That is correct. We've been using smileys for 50+ years.
The difference is that smileys convey a bit of emotional add-on to a factual message expressed in proper words. They are the equivalent of a raised eyebrow or a smile - which are also not expressions of specific meanings but context to the words you are saying.
Yes, BBSers invented a useful thing to add to text communications
Yes, but it did not have very specific meanings. A smiley - any smiley - indicated that you're not too serious and factual. Slightly different interpretations of what
And frankly speaking, given how subjective and unclear emotions tend to be, NOT having a specific meaning is probably the best way to express emotions.
Yes, but we didn't particularly intend a very specific meaning. The fact that there was a
As for programming, syntax highlighting greatly improves readability, so I'm not ruling out that certain emoji might too.
I do. I've code-reviewed code with emoji (in the comments). It does nothing to improve readability.
if you want to be understood, use the tools that best allow that.
I would add: Use the language that the recipient understands. If your best friend understands your emoji - fine. But if you talk to someone you don't know that will, use these things we invented recently that really make it very clear what you mean. You know, when pictograms failed civilization the first time and we wanted something better, more clear... I think it's called "words".
Well, yes.
I'm still editing that first manuscript after copying everything into a digital file. Yes, it takes quite a bit of editing.
So according to the article, I'm a superstar employee.
Never went back to the office after Covid. Have no plans of ever doing that again.
Are authors better? Has a better book than [your favorite classic] been written because of word processing?
Yes, my books.
Maybe not better by literary standards, but better for me. I would have never published anything if word processing didn't exist. I know that for a fact, because my very first manuscript, which I wrote by hand in three notebooks, is still unpublished. 25 years after I wrote it.
It's not the writing per se that's easier, but the editing. And a book takes a lot of editing before it's done.
We all mix pictures, emojis, and text freely in our communications.
No, we don't. Some of us still know that the purpose of communication is to convey information, not force the other party into a guessing game.
As I said: Windows (any version) is a shabby desktop that people suffer through so they can get to their applications.
If Mickeysoft had less of an ego, they'd replace the whole thing with an app launcher and people would shower them with praise.
There is absolutely nothing good about windows. It is full of inconsistencies, outright user hostility and half-finished leftovers from abandoned sub-projects. Try sitting a person who has never used a computer in front of it and just watch. Don't help them, no matter how much they ask, then plead, then offer their firstborn. You don't see those anymore because you're used to it.
Because instead of having a hundred developers contributing to make one good desktop
Let me stop you right there.
You presuppose that we know what a good desktop is. I don't think we do. I think trying many different variations to find out is exactly how we some day will.
considering that Windows has already shown what a good desktop needs
In which parallel universe? Windows has shown what a barely passable desktop needs, one that is just about good enough to stop people from escaping from the lock-in.
But the same level of effort is now required to make a good desktop
We agree.
But it is not a problem the Linux crowd can solve. Because it's not a technical question.
We had this discussion in 2023. And in 2021. 2020, 2019, 2017, 2015, 2013, 2011, 2009, 2008, 2007 and I think 2005. Or so.
Oh dear, poor users don't know where to start. I'm sure that is the one and only thing that stops the entire world from switching to Linux. Certainly not the lack of games, business applications or compelling reasons to switch from the shit that they currently run and know is shit but at least they know that shit.
Linux has won the server OS wars. When's the last time anyone had a serious discussion of using whatever the last windows server OS version is for anything critical? When's the last time you logged into a Solaris machine?
The desktop is a different game, always has been, always will be. It's a game run not by technical excellent. I mean, exhibit A: DOS and Windows, who were never, ever, the best OS - just the most popular one. But on the desktop, what matters is if the users can use it (it's right there in the word) and that hinges on two things: a) familiarity and b) availability of applications.
a) is a lot more serious than most of us nerds realize. Think about any random corporation. Let's say 5000 office employees currently using Windows. Re-training them to use Linux instead might take just a few hours for the tech-savvy ones, and let's say a day for the less so. Add twice that as a period where productivity is at least somewhat hampered by them having to look up again or ask a colleague how to do X. Suddenly you're looking at something like 30-50 thousand hours of lost productivity. And these are not minimum-wage people. So your bill is what, half a million?
b) this is the applications the business actually uses, not some Open Source alternative. If the graphics designers use Photoshop, they need that, not Gimp. Tons and tons of enterprise software is windows-only. And there we are with the chicken-and-egg problem.
Seriously, "the Linux desktop is too fragmented" is bullshit. All things considered, that's the least worry of anyone. And one of the greatest strengths. I know that I would've given up completely on Linux a lot sooner than I actually did if there had only been KDE and Gnome, and not Enlightenment and other interesting options pushing the boundary of the possible. Heck, E would still run circles around almost all UIs today.
It's not that much of a change, though. The USA has only ever paid lip-service to its "allies" and always seen Europe as competitors. It's not a shift from "friend" to "enemy", just from "competitor" to "enemy".
Seems to depend on location. In my home city in Europe, it was 3-4 times a day, even shortly after the war.
But that was before mailmen had to earn $300k in salary and benefits.
Numbers mean nothing once enough inflation is involved. But back in those same days, a mailman could support a family on his salary. Not a luxury life for sure, but enough to rent a place and put food on the table. Women working was still a somewhat new thing.
Yes, this stuff is moving digital as well. At different speeds in different countries.
And we all know that won't happen.
The thing with fines is that all the people ACTIVELY involved have interests that don't align with the public and taxpayers.
The shops are ok with fines if they happen rarely and in manageable amounts. Then they can just factor them in as costs of doing business.
The inspectors need occasional fines to justify their existance. So, counter-intuitively, they have absolutely no interest in the businesses they inspect to actually be compliant. Just compliant enough that the non-compliance doesn't make more headlines than their fines. So they'll come now and then, but not so often that the business actually feels pressured into changing things.
If computers take over (which seems to be their natural tendency), it will serve us right. -- Alistair Cooke
