Were people "fear-mongering" when they said we should probably update the 2digit date storage during 1999? Like, sometimes people say there will be an issue and then people actually take action to fix it before we all die.
Please do this. Here are some examples to add to your list, leaving out the 26.0 bugs that I've come to expect running a .0 release.
1. I won't focus on a bunch of Siri items, but one example that always bugs me: I cannot ask Siri to give me directions to my next meeting. The latest OS introduces an answer for the first time, though. It tells me to open the calendar app on my Apple watch, and tap on the meeting, and tap the address. (I don't have an Apple watch.)
2. Mail.app on iOS does not have a "share sheet." This makes it impossible to "do" anything with an email message, like send it to a todo app. (The same problem exists with messages in Messages.app)
3. It is impossible to share a contact card from Messages.app (both iOS and MacOS). You have to leave messages, go to contacts and select the contact to share. Contacts should be one of the apps that shows up in the "+" list like photos, camera, cash, and plenty third party apps.
4. You still have to set the default system mail app in MacOS as a setting in the Mail.app, instead of in system settings. Last I checked, I'm pretty sure you couldn't do this, without first setting up an account in the Mail.app. Infuriating.
> Mail.app on iOS does not have a "share sheet." This makes it impossible to "do" anything with an email message, like send it to a todo app.
You can’t directly share the mail message, but you can “share” selected text or you can use the “print” option to generate a PDF of the message and “share” that instead. Not very discoverable but might cover at least some of what you want to do.
Also not sure if it’s new with iOS 26 but for the contacts thing you can at least skip the “leave messages and search for the contact in the contacts app” part. There’s button in the contact info that will take you directly to the contact in the contacts app. It does feel silly that you can’t share direct from the card in messages though.
I had that complaint about Mail too. Then I realized you can begin dragging an email (from the list view), switch apps with your other hand, and drop it into, say, a todo. Of course, this is less discoverable, so I agree a Share button would not go amiss.
This has been done. Women seem to have certain health benefits that stop after menopause. Reading about it was the first time I wondered whether blood letting made sense.
God, this is so ignorant, the hormonal changes (loss of estrogen) are the cause of increased risks for heart disease and osteoporosis and changes in metabolism post-menopause. Nothing to do with not physically losing blood, FFS.
There are likely multiple causal factors behind the health differences. Hormonal changes are one piece of the puzzle but so far no one has conclusively proved that physically losing blood has zero effect. The research just hasn't been done yet so we can't definitively say one way or the other.
This is why a couple of conservative schools don't accept any sort of federal money. Liberal schools might be considering doing the same.
Otherwise, yes, an independent school can do what they want. If you want to be truly independent, you have to be willing to walk away from the money. Anybody that gives money can attach conditions to it, including the government.
Once the government is involved, everything is "interpretation." Unemployment? Well... it depends on what you mean by unemployment. We changed how we "count" a few years back. Owe? It depends what you mean by "owe." What is the definition of "is?"
To say that tariffs don't actually bring in money is simply wrong. We are talking about income to the government. Yes, tariffs take actual money and give it to the government. It doesn't matter where it came from, inside or outside the US.
If your definitions are used, then literally nothing actually brings in money. It just moves it from one place to another.
Not true, issuing a loan brings in money (albeit mirrored by an equal amount of debt). So the federal deficit brings in a substantial amount of money. In the same vein, paying down the national debt completely, an oft-cited goal of some national leaders, destroys all money.
Setting aside the issue of generating money, which is not under discussion, and which loans can help with, do you really still claim that "The tariffs don't actually bring in money"? 51% of the government income is from income taxes, which you would say "doesn't actually bring in money." So what exactly is the point of talking the way you are talking?
Our current leadership and their populist supporters are super gung-ho on converting the US into a mercantile economy like China. That's what these tariffs are about: creating an environment of protectionism from which the US will emerge as an export powerhouse, with massive trade imbalances in the US' favor.
So in their own language, these tariffs are merely domestic transfers of capital and do not 'bring in money.'
The language under discussion is the national debt and deficit.
You’re trying to make a political point by changing the definition of words.
I may agree with your point, but pretending like tariffs don’t generate income that bring down the deficit is not the way to argue it. It just convinces people you aren’t arguing in good faith, or don’t understand simple math.
The last legal ruling on the matter found that they are mostly being enacted illegally by using emergency powers[1] and may end up being refunded entirely. So until they are actually able to be booked, we can't say they are impacting the budget one way or another. If they aren't legalized then the work it took to collect and then refund them all is money that may as well have been incinerated.
> The tariffs don't actually bring in money, they just move money from one place (US taxpayers, who'd otherwise use it productively) and put it elsewhere (the treasury).
So your argument seems to be “We have yet to see whether these new tariffs are legal and therefore whether the income will be able to be kept.”
That’s a far cry from saying tariffs don’t generate income for the government, which is what I understood you to be saying.
It's going to be the biggest heist in American history. That tariff revenue is as good as gone. It's not about whether the money can actually be brought in, but more about the reality that crooks have access to the pot. It's really all about that. These are not fiscal conservatives generating revenue to pay down debt, these are actual crooks that will gift it to each other.
It is true that the dems have not been good on the topic of mass surveillance. Obama leveraged and expanded what Bush had built, the Obama DoJ defended mass surveillance in court, and Biden didn't do anything to change this direction. The dems found this stuff to be too useful and appealing to resist and helped build the machine that now supports Trump's fascism.
But it is also correct to say that Trump is a fascist and that Biden wasn't one.
Because you can't ask the search engine to summarize the views or thoughts or whatever, of the user. You have to scroll through them by the hundreds and see if any obvious nuggets stand out that you might be interested in.
Yes, search engine history is private too and can reveal stuff you want to remain private. But you also need to see the browser history and the contents of those pages, together with the search history to see what the user was actually interested in reading to get close to the same level of data the the LLM has about you.
You might be surprised at the amount of people that interact with a search engine in the same way they do with an LLM. Especially now that many put an LLM widget at the top of results for queries like that.
One doesn't have to scroll through them and find the nuggets themselves; it's digital data. It can be copied[1].
Once copied, one can then paste it into an LLM and have it find the nuggets.
[1]: And by "copied," I mean... even a long series of hasty cell phone photos of the screen is enough for ChatGPT to ingest the data with surprising accuracy. It's really good at this kind of thing.
It sounds to me like you’re agreeing with the person above who said ChatGPT isn’t a new threat, but your explanation uses ChatGPT. In other words, “ChatGPT isn’t a new threat because even with a search engine you can use ChatGPT to look through the queries”.
ChatGPT is absolutely a new "threat", at very least because it trivializes the automation of coarse analyzation of unstructured information -- including a user's search history.
To add on to this, people tend to search short words and phrases in Google. Searching "Charlie Kirk assassination" for example doesn't really tell much about a person's political leanings. People have full on conversations with ChatGPT which makes their thoughts much clearer.
“The A students work for the B students and the C students become federal judges.”
reply