It's only "into a hole" from the perspective of a narrow use case. The world of computers is vastly larger and more diverse than it was when workstations first appeared, and Apple made the conscious decision to step away from desktops with server functionality for a reason, and that reason is a good reason. It doesn't align with what you want, or with what you see as most important, but you don't get to set anyone's priorities but your own.

Apple has all the money, and they got them from having a strong focus. Trying to cater to several markets at once after Jobs left almost took them out. They were failing on multiple fronts, and it was only due to Jobs' singular focus they managed to avoid total collapse.

Apple has no reason to try to break into business use, and lots of reasons not to. Businesses require stability and long term commitment to platform and API, and Apple would have to accept support burdens of software platforms for much longer than they do now. That would be immensely costly, and it would cripple their current main advantage; that they're not locked into any form of long term support at all, and can discard support for old APIs and software as they see fit.

NeXTstep was supposed to be the ultimate workstation. It's where the march away from multi purpose systems started, and where the singular focus came from. There were no NeXT server systems. It was all client software, leveraging networks for groundbreaking client to client software.

Removing server features from workstations was a step ahead of the pack. It's an upgrade, and a really important one. It meant they could streamline the OS for the intended task instead of trying to maintain a messy system which was supposed to be able to do several tasks, requiring more and more maintenance to do any of them well.

I won't argue against many of Apple's UI decisions being downgrades, but overall, the increased focus of their devices and OS has been a massive upgrade. Their willingness to dump baggage has also been a great help keeping their OS a lot better and easier to get going with for most people for most tasks. Those who have demands closer to the old day workstation solutions are better served by other OS'es, but we're a blip on the consumer axis, not a norm.

That's because Microsoft behaves as it was 30 years ago.

Since developers use Linux, and prefered OSX or Linux machines, they put Linux in Windows. Then they tried to extend it, by adding PowerShell, certain that it would be a soon indispensable tool so everyone working on Linux would want it. They're pushing hard for making the layer above the kernel their specific kind of generic yet locked in, so it will be possible to encapsulate it and monetize it further down the line.

They're still doing the Embrace-Extend dance, now with Linux. Their strategy hasn't changed. It just can't be as direct, as they found when they paid stooges to sue Linux to break it. So now they're playing a longer game. Just like they always have.

Microsoft are still the Microsoft they were 30 years ago. It's just that their opposition isn't as easy to just push down directly.

If you believe there are gods, you are a theist. That's unrelated to whether you're an agnostic, which has nothing to do with whether you believe there are gods or not. Worship is not a factor in either atheism or agnosticism.

No, I do not want to say an atheist does not worship. That's got nothing to do with atheism. An atheist does not BELIEVE in a god or gods. That's it. That's all you know about all atheists. They hold no belief in any god. Anything else falls outside of atheism.

Agnosticism means one holds that we can't KNOW whether there is a god or not. A trivial example is a god existing outside of our universe, never interacting with it, and which no evidence could ever be found for. That doesn't mean said agnosticist think such a god "might exist". It only means said agnosticist holds that if such a god were to exist, we could never know. That, by the way, is not the only example of how an agnostic may reason, but one of many.

Now, stop teaching people stuff that contradicts normal definitions and use of words. It's really annoying. Not as annoying as your persistence in erecting strawmen, but close to it.

I hold no belief. So I am an atheist. By definition. I'm not a theist, since I do not believe in any god what so ever, which means the only remaining option is that I'm an atheist.

Very simple. Theism and atheism are by definition not only mutually exclusive, but also the only two existing options when it comes to belief in a god. Either one believes in a god (or several), or one does not believe in a god. I do not believe in a god, thus I'm an atheist.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief in gods or no gods. It's about knowledge about gods. That's unrelated. A person can hold that it's possible to know whether there is a god, yet not believe in a god. That person would not be agnostic, but would be atheist. A person could, like I, hold that it's not possible to know whether there is a god, yet not believe in a god. That person would be both agnostic and atheist.

This is how the words are defined. No religion involved. I do not have to believe anything. And in fact, I do not believe anything.

Your dichotomy is false, and not based on biology or reality. You will find all kinds of combinations out there, and many of them are perfectly healthy and both function in society and reproduce.

Your feeling have nothing to do with the matter. These neat categorizations simply do not exist.

As an atheist I do not believe in a god. As an agnostic, I do not see a way to know whether a god exists. Two completely different things, both of which I hold to.

I'm not saying "there might be something". That's not in either of those stances.

I'm an atheist, completely and totally. I hold no belief in a god what so ever. And I am an agnostic, completely and totally. I see ways to define a god in ways which are untestable. That doesn't mean I somehow find any of those definitions "might be something".

Your first sentence sums up the stance of an agnostic. Not everyone agrees with this, as there are some who are not agnostic.

But of course I don't believe in a god. No-one can even define the concept of god coherently, meaning it's an undefined concept. Why would I even consider an undefined concept to map to something which is real? That makes no sense at all.

They are fully orthogonal. One has to do with belief, and one with knowledge.

I am an agnostic atheist. 100% agnostic, and 100% atheist.

That it does not make sense to you that you're either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist makes no sense. Do you not know whether you hold belief in a god?

Dictionaries provide summaries, and are not prescriptive. They often fail with describing philosophical terms, which require looking into philosophy dictionaries to get full answers. Regardless, the majority of dictionaries support what I write, so not sure why you facepalm yourself when you could easily verify that I'm correct.

Agnostic and atheist are orthogonal concepts. Most atheists are agnostics. Among theists, there are a lot who are not agnostic, but convinced that we can know there is a god. But there are a fair amount of agnostic theists as well.

That you are an agnostic answers whether you hold we can know whether there is a god. It says nothing about what you believe. You are either an agnostic atheist, not believing in god, or an agnostic theist, if you believe there is a god.

Atheism has nothing to do with hypotheses. It's the absence of faith in any god. That's it. It's not a "null hypothesis", but it's where every human starts. We're all born without any faith, and have to be brainwashed into faith.

Agnosticism is about knowledge. It's the stance that we can't know whether there is a god. Atheism is not about knowledge. It's about belief. Specifially, the lack of one specific belief, namely the belief in any god.

There is no name for "the affirmative belief there is no deity", mainly because I have yet to meet anyone who has that belief. I sincerely doubt you ever have either. Dawkins maybe have, but it's unlikely.

Sports mess so many things up. We have treatments which improve muscle condition, lower lipid mass, fortify the cardiovascular system and enhance cognition, but they're banned because they may be used to do better in sports. We're literally sacrificing lives, health and well being in the name of sports.

It's insane. I see no reason to ban anything what so ever in the name of sports.

Exactly. Facts > feelings.

If you have XX chromosomes, you are usually female, and may be a woman. You also may not be a female. And you may not be a woman. And none of those three things are certain, nor necessarily connected.

Same for XY chromosomes. You may be male, or female. You may be man. You may also not be a man. This has nothing to do with makeup, underwear or stripteasing. And most definitely nothing to do with children, you sicko.

That you feel this is an aberration doesn't change the facts.

Being a bigot, and not undersatnding that being transgender is perfectly normal, like any mental illness, needs to be cured. You really deserve pity, you're right about that.

It's not 1942. Only the truly dogmatic believe that silly shit any more.