Usually email ended up being the solution, but even when that succeeded (sometimes I'd just never get it, especially if the photographer was a friend of a friend), the issue I'm trying to draw attention to is how it affected the group dynamics, not whether there were technical alternatives to make the transfer happen.

If email felt like a hassle, I can only imagine how asking them to plug a USB cable into something would have landed. (Not even sure what they would be plugging it into unless I was lugging a laptop around or something.)

I've been to several events where someone was sharing a group photo with visitors and it was far easier for them to AirDrop to everyone in the vicinity instead of getting everyone's contact information whether there was easy internet access or not. (And it's definitely been "or not" a few times.)

And several times I was the lone holdout with an Android making things harder on the people sharing.

While there are other solutions, including Google Files, the reality is that AirDrop is ubiquitous in many places, and I'm looking forward to having at least the option of using it even if it's not usually what I would pick.

All of the above.

https://youtu.be/BdpSfrD3Nzs

Same. I found this article from my Feedly feed.

© 1990 â" 2025 Slashdot Media, LLC

From the original article at https://www.sciencedirect.com/...:

"The game “Twenty Questions” has been popular for centuries1 as a thinking challenge. If the questions are properly designed, each will reveal 1 bit of information about the mystery thing. If the guesser wins routinely, this suggests that the thinker can access about million possible items in the few seconds allotted. Therefore, the speed of thinking—with no constraints imposed—corresponds to 20 bits of information over a few seconds: a rate of 10 bits/s or less."

I mean, by the standard of a true/false condition I guess that's a "bit", but even following the dodgy math above, saying "No, it's not bigger than a breadbox" is one "bit" and then comparing it to data throughput is a questionable comparison at best.

You want one monolithic monopolistic streaming service, and if they're not committed in producing and airing a show you don't want it at all? I'll take my ad hoc sign-up-and-cancel-on-a-whim channels over that any day.

Google can talk when they add RCS support to Google Voice. As it stands they don't even seem to have plans to do so.

Still way better than the model where you have to subscribe to a pack of 40 cable channels to watch one show.

Back in my day we duck-rolled people with skywritten URLs, and we liked it that way.

Why would the pandemic have had an effect on sexual activity between 2009 and 2018?

Man, Inbox was awesome. Wish they'd stayed the course on that one. I don't have issues with Gmail in general (I'd much rather use it than Outlook 365), but it was hard to move back to it after losing Inbox.

"GNOME, KDE, Pantheon, Xfce, Mint, Cinnamon... the list goes on and on. [...] The desktop just makes more sense."

Look, if he picked a specific Desktop like Cinnamon I could treat it as author's preference, but that's quite the statement when referring to every single Linux desktop environment. Are we really claiming xfce (which was name-checked specifically) makes more sense to the average user? Even setting xfce aside, I still want to scream every time I encounter Ubuntu's default ALT-Tab behavior, and I'll never understand why so many file managers insist on opening a new window every time I click on a folder. (Yes, I've read why it's better in theory; I still find it maddening in practice.) I have a hard time accepting "All (major?) Linux desktops make more sense than the Windows desktop", especially without any justification for that statement.

Also, maybe I'm just confused here, but aren't Mint and Cinnamon the same interface? I know Mint can use other desktops like MATE, but when I hear "Mint desktop" I kind of assume they mean Cinnamon.

Ultimately up to you, but there's something to be said for viewing less but enjoying what you do view more fully, or even just allowing yourself time to experience and react to something. It can be like taking time to savor and really enjoy a meal instead of scarfing it down so fast that you can barely taste it.

(Though as someone who frequently is watching TV while doing something else, I really don't have that much room to talk. And the value of taking it relatively slowly may depend a lot on what it is you're watching anyway.)

That was another effect though... I felt like I was generally becoming more impatient. And it seemed like any slim benefits I was getting from absorbing more content (or just absorbing it faster) was outweighed by the more frequent (and frequently unwarranted) feelings of frustration and impatience.

Again, not that I never listen at faster speeds now. I just moderate it more. I'd hate to get to a point where I couldn't just go see a movie in theaters because the pacing would frustrate me.