No, in fact, it's very common. Although modern UI designers tend to ignore ease-of-use completely in favor of the entirely orthogonal concept of ease-of-learning, which they mistakenly call ease-of-use. Because actual ease-of-use doesn't help sell the product--it only appeals to people who are already experts, and want the program to be...easier to use. :)

In fact, for a program which you use for hours and hours every day, ease of use is all about efficiency of motion! This is why vi continues to be extremely popular, despite violating all the UI designers' theories about what makes a good UI. Vi provides extreme efficiency of motion. And many vi users use Ctrl+[ instead of Esc and Ctrl-I instead of Tab, because that requires less motion. Even though it's something you have to learn about.

Ease of learning is important when you're starting with a program, or when it's a program you use rarely. When it's something you use day in and day out, it's no longer an important factor. Blender, like vi, was designed with efficiency of motion in mind. The devs worked closely with the artists on the UI--but the artists they were working with were using Blender heavily every day, so they wanted more efficiency of motion. Ease of learning is the last thing on an expert's mind.

Oh good, I'm not the only one! :)

What a perfect example of Betteridge's Law of Headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no". :)

It's not like they're not already making plenty of that sweet Product Placement money!

Evolution doesn't work that way. And neither does intelligence. (Idiocracy was not a documentary.)

If these idiots were hurting themselves, I'd be fine with it. But they're hurting innocent children. Children who, despite what bad pop science might have you believe, are likely to be as intelligent as the next random person.

They're also hurting unrelated people who cannot, for legitimate medical reasons, get vaccinated.

I don't care how libertarian you are, that doesn't pass the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" test.

Emacs has shipped with a systemd unit file since v26.0.

http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cg...

The version I always heard was: "Looks nice on the outside but...Intel Inside".

http://lmgtfy.com/?s=d&q=whingeing

The pace of improvements slowed...until 2018, when they finally finished integrating babl and gegl with the UI. This was a massive effort, and side issues were put on hold until the work was complete, because without it, The Gimp could no longer remain competitive. However, the release of v2.10 back in April, which was a massive improvement over the 2.8 series, meant that they could finally turn their attention back to features. (Not counting all the ones which magically appeared once gegl was accessible through the UI.)

I think you have things backwards here. The EFF and the others are asking to make it easier to appeal if your content does get taken down. In other words, they want to make it easier to reverse or cancel a takedown.

First of all, none of that helps with a MITM attack which modifies the data coming to your system. It may help if the only thing injected is a url where the malware is located, but it doesn't help one bit if the malware is injected directly. The whole point of a MITM attack is that the data seems to be coming from the main host you're connected to.

Second, even if those were effective protection, they're only used by a tiny percentage of the population, and that's unlikely to change anytime soon. So the fact that your system wouldn't become part of a hostile botnet (if your protections were effective, which, again, they're not) doesn't mean that hostile botnets would become less common.

You may not care if someone knows you're looking at that site, but you should care that you only recieve .txt and .jpg of ancient CPUs. Without https, a man-in-the-middle can inject whatever they want into the data, and hijack your system. Not a good thing.

Basically, it's the same reason that Linux vendors use crypto on their packages. Except they just use signatures rather than encrypting the actual data--but nothing in the w3c standards supports just using signatures, so full encryption is the only available solution.

So, no. I don't care how old and static and simple your site is. You should be using https for the safety of your users.

(And no, it doesn't help Google collect data. It does, however, reduce the number of DDoSes and the amount of clickfraud they experience from pwned systems.)

Yes, it's such a drag to have your application come back and allow you to continue working quickly. So much better to have it make you sit around waiting with your thumb up your ass while the entire IO operation completes.

Thanks but no thanks. I'll take the very minor inconvenience of an eject operation (with an occasional delay while the system finishes writing before completing the eject) over the constant inconvenience of waiting on IO.

Yup, C++11 is what stopped me from abandoning C++ entirely. In addition to the new versions of "for" and "auto", which were insanely huge improvements, there's the first-class lambdas, which eliminate most of the need for all those contrived, horrible binding and function templates which 98 relied so heavily on.

And rvalue references may look a bit confusing, but the end result is a huge performance boost (especially in the standard library) for very little cost.

C++98 was a terrible language. C++11 (and later) is turning into a halfway decent one.

Because without https, your site becomes a danger to others, since it can be so easily hijacked by a MITM attack. Which is why the EFF (Winer is simply wrong about blaming it on Google) is working so hard to get https adopted everywhere.