge is interoperability, but even that has a pretty good story these days.

For certain values of fixed. It's heaps better than it used to be— each display is its own universe, fully configurable as a single-display was before —but it comes with one caveat: you can't span a window across two displays.

If you mean keyboard shortcuts for Fullscreen and Zoom, the former has always had a shortcut and the latter can be trivially assigned system-wide. If you mean something more involved (like Windows Snap, various window management techniques of that sort), there are tools available but they come from third parties with various levels of cost and quality.

There's not really a lot to like, it's pretty much a minimalist task list. That said, there are tools for enhancing it as well. I've chosen one (HyperDock) that gives it similar behavior to e.g. the Windows 7 Taskbar, with window thumbnails and simple management.

--

To be clear, I discussed a couple places where I've spent money to fill gaps that OS X can't fill on its own. I realize this is part of everyone's cost-benefit analysis when choosing a platform. I am not advocating choosing a deficient OS and throwing money at fixing it. I'm actually not advocating anything, other than choosing the platform that most fits what you want to do, particularly in a professional setting.

There's a number of reasons, despite some small lack of features, that OS X works better for me. I'd be happy to share, but I don't want this to turn into a pissing contest like every inter-platform discussion tends to be. If you're genuinely curious, I'll oblige.

Or you use it for work and the cost for a tool you feel comfortable with (not an extra grand, but yes a premium) outweighs the cost of fighting with your tools.

Portable to what?

It's also strikingly similar to politics, religion and ideology. Incidentally, it's even similar to sports fandom. People become dangerously irrational in a line for a pocket computer. There are varying degrees of course, but "terrorism" isn't some unique or horrifying phenomenon. It's just reality failing to go away and stop inconveniencing us.

"Terrorism" is basically a modernized form of revolutionary movements. It's more careless, it's less organized, and it's put in a defensive position against an increasingly stable (and rigid) world order. It's reactionary because the more astute movements sold out a long time ago.

Basically it's a joke. And we keep electing and accepting "leaders" who don't have a sense of humor; or a sense of leadership.

The single best way to fight real terrorism is to get real honest about real grievances real fast.

As someone who probably has a point, you really should learn to communicate it much better. You're just throwing all of your potentially good ideas into the garbage.

Helpful hints:

What is the problem?
What does it mean to participate?

Anyone who has real, time-sensitive responsibilities will make sure that lost time is covered before traveling. Anyone else worrying about the that time in transit is just bored, uncomfortable and selfish. (Full disclosure: I am extremely sensitive to time lost in transit, and I become a bored, uncomfortable, selfish piece of shit about it. But that doesn't mean I'm not self-aware.)

Don't be a prick. My point began with "there's a ton wrong with Uber", I am not a fanboy. Instead of responding with this internethipster you don't KNOW what a service IS? bullshit, just clarify the point (if it was even yours in the first place; if it wasn't, you're broadening the discussion and doing it in a really dickish way). It would make a discussion, with understanding and possibly even learning, much more achievable.

Yes, ultimately the fundamental problem with Uber is that they try to appear like a taxi service to end-users while not entirely following all of the rules of a taxi service. It's the source of basically everything else wrong with the company. But that does not mean that the taxi-like portion is not a service, nor that those prices are not obviously what a (would-be) customer thinks of when presented with the claim "Uber charges more money for the same service". The reality is that they are a taxi service, whatever they like to claim, and that is why I presented the comparison to other taxi services. It turns out that dispatch is a primary function of a taxi service.

Every former cab driver I've met who drives Uber (and they are many) says the opposite. Again, this might be unique to Seattle, following from an artificial limit on taxi licenses that may also be unique to Seattle, I don't know. I honestly have not taken the time to know, because a competition between luxury transportation providers is hardly the most important issue to me in terms of justice.

Wait, what? There's a ton wrong with Uber, but this does not seem to be on the list. In my experience, Uber X charges approximately 50% or less what a conventional cab would charge (and about 75% what a flat-rate cab would charge). Even so, Uber greatly increases the driver pool (at least here in Seattle, not sure how limited cab licenses are in other markets) and pays their drivers more (at least so says every driver I've met who formerly drove a conventional or flat-rate cab).

There's other stuff wrong with your post, but that just stood out as crazypants.

A lucrative career in adult entertainment.

I'm pretty concerned that I got through half the comments before I read one that mentions a train.

The two aren't equivalent. An overweight person in most circumstances has some recourse in terms of diet and physical activity, where a tall person has no recourse except dismemberment. (And none of this was said in any kind of judgment, I am both overweight and tall.)

That said, there is already precedent for charging extra to the tall: charging extra for more leg room. They already do it.

Nonsense. Most so-called responsive techniques were driven by user demand:

1. for the "real web" on mobile devices
2. for actually usable web pages on mobile devices
3. for high resolution displays with sharper text and more detailed images
4. for respectful and reliable behavior in varying network conditions

These sorts of demands have been so strong that they upset the entire mobile industry, destroying huge incumbent companies.

As far as specific features...

Device-pixel ratios are how users get sharper text—and now images—when their hardware allows it. The alternative is that either users see smaller and smaller content/UI, or they are stuck with low-resolution displays. Neither of those are desirable outcomes for users (and sales show pretty well that users prefer high-resolution).

Mime-type alternation allows:

- all users (rather than some) to view content—this is self-evidently desirable by users;
- some users to reduce bandwidth—this is self-evidently desirable by any user who is bandwidth-constrained (either in terms of speed of data cap).

Element queries allow UI elements to be reusable components, so that they always behave the same way under the same circumstances. This is fairly obviously desirable by everyone, as the alternative is to have things work in myriad ways depending on unrelated circumstances.

User-based settings for preferring faster downloads/reduced data consumption is obviously desirable. I can't for the life of me imagine how you could say it's not.

Nothing is preventing a responsive site from doing just that, but still being smart about which (and how many) bits to send down the wire to a particular user.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what responsive design is about. This is not about serving different content (at all) nor distinguishing between browsers (at all). It's about providing optimal rendering of the same content for different viewing/network conditions. Fundamentally, what is optimal for 2560x1440@1x is not optimal for 2560x1440@3x. What is optimal for LTE is not optimal for EDGE.

+

There's more to it than that, and yet more coming in the future. Yes, media queries tend to be primarily viewport queries. Viewport data is more complex than just pixel dimensions though, because a browser pixel is not a device pixel. This is why device-pixel-ratios are also supported. A 2560x1440 phone likely responds to a media query as ~854x480@3x (the math isn't right, I wonder what the real device pixel viewport size is).

Picture/source also supports mime-type alternation, just like video/audio sources do. This allows content to be delivered in preferred media types (e.g. webm, webp) where possible with fallbacks to less-preferred types (e.g. h264, png/jpg/gif), potentially reducing bandwidth and cost.

The same group that led the picture element is now leading element queries, which will allow size-based queries to be derived from the size displayed on screen, rather than the size of the viewport itself (as in, placing a responsive image in a sidebar will have different download characteristics from placing it in a full-width column).

And browser vendors can develop selection algorithms based on user preference (e.g. prefer faster downloads) and network conditions (e.g. high latency cell, bandwidth limits, etc) rather than viewport conditions alone.

Literally none of the features discussed here are possible with the feature set that existed before picture. Some (some!) can be approximated with JavaScript, generally badly and often with very undesirable consequences.