Are there cross-cultural studies of this effect? If you are wrong, trustworthy fonts will have the same set of properties in cultures with similar alphabets. Pair of cultures which rate trustworthiness of fonts differently despite sharing the same language and alphabet could prove you.
I believe there is too much homogeneity among cultures using the same fonts (i.e. latin alphabet) that there isn't going to be such a case.
For example, hand-writing-like fonts are used in comics both in US style, european and south american stuff; newspapers and books have been printed with serif fonts since about forever; international brands look the same; MS Office/windows has provide everyone with the same fonts for decades.
Finding random people on the internet to complain about change is as hard as finding grains of sand at the beach. The real question is what percentage of users will actually even notice a week after release, much less actually be inconvenienced in some measurable way.
Yeah, it's just that I remember people saying the same thing about Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP, etc. (or each OS X release on the Mac side, since 10.1 or so – I think everyone agrees 10.0 was over the top).
Some people initially have strong negative reactions to something familiar changing but those tend go away quickly as the new version becomes familiar and then the same people will rant about the next version. Remember the “Fisher-Price My First OS” jokes when Windows XP came out? I'd bet you could find similar cracks at Windows 7 from some of the same people who are now saying the XP UI was the Platonic ideal of Windows.
ArsTechnica actually did the legwork looking through their forums when the now-staunchly-defended Windows XP was approaching EOL:
The author described Windows 10 as 'kind of gorgeous', which was somewhat surprising. Until now the most generous thing I've heard someone say is that it's not finished. (Seriously, though, the UI is very unpolished at this stage, even for Windows. I wouldn't be concerned if not for the fact that RTM is only a few months away.)
It's actually a UX improvement: a lead designer at Microsoft talked about how "people aren't squares" in a recent blog post . I'm not sure it looks that great, but once you know the logic behind it it's a lot more interesting.
My rebuttal is that an account ID picture is not necessarily a portrait photograph. Oh, sure, social data miners like Facebook want you to only use a photo of yourself for a profile picture. But many people -- such as on Twitter -- don't.
Profile pictures I've used are a photo of my computer, a still from a movie, an animated GIF of a flying pig (alas no one I know of supports animated profile pictures), and yes even a photo of myself every once in a while.
That said, complaining about the shape of the profile picture is pure bikeshedding. Big deal. How much time on your computer do you spend staring at your own picture? (Please don't answer that.) Although if given the choice I'd prefer rectangular. My computer screen is a rectangle. The area reserved to display the picture is a rectangle. Does a click in the invisible rectangle register as part of the picture? And most of all, it's easier to crop a photo to appear circular when displayed in a rectangle than it is to show a rectangle inside a circle. So the "safe" default should be a rectangle.
If they were being honest, the actual reason is that circular avatars have been trendy and the norm for new designs on the web, iOS, and Android for the past 3 to 4 years, and the two primary reasons they became popular were because border-radius became supported widely enough around that time, and because photographs of faces arguably look better in a circular frame, at least according to current tastes.
Here's a quora thread from back in 2013 discussing it:
Smartglass for Xbox One can control television (USB TV tuner, HDMI CEC commands for set-top box on One's HDMI input or infrared commands via Kinect's IR blaster or separate IR blaster) as you describe.
I think that there are more dimensions than such classification implies. "General" naturally means that it can be applied to any intellectual task (dimension of generality), but "super" means that it can solve them faster/better than humans (dimension(s) of speed and quality). Looks like slow general and fast narrow AIs already exist, so realistically the thing people call AGI (AI at least as general and as fast as human mind at anything) will also be ASI (faster/better than human mind at something).
Russian classification traditionally also have distinction between terms "artificial intelligence" and "artificial mind" ("искусственный разум") to keep the problems of autonomy/agency/consciousness out of field of AI.
I wish I knew enough about Android USB to write a USB gadget driver that emulated FAT and Mass Storage - no reason it couldn't read/write sanely back to the host FS. Sure it wouldn't be as quick as native but it'd be enough to play MP3s on car stereos and the like.