We can live without exotic hardwood species splattering our floors. The look and feel of laminate/engineered wood can be quite good and it will only improve with time.
I’m not a conservationist but I don’t think it’s proper to cut down trees only to waste it on flooring if the replenishment of the tree species cannot be accomplished.
With that said, I think all floors should be made out of bamboo.
In the northeastern US and eastern Canada, pine, oak and maple are definitely renewable resources. Pine is easier and quicker than the local hardwoods, to be fair.
Using renewable wood for flooring is a carbon sink for the lifetime of the building, which can be a hundred years or more in New England. And like I said, I know of one softwood floor from the 1850s that's still gorgeous enough to photograph. And that wood had been abused over the century plus—it had been painted badly, and the building had been outright abandoned for a while.
Laminate and engineered wood is unlikely to see more than a quarter century without clever care, because you can't actually sand the wood. If you never let it wear down to the wood, I suspect you can carefully hand-sand, and bond varnish to varnish, and buy an extra 20 years each time if you never delay a refinishing. But that's just a guess.
“If only they didn't put the power button on the bottom.”
While I think Apple was off the rocker on this particular decision, I do respect their org structure that allows this type of decision to occur. Believe me, there are companies where a dozen people or more would weigh in and prevent an unpopular choice. Consensus sometimes hinders a desired result (both good and bad).
It's a way of signaling how the product should be used. Plug it in, hit the power button, put it down, and never turn it off again. For many users that's probably the only time they will ever interact with that button (or want to).
I actually think it's a really good choice and shows Apple really understands design. And with the relatively low power consumption it makes sense. It's not like it's drawing a ton of power on idle
I have a Mac Mini and can't remember the last time I had to manually press the button. IIRC it even reboots on its own after a power outage.
I think I shut it down once for an extended vacation just to make sure appliances weren't on while I was gone and when I switched apartments. Otherwise I'd check and post my uptime from the command line.
It's a launch M1 mini so I'd wager less times pressing the power button than I have fingers on one hand.
Apple Silicon devices turn on automatically from IO, even after shut down, so the power button is only useful to: force shutdown if unresponsive or execute some sort of boot key combo to enter a recovery mode.
And if you use bluetooth IO (non-apple). I do on my Mac Mini M2, and yet I have maybe pressed that button 3 times in the year that I am using it as my main machine as I never power it off.
I'd never thought about it before reading this comment but I now realise I don't even know where the power button on my Mac Studio is. I used it once when I first set it up and haven't touched it since.
> I actually think it's a really good choice and shows Apple really understands design. And with the relatively low power consumption it makes sense. It's not like it's drawing a ton of power on idle
I use a Mac Mini (older model) in my music studio. It shares a surge protector with approx. $12k worth of audio gear (some of it nearly impossible to replace). I have all the gear + the surge protector switched off anytime I'm not using it. Which is most of the time.
While the weight and form factor would make powering the M4 Mini on a little more than a nuisance, I have a hard time lumping this into one of Apple's great design features.
M1 and newer Mac Minis automatically power on when plugged in/given power. If you're using an external power switch then that basically becomes the power button.
I'd still like the button to have been on the side or something over looks but it does seem like a pretty reasonable choice overall.
This is a setting in the control center, not sure what is the default though. You can make it auto-boot when external power switch is used, through that setting for sure.
Even if it is rarely used there is no benefit of making it hard to access. There is no harm in having an easy-to-access button that is rarely used.
I guess someone thinks the astetics are worth it, but even if the power button did notably harm astetics (which I doubt) I would take functionality over astetics any day.
If there were two models with different power button placements which one do you think people would buy?
Apple could have found a way to put the button somewhere else and make it nearly invisible, but that's expensive and the Mac mini is clearly designed with cost in mind.
If you want cheap and functional, you're in luck because that's pretty much all anybody makes.
Apple makes it difficult to access because they want to make sure you don't use it often, as they believe the experience of waking up the computer from sleep is better than starting it up.
It's a conscious decision based not on design, but on UX, as with the Magic Mouse USB port.
They were successful in annoying every customer of this product and being the laughing stock of even their most die hard supporters.
Like even across all the very Apple oriented publication, almost no one is recommending this mouse (even though the touch surface can be usefull).
I have the Magic Mouse and I had the previous version that just had battery swap. The experience on the newer one is much worse, previously you just had to spend 30 sec for a battery swap and you were on your way. Now you need to wait at least 5 min and you better not forget to put it to charge before leaving the computer, otherwise tomorrow the same problem await you.
And this is compounded by the fact that it has terrible battery life to begin with, especially considering the extremely mediocre sensor they put in it. Logitech has mouseq with much better sensors that last much longer on battery and they don't even have the charge problem.
If anything, the last generation of Magic Mouse is a testament of Apple's utter disdain for its customer and the general lack of care they have around user experience today.
They have the best chips around but it can't be just that.
Zero power draw is still less than a little power draw. A couple million of these babies running on idle is a considerable amount of power. Please, turn off devices when you're not using them.
Any modern computer system uses a lot of power for a few minutes after bootup. If you use the machine a few times per day you're wasting energy (and your own time) by turning it off instead of using sleep mode.
Completely agree! We just 3D printed a base switch that makes it easy to turn your Mini on and off. Here's a link: https://m4button.com/ (if you have a 3D printer, you don't need this).
> It's not like it's drawing a ton of power on idle
Probably even drawing less than a "normal" PC PSU would just burn to heat in losses, lol. 3 watts of total idle power consumption, that's nuts how low it is...
Your average PC PSU hits up to 95% efficiency, so even at maximum efficiency at full load it would burn like 30 watts.
The quote efficiency on most PSU would be around the half load (more or less). The total system draw does not include the power supply - it will have its own losses esp on low end, still likely in the 80s
This is actually how I've used my M1 Macbook Pro since I got it. I never fully turn it in. It's either sleeping when plugging into my Thunderbolt 3 dock, or its sleeping on my dining room table on battery power. The efficiency is so good it never dies even if I don't use it for a day.
My work machine is an M3 Macbook Pro. I put it to sleep on a Friday, and after a three-day weekend, it's still ready to go on Tuesday with 95% of battery left.
What's irritating is that a lot of Intel laptops used to be able to get pretty close to this, back when they supported legacy sleep states. I have yet to own a newer Intel laptop that can sleep for more than 24 hours without almost completely draining the battery.
I think it is really bad design. Perhaps necessary because of space restraints and in that case understandable. But that is entirely different to good design and I cannot really buy the "use case explanation".
Many leave their devices on their desk and Apple always had a problem with just letting devices turn of completely, there are regularly problems with it. And they do drain power on idle, which is a frequent complaint.
Yes, we are that insane to use a lot of Apple devices for business in some departments. MDM for phones and iPads is top for the baseline administration, but the devices are eccentric to say the least.
On a related note, the original Macintosh shipped with a physically inaccessible reset button, and the manual cautioned against installing the (bundled) switch that enabled access because "using it the wrong way could cause you to lose information":
After buying one, I actually like it. I know exactly where it is, and can reach for it by feel more easily; I could never tell you whether the power button was on the left or right side of the old Mini/Studio without checking each time.
It's also larger, more satisfying tactile/clicky, and concave compared to the old button (which was rounded into the outside curve, not particularly be satisfying to press). I think the old one being so small and indistinct feeling, and also being so close to the cables meant you would never try to reach for it blindly. You do have to lift it up a bit, but the device is so light you can do that with the same finger you're using to push the button (of course you need another finger to push the top of the mini _down_).
I think neither old nor new button were really meant to be used more than occasionally, since you typically wake your Mac from the keyboard, and both designs reflect that. I do sympathize that the new version could be less flexible in different mounting positions though.
(that said, I'd bet Jobs/Ive Apple would never have shipped this, unless the height underneath was exactly perfect for even the larger fingers to fit)
The GP's same argument also applies to the Magic Mouse, as it happens:
> It's a way of signaling how the product should be used.
In the Magic Mouse's case, it came out just on the cusp of wireless mice becoming "a thing." Most people, if they were allowed, would have just left the mouse tethered to a computer by its charging cable at all times, since that's what they were used to. But Apple thought you'd be happier once you stopped doing that. So someone (Ive?) decided to make it so that you couldn't charge the Magic Mouse and use it at the same time. This did two things:
1. it forced people to try using the Magic Mouse without any cable connected, so that they would notice the added freedom a wireless mouse affords. It was a "push out of the nest."
2. it made charging annoying and flow-breaking enough that people would put it off as long as possible — which would make people realize that the Magic Mouse's battery lasted for weeks on a charge, and so you really never would need to interrupt your flow to charge; you'd just maybe leave it plugged in to charge when you leave work on a Friday night (and even then, only when it occurs to you), and that'd be it.
---
One could argue that the truly strange thing, is that Apple has never changed this design, 15 years and one revision later. That's an entire human generation! Presumably people these days know that peripherals can be wireless and have long battery life.
But consider: Apple's flagship mousing peripheral — the one shown next to the Magic Keyboard in all product marketing photos — is the Magic Trackpad, not the Magic Mouse. The Magic Trackpad is the first-class option for multitouch interaction with macOS; some more-recent multitouch gestures don't even work on the Magic Mouse. (The Magic Mouse never got "3D touch", for one thing.) In other words, the Magic Mouse is basically a forgotten also-ran at this point — something just there on the wall in the Apple Store for those few people who can't stand the idea of using a desktop computer through a giant trackpad.
Which leads to an interesting question: what is the user-profile for the person who buys (or is bought) a Magic Mouse in 2024?
Well, probably one major user-profile is "your grandpa, a retiree from a publishing company, who's been using the same computer he brought home from work 20 years ago, until it broke last week — that computer being a Power Mac G5 with a Mighty Mouse; and who has never had a laptop, and so never learned to use a trackpad."
And if the Magic Mouse user is your grandpa... then said user probably does still need the cord-cutting lesson that the Magic Mouse "teaches"!
> it made charging annoying and flow-breaking enough that people would put it off as long as possible — which would make people realize that the Magic Mouse's battery lasted for weeks on a charge
At a certain point this just reads like Apple apologia. They made a mouse you can’t use while it’s charging as a means to advertise how long the battery lasts? What?
But it’s not an apology, it’s the right design decision. The battery charges to a usable amount extremely quickly, and if you could plug it in all the time most would, which defeats the point.
> if you could plug it in all the time most would, which defeats the point
The point of a mouse is to be a usable mouse. If folks care enough for it to be wireless then they can use it that way, but if they don't what's actually wrong with using it plugged in? Screams iPhone 4 era "holding it the wrong way". Baffles me why you'd want to provide fewer options for your customer to charge their wireless mouse in order to make them do it the "right way".
If you want to always drive a car with the parking brake on you can — it's your car — but if a driving instructor sees you doing it, they'll give you a demerit. Because you're massively hobbling the car vs. its design space.
> in order to make them do it the "right way".
To be clear, Apple likely didn't want to force people to always use the mouse that way; what they were likely aiming for was a "silent tutorial" — like the Super Mario Bros 1-1 "goombas hurt you, while mushrooms are something you want" thing.
It's just that, in a hardware product, there's no good way to force someone to do something a certain way the first time (in order to teach them), without forcing them to always do it that way.
I’m sorry but this is an absurd comparison. Driving a car with the handbrake on has an adverse effect on the primary purpose of the car. Using a wireless mouse with the wire attached still leaves you with an entirely functional mouse. Using it wirelessly is a preference. It is absurd to defend Apple forcing people to use it without a wire because it will “enforce design purpose”. If they need to do so then it’s the wrong purpose.
Why should Apple care if I want to leave the device plugged in all the time? How does this choice remotely affect them?
Same with this power button: why should Apple care whether or not I power off the device when I’m done using it and turn it back on in the morning? This all just seems like pointless behavior control.
> Why should Apple care if I want to leave the device plugged in all the time? How does this choice remotely affect them?
Because the wireless-ness of the mouse (while also being a macOS-compatible multi-touch surface) was the selling point / feature / Unique Selling Proposition of this mouse vs. other mice (and vs. the previous Apple Mighty Mouse.)
I don't know if you've ever had the opportunity to see many "normal" people's home-office desks, but I have — I worked as a call-out computer repair tech as a teen. And it taught me something: a lot of people have a really small or cluttered "mousing area" — often arranged in such a way that, for a wired mouse, the mouse's wire gets in the way of the mousing surface.
Picture, for example, an old 18"-deep sewing desk up against a wall, on which the user has placed their laptop [effectively permanently, as its battery is long dry]; with a bunch of other things like tiny little speakers and an inkjet printer competing for space on that tiny desk, such that there is only a 8"x8" square of free space to the right of a laptop. The user's mouse is then plugged into a USB-A port of the laptop that's also on the right [mouse cable is too short to plug it in on the left!], with the port being at about the center of the laptop's side. This mouse cable now "wants" to lay directly into the center of that clear 8"x8" square of space; and even if you bend it harshly, there's at least two inches of USB-A plug + cable strain-relief that will still be poking you in the hand.
(Why do they use a mouse at all, if they have a laptop, which presumably has a trackpad? Because trackpads on laptops — especially smaller/older/cheaper ones — can be ridiculously awful [tiny, laggy, insensitive, jumpy, etc], such that this cramped mousing experience is still better than the alternative.)
In such setups, "erasing" the mouse's tether to the computer is not just for aesthetics; it's a genuine ergonomic improvement that makes it "feel" better to use the computer.
And that means that any average cramped-desk person who buys one of these new-fangled wireless mice (or a computer that comes with one) — and actually does use it un-tethered — is going to become not only an advocate for wireless mice, but also likely an advocate of whatever brand of the mouse/computer was, due to the novelty-capture halo effect. (I.e. the "if you only date awful people, you'll become obsessive about the first romantic partner to be decent to you" effect. Decency [or wirelessness] isn't unique; but if you only know it from one place...)
That viral halo-effect-induced word-of-mouth brand-advocacy created by being at the vanguard of the Bluetooth wireless peripheral transition, is the potential upside that Apple saw when creating the Magic Mouse.
And it wouldn't be one they could capture, if they allowed sheer incuriosity to lead that average cramped-desk user to never even try the mouse without the charging cable attached (or, worse yet, if the Macs that shipped with Magic Mice were set up by people who didn't even know the mouse was supposed to be wireless — thinking instead that the mouse was just a wired mouse with a "modular" cable!)
---
Now, admittedly, Apple had many other ways they could have achieved the same goals.
For example, they could have just detected that you're using a Magic Mouse with one of their computers for the first time, and forced you through a little software tutorial that gets you to unplug it — and use it unplugged — for a bit.
I'm guessing they didn't go with that solution for several reasons:
• it goes against the marketing of Macs as being "ready to use for productivity out-of-the-box". Forcing you through a hand-holding tutorial isn't very "ready." (And mark my word, if there was a skip button, even the people most in need of that tutorial — especially those people — would skip it. People don't read manuals on frickin' home CPAP machines, and then die; you think they're reading that?)
• Apple loves thinking of themselves as a design company first and foremost. (Apple products are all stamped "designed in California" — that's what Apple does there, they design things.) And if you know anything about "design" as an academic discipline, you know it's all about figuring out how to shape products or information in ways that cause people to subconsciously/intuitively make certain choices. The core of Information Design is visual hierarchy — "organizing and formatting text to ensure someone glancing at a poster gets the most critical information before glancing away." The core of Industrial Design is the concept of affordances — "putting push-plates on the push side of a door and pull-bars on the pull side." Apple doesn't want to stop you and tell you how to use their stuff; Apple thinks they are clever enough to design their products such that they afford being used in exactly the intended way. And when the product's design "fights back" from having a positive affordance to idiomatic usage... they just design more forcibly, actively de-affordancing non-idiomatic usage.
• A tutorial that pops up on Macs doesn't help someone who wandered into an Apple Store; bought a Magic Mouse (a perfect "this store is too expensive for me, but I want to buy something" purchase in an Apple Store ca. 2009); went home, and promptly plugged it into... their Windows PC. Yes, people really do sometimes buy Mac peripherals and expect them to upgrade their Windows-using experience, not realizing that Windows doesn't have the particular set of multitouch gestures mentioned on the back of the box (especially not back in 2009.) The "hardware tutorial", meanwhile, is platform-neutral.
Thanks for the really really long reply... You've exhaustively gone over the selling points for a wireless mouse and why people would want and buy one. I don't think any of it is in question. It's great to have a mouse that can work without a cord connected. I bought a wireless mouse (not Apple's) because I agree with you about the selling points. What I don't get is why not also allow it to be used plugged in, if the user wants to, assuming it costs about the same to put the charging port on the front, and can be done without compromising the industrial design? Why deliberately make it useless while plugged in?
Please explain how it's in my best interest that I must use my peripherals wirelessly. The only wireless mouse I have ever owned is in my work bag, so I have one wherever I go, it's not for regular use and I have zero problems with mouse cables, for the actual 30th year this December.
Because it’s the design of the product? Every product is designed with a specific usage in mind. This is designed to be wireless, hence all of the ways in which it enforces and enables that. The battery lasts a very long time, so even in your work bag it should be fine (although are you then plugging into many different computers to associate it?)
If you want a corded mouse (and it sounds like that’s a better fit), there are plenty of options on the market.
The port on the bottom is really the least offensive element of the design. I know people find it fun to clown on, but if any of them had ever used one for 5 minutes they would realize it's a terrible mouse for a bunch of other more important reasons (weight, feet quality, tracking accuracy, polling rate etc.).
Yeah I hate that people go for the easy fodder, which barely effects real world use, and ignore the multiple actual issues with it that would make it quite poor even if the charging port was fixed.
There is one thing where you are right: Apple doesn't care much about mouses and is all in with trackpads.
But this also completely disproves your theory about why the charging port is on the bottom of the Magic Mouse. Indeed, both the Magic Trackpad and the Magic Keyboard have charging ports on their back, making it very easy to use them wired, which many people do.
If Apple was so set on forcing people to use their wireless peripherals without the wire, you would find the port on the bottom too. Yes, it would be very dumb and this is exactly what it is with the Magic Mouse.
The only difference is that the Magic Mouse was first designed with a door for swappable batteries and when they did the refresh and just put a port in its place with no further amelioration.
Both the keyboard and trackpad shape changed (became thinner because there was no need for round batteries storage anymore) but they didn't change the mouse.
We can make all kinds of theories about why but the simple answer is that they don't care and they feel like their mouse looks nice and don't want to invest in changing the design.
This is pretty much all there is to it, lots of apathy towards customers and a general lack of care, otherwise they could have made some other upgrades (like the sensor) a long time ago, without having to touch this stupid charging port.
And this is why they get a lot of shit for it and it's well deserved, if Apple is too lazy to make a mouse, then they shouldn't make one, especially not one that cost a 100.
All the apologetic theories about teaching people to use wireless stuff are so nonsense its really crazy that people can believe that.
You might be right, but I'm not sure the timeline lines up.
The Magic Trackpad didn't exist when the Magic Mouse 1 (the one with AA batteries) was designed. So they definitely cared about the design of the Magic Mouse at that time.
The Magic Mouse 2 (the one with that added the bottom charging port) was released on the same day as the Magic Trackpad 2, and the Magic Keyboard 1. The three devices were almost certainly designed together, likely by the same industrial designer. And, because the Magic Keyboard was a ground-up design at the time, this would have been one of the more-senior designers doing a complete design cycle, aiming to create a coherent "peripheral brand image" to suit the marketing of a new generation of Macs.
If that designer chose to do very little to the (external) design of the Magic Mouse 1 to update it to the Magic Mouse 2, that might be because they were taking operational-logistics concerns into account, e.g. a stock of existing aluminum housings + multitouch-digitizer-laminated plastic covers. But, more likely in my opinion, they just thought that the IXD of the Magic Mouse 1 already achieved its goals (in Apple's conception, not necessarily the consumer's!), and already aligned with the brand image they wanted for the Magic Trackpad 2 and Magic Keyboard 1.
Remember that the Magic Mouse is a mouse. You need to grip it and move it, and it needs to have a certain amount of inertia so that bumping it doesn't shoot it off your table. So it needs to have a certain weight and a certain height.
I have a strong suspicion that, back when developing the MM1, Apple's design team invested into a design-prototyping human-factors-analysis phase, to find an optimal height and weight (and center of gravity!) for the Magic Mouse, so that it would "feel good in the hand" and hit some optimum between "gliding and clicking well as a mouse" and "resisting running away from you when used as a multitouch surface."
If I recall consumer reviews at the time, the MM1 was taken as a step-change in the "prioritization of function over form" of Apple's mice. Before the MM1, Apple's last ergonomically-satisfying mouse had been the Apple Desktop Mouse II back in 1992! In the late 90s/early 2000s — that's the iMac "puck mouse" and Apple Pro Mouse era — many people had been just tossing out the mouse their Macs came with, and buying PC mice instead!
Since the MM1's (very likely) evidence-based design had been so successful, the designer of the MM2 probably wanted to reuse the "backed by the research" numbers the MM1 had arrived at. As long as human hands are human hands, those will still be the right numbers (at least when viewed through the lens of Apple's internal IXD-culture biases.)
There are several ways the MM2's designer could have aimed to hit these same numbers — but the simplest way to do it (provided the old design still "fit" in the new line-up) would be to keep the external form-factor the same (thus keeping the height and grip the same), and add just enough lithium-ion capacity inside the device, in just the right place, to hit the same weight and center of gravity that the MM1 had.
---
> both the Magic Trackpad and the Magic Keyboard have charging ports on their back, making it very easy to use them wired, which many people do
The Magic Keyboard and Magic Trackpad don't need to move. They're supposed to stay where they are, unless you pick them up. So they can maximize thinness and lightness (which looks "sexy", and is better for supply-side materials and shipping costs), while staying in place by just having really grippy feet (made of the most dust-collecting silicone I've ever seen on a device.)
Apple doesn't care if you leave the Magic Trackpad or Magic Keyboard plugged in all the time, because they're stationary. There's no User Experience "magic" you get by unplugging them. Unplugging them is convenient in certain limited-space environments, and de-clutters your desk, and looks good in product photos — but it doesn't make using them better.
---
ETA: I looked into what actually changed between the MM1 and MM2. You might be surprised!
Keeping the same external form-factor, doesn't mean that the MM2 was just "the MM1 with a lithium cell where the batteries had been."
Here are fully-disassembled images of the MM1 and MM2, c/o iFixit:
So, for starters, there was clearly a complete internal redesign and rework of the board. Different ICs, different layout — even a different sensor, in a different package, from a different vendor, with different optics.
Also take notice of how the charge controller is integrated onto the MM2's mainboard. There are companies that have transitioned pre-manufactured devices to a rechargeable rev, by "just slapping a charging port in where the battery door had been" — and those companies tend to stick the charge controller and charge connector together to form a little floating board, and run flying leads from that floating board to the mainboard in one direction, and to the battery cells in another, so that the whole charging assembly together "presents as batteries" to the mainboard, whether it's being charged or not. This was not that kind of hackjob.
And actually, the external design changed in several subtle ways, too. Note the differently-designed runners that interface into the housing in a different way, for example. Note that even the digitizer connection to the underside of the touch surface is different — which probably implies a different digitizer, and means that they couldn't reuse the existing acrylic top housings (that they almost certainly get shipped to them with digitizers already laminated in.)
In other words: the MM2 didn't reuse anything! These are entirely different parts, that just happen to look the same on the outside.
There would have thus been no parts-reuse advantage in putting the charging port where they did. It was a "free choice" — they could have put it anywhere. They were milling out new, different aluminum bottom housings (that have more material than before, so they can't just be reworks of the previous rev's bottom housing) — there was nothing stopping the designer from putting a little hole in that bottom housing on the front side!
(Nothing, that is, other than the designer's likely belief that the MM1 form factor — where the bottom housing of the mouse tapers thinner at the front and back so that the top housing basically meets the mousing surface — was some kind of Good, Evidence-Backed Ergonomics, that they would be sacrificing if they made the whole mouse body a few mm taller to give a front-side port somewhere to extrude from. I repeat what I said before: this was an ideals-driven choice, not laziness.)
This is a really interesting view, and I have to admit this actually makes sense. Wireless mice definitely are nicer to use, and you can usually make them charge fast enough that a five minute charge while you take a short break is enough to get you through the day to a proper charge.
I must admit, in light of that logic I can totally buy placing the charge port like that solely to force users to use the mouse correctly.
The Magic Mouse refresh was done way after Jobs death.
The Cube had a very annoying design for ports indeed, but at least it was very easy to open/repair, with a handle specifically for it.
But for sure it was a case of looks trumping everything, including practicality, unsurprisingly it didn't sell very well.
I mind this design decision a hell of a lot less than the baffling deliberate decision to map EVERY KEYBOARD BUTTON to be equivalent to the power button (which the damn thing already has) on their laptop line-up.
I love it when my macbook is turned off and I accidentally nudge a single letter on the keyboard and it powers back on - not to mention when you're drying to clean it with a micro fiber cloth.
For better or worse, I have a habit of clicking the touchpad or a few keys after I shut down my laptop. Just to make sure it's shut down properly. Back in Windows days with HDDs and hibernate, laptops sometimes took minutes to shut down completely, and I don't like closing the lid before shut down is complete.
Now, I end up restarting with that mere act, and have to long-press to shut down again because the shut down option won't show up on login screen.
With a locked screen, key presses go to the password field. I have twice caused my user account to become disabled due to too many password attempts while cleaning my keyboard.
If you fully shut down a mac laptop, you have to press and hold the power button to turn it back on. Not sure what you’re talking about here and probably why you’re getting downvoted.
I don't know about every macbook, but I just tried this twice on my 2019 macbook pro and pressing any key on the keyboard (or at least the 2 keys I tried, "f" and "8") will power it on when it is powered off (yes, fully shut down, not asleep). Based on some quick googling, this still appears to be the case for M-series macbooks.
That’s a pretty wild definition of “fully shut down” that manufacturers (not just Apple) are pushing. When my device is shut down, I expect it to be fully de-energized and drawing zero current. How can a keyboard action re-apply power if the button itself is not completing the power circuit?
This is one of the reasons I’ve started putting all of my devices on power strips with physical switches that de-energize the AC mains. You can’t even trust devices to power off when they say they are off.
The number of devices in your home that draw current when they are “off” is too damn high.
All Mac devices still come with a headphone jack - and they are even good for higher impedance headphones (I use a 32ohms DT770 on my Macbook/MacMini).
For mobile devices, removing the headphone jack was not well received and it annoyed me too when it happened. Last year I made the switch to airpod pros, and I think I was the last person on earth to switch to BT for headphones - never looking back. So much better not to have a cable and untangled it.
I value flexibility in a product more than just about anything else. I will quite often choose the product with more features and use cases, even if it means paying a little extra money, just to have the _option_ to use a particular feature, even if I'm quite sure I won't use it on a daily basis.
You don’t press it very often and this makes it harder to press accidentally (eg putting stuff on top of the computer or a curious cat). I very rarely use the power button on a computer but maybe we behave differently.
That's what I was going to say. Do people still use these ? Given the low power and the general stability (I often have 150-300 days of uptime on my macbook m1) why not just put it to sleep and wake it up with the keyboard/mouse ? I can't even remember the last time I actually rebooted my desktop, maybe last year and I'm not even sure
I'm the first to shit on apple but this sounds like a complete non issue
The US seem to document it better. Googling for news on "florida man" is almost always impressive. Just now we have "Florida man has been arrested after allegedly hiding two radio-controlled explosive devices in the toilets of a casino", "Florida Man Accused of Hacking Disney World Menus, Changing Font to Wingdings", "Florida man bitten twice by shark at same beach over a decade apart" and others.
Aside from the crazy high bill, wouldn't a person whom this happened to get charged for medical coverage regardless of how it happened in every country without free healthcare?
I think it’s more easy to consider when you think about what is in the bill. Like do you really want them invoicing the company that hit you with “reconstructing their wiener”, etc information.
Cranking up R&D especially during a time to perfect the trade sounds backward. Intel probably has 6 more years then to release anything into full production.
It's also what bums me out about YouTube. There is an insane amount of effort that goes into producing high-quality videos - orders of magnitude more than would go into putting together a well-illustrated blog post.
As with blogs, a lot of this effort is wasted unless you get lucky. But with blogs, at least you have multiple good shots at visibility. Maybe you'll make it to the top of HN, maybe on X, maybe somewhere else. Even within a single platform, you usually have multiple tries. If you don't get noticed right away, there's still hope that someone else shares your content down the line.
In contrast, on YouTube, an algorithm essentially decides once. If you don't already have a zillion subscribers, it shows your video to a couple of people, more or less at random. If they don't engage, that's the end of the road.
There are surprisingly few venues for video content outside YT, at least not on a scale that would matter on YT! For example, if you want to get to the top of HN, non-video content has much better odds. Many tech- or science-centric subreddits discourage or ban videos too.
YT is a fairly closed ecosystem that's both insanely resource-intensive to participate in, and that doesn't give creators too many second chances. My specific claim is that it's more of a crapshoot than running a blog. There are so many great science visualizations with 50 views.
HN is relatively tiny and HN's allergy to video is not representative of the internet.
Just create clips from your video and post them on insta, tiktok, twitter, FB, etc. That's the internet at large. If people are interested, they'll watch the full video.
HN is small as a discussion community, but it is huge in terms of the traffic it generates to top-ranked URLs. There are fairly mainstream publications that optimize for HN, and I have spoken to marketers and PR people who described HN as by far the most significant source of traffic to their sites.
It doesn't necessarily translate to sales or lasting attention, but if you're after brand recognition or SEO, it's great. Spend some time on /newest to see how many organizations are desperate to get a piece of this.
It's not really that small and I don't know why people say that.
Last time I saw stats, it was five million monthly visitors. It's small as a platform. It's smaller than Reddit or Facebook, but those aren't discussion communities.
There aren't huge numbers of subreddits larger than five million people and last I looked the largest tended to be about trivial BS.
Last I checked, HN is the largest serious tech discussion board on the planet.
I've gotten traffic from HN and /r/programming, and the influx from HN is larger. I think it's a function of two things. First, /r/programming is higher-volume (i.e., more front-page links per day). Second, Reddit subscriber counts are not DAU / MAU, it likely includes a ton of inactive accounts.
Funny I just looked and Reddit says r/programming is 4.1m which last I checked is less than the 5 million unique visitors HN was getting a few years ago when I last saw stats by the moderator and I don't know what it's at now.
Twitter works completely differently from most platforms and isn't a unified community.
I'm not super active on social media, and I find that all the big/main aggregator sites (like HN and Reddit and others) have become victims of their own success and good stories just fall off the front page very quickly, and so you miss a ton of stuff unless you're checking all the time, and I don't have that kind of time.
Link aggregators aren't good at "long tail"... So your good stories are only really discoverable when they're hot, and get progressively harder to discover over time.
Google search just sucks now, it's all shopping links and SEO trash, even if you search for fairly specific subjects.. You can still find what you want but you have to wade through so much garbage...
Plus there's no discovery. Like pretty much all search engines you can typically only find what you're searching for as opposed to finding new unknown things that are within your topics of interest.
For better or worse I find that YouTube is one of my best resources for surfacing new and interesting things pretty often, and quite regularly from channels big and small that I've never watched before. YT is great at long tail..
So it has become a major source of discovery for me, in many of my areas of interest (which aren't all tech).
Of course some content I don't like consuming as video, so I do sometimes find videos that cover interesting subject matter, which I'll then go search for articles or text-based content on instead.
I see, though I do consider that part of YouTube to be a net negative for everyone but Google considering how it's keeping people on the platform, and therefore less likely to look for more varied sources.
But what I meant is that people share links around, whether in public like here, or in one-on-one discussions (and blogs do have their own recommended lists), so it's quite possible that you would still have found out about them without any kind of algorithmic prodding.
For instance, to put this in practice, here's a science education focused personal website that I like a lot :
We all find content in ways that suit our time/resources/network etc.. I do get lots of links and recommendations from friends and co-workers (and on places like here), but I also get a lot of it from platforms, and I think that's a good thing.
I'm not anti-algorithm (not saying you are) and I believe it's one of many great ways to discover content, in this case in video form. And I think having it all in one place is a huge benefit.
Considering all the resources required to host video, I don't think it would be realistic for everyone to host their own stuff in that medium..
Not to mention how much of a creator economy exists thanks to the centralized platform that is YT. Tons of creators probably wouldn't even bother making their content if they didn't have somewhere with a built-in audience to post it to.
So I disagree with the idea that it's a negative for everyone but Google. Tons of people make a living thanks to that platform, with content they'd likely never be able to make a living from otherwise.
I'm not sure that resources were an issue even in 2006, much less today : P2P is older than that. Ease of use was an issue, but that's almost over thanks to the likes of PeerTube (even for streaming !), though of course it would be better if ISPs also jumped on board (like they did for e-mail and personal websites).
People were making videos even before YouTube started to become commercial, and they will keep making them after YouTube is gone (hopefully soon, considering how enshittified it became, but I'm afraid that with Google's money it will take a while). I disagree that th That you're calling it 'content' is a symptom of that corporatization.
Platforms are evil (and discovery algorithms are a big part of the problem), and especially the people not just using them, but particularly making a living from them are bad people (especially today, they had more than a decade to be aware of the issues). (This is on top of other qualities or faults they might have, of course.) And if there were no platforms, there would still be people making a living from the Internet (and the video format included), the possibilities are just too gigantic.
I'm calling it content because that's what it is. And it's the term that we use for it today.. I don't call it that because of Google, I call it that because that's what it's called. Language evolves.
Content creator is a blanket term for the writers, videographers, researchers, comedians, speakers, musicians, scientists, programmers, artists, architects, singers and every other profession making a living uploading videos to YouTube.
I certainly didn't want to type all of those, so I used the common shorthand. Even you knew what it meant. Not everything is sinister or evil. Sometimes it's just words.
99% (probably more) of people who use YT have never heard of PeerTube. I've heard of it and I've never once tried to use it, and I'm quite technical (I've built a video distribution platform).
You're delusional (sorry) if you think anything out there even comes close to the reach or ease of use of YouTube for the average person.
Look I'm not saying it's perfect either, or that there aren't problems with Google and the rest of big tech, and some of their products have drawbacks and downsides..
Anyways, I just realized I'm trying to have practical conversation and you're having an ideological one.. So maybe that's where this ends, we'll agree to disagree and move on...
From what YouTube creators are saying lately subscriber counts don’t matter anymore. So even if you have a zillion subscribers you’re still almost completely at the mercy of the algorithm.
I saw this, too. I know a Youtuber who has 2 million subscribers and their latest videos get about 5k views when they used to get 500k without a change in quality.
> If they don't engage, that's the end of the road.
As some counterexample anecdata, the YouTube algorithm is being quite generous to me lately, often giving me relatively low-view videos from years ago, some of which have been quite good. Maybe I'm just in a small a/b test, but it seems that videos do get multiple chances.
for better or worse, that's because video's infinitely easier to monetize in ways we've been conditioned with for decades. so the payouts for monetized videos are huge compared to a written blog where an ad can clutter and mess up the entire design (which loses you users, losing you better ad rates, and spirals down).
It's also a chicken and egg issue too. People simply watch more than they read most of the time. So videos target more people who gets more ad money who gets better ad rates etc.
> There is an insane amount of effort that goes into producing high-quality videos
Agreed. I once heard an estimate of 1 hour of editing for 1 minute of video, and I find that to be an extremely low-end estimate in my experience. And then, editing is only one part of the process. I spend possibly more time on writing (from outline to prose to revisions) than on editing, even when including basic motion graphics.
> In contrast, on YouTube, an algorithm essentially decides once.
This contradicts the experience that I have with YouTube as a creator. For reference, this is my channel: https://www.youtube.com/@XyrillPlays/videos - Just a silly little gaming channel. Ignore the bulk of the videos that are just VODs; if you sort by "Popular", you can see that practically all the views are on a handful of edited videos.
There is one edited video there early on, which currently has 7.6k views, even though it was posted in a phase of the channel where videos got single-digit views. If it were true that "an algorithm decides essentially once", this would needed to have happened right then and there, except that it didn't. This video got 42 views "on its own", without any promotion of any kind. But here's the thing, as you said yourself:
> But with blogs, at least you have multiple good shots at visibility. Maybe you'll make it to the top of HN, maybe on X, maybe somewhere else.
The same applies to YouTube videos. When I posted another edited video later, I put that previous video as an end card. And just that miniscule click-through traffic alone was enough to have the older video get picked up by the algorithm.
And why did the newer video get picked up? Because I posted it to the subreddit and the Discord for the game. Video analytics on YouTube give a breakdown of where people are coming from, and it was very obvious how the first 100 or so views came from those places. Then after that, something clicked in the algorithm, as though it had become attuned to who might be interested in the videos, and it started recommending the video to people. From one moment to another, 85% of views are coming from algorithmic recommendations, which was 0% before.
With the most-watched video on the channel, which is nearing 200k views as of right now, it actually gained traction with the algorithm right away because I had for the first time a pre-existing subscriber base to get the video off the ground on its own, but it has not really stopped accumulating views. It has certainly flattened off a bit, but I've definitely benefited from the game in question having its 1.0 release recently. I'm also seeing people share my video on the subreddit every once in a while in the same way how people repost old blog posts to HN every now and then.
