One finger more than the scroll gesture … I’m not sure how you could do it differently. Requiring three fingers on the mouse would just be weird (I’m all for allowing three fingers additionally to two fingers, though!) and requiring just two on the trackpad is kinda not possible (scrolling is obviously more important and scrolling with two fingers is obviously superior to every other implementation of that on a trackpad).
And it’s literally only the number of fingers that’s different. And the only non-obvious gesture is probably to swipe up to invoke Mission Control.
Also, the way OS X is set up, those gestures serve as shortcuts (like hot corners used to, in the olden days). Nearly every single functionality can be reached via just clicking (Notification Center, switching from desktop to desktop or fullscreen app to fullscreen app) or buttons on the keyboard (Mission Control, Launch Pad).
Just relatively less important and central functionality is relegated to either the context menu (the ability to look up words in a pop-over can be activated via the context menu or three finger tap) or keyboard shortcut and gesture (swiping down for App Exposé).
Accepting an arbitrary number of fingers … sure I’m all for it. But those gestures aren’t really anything worth criticising. They are shortcuts that have to be explicitly learned. That’s why there are videos in the control pane. Apple knows that those have to be actually taught. That’s why the UI has non-gesture alternatives that are obvious and in your face.
This is not to defend Apple – I just want to point out that little personal pet peeves like these aren’t necessarily indicative of actual problems actual users have, especially if they come from an expert. (I also think you can always improve things and that’s certainly also true of how OS X implements gestures. But that’s just a truism that will never be wrong. As someone working in the field: Luckily. There are probably juicier targets than gestures in OS X, though.)
Agreed that nobody is going to think Google is a marginal company. IANAL, but I'd think it's a bit odd that nobody from Google would contact BMW (as BMW spokesperson said in article). An announcement this big concerning two large companies doesn't seem a situation where you'd ask forgiveness rather than permission.
There's a fairly common saying about it being preferable to "beg forgiveness" than to "ask permission". In this case, I was referring to Google possibly mentioning to BMW their intent to use the Alphabet name.
Venting is positive reinforcement of expression of anger. Renowned Buddhist monk and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh calls this 'Training in Aggression':
> People who use venting techniques like hitting a pillow or shouting are actually rehearsing anger. When someone is angry and vents their anger by hitting a pillow, they are learning a dangerous habit. They are training in aggression. Instead, our approach is to generate the energy of mindfulness and embrace anger every time it manifests.
What absolute nonsense. Beating a pillow -- you are not hurting anybody and there is nothing wrong in it. The important distinction is to be aware of and to express your anger, obviously not at others, but at the pillow (or exercise, etc). Such a catharsis will make you feel unburdened and relaxed, more so than from control and condemnation.
Speaking purely from my own anecdotal personal experience:
Dwelling on something and thinking about how angry it makes me certainly does make me angrier.
However, in the handful of times of my life that I've gotten really, truly, into a rage over something monumental, I had no way to actually let go of it until I had a chance to go scream into a pillow and punched my mattress a few times. The relief was pretty immediate - almost all of the anger drained away. Prior to that I was too amped up to do anything constructive about the issue. After, I was able to focus enough to get to work on fixing it.
I don't know how to reconcile my own personal experiences with that research, outside of a cop-out answer of "Not everyone is the same".
I don't think the two are incompatible in the slightest. It could well be that expressing your anger violently 1) makes you feel calmer in the moment, and 2) trains you to be more likely to need to do so in the future.
If that's the case, then "harmless" violent expression is a useful tool when others fail (as you've experienced - and certainly much preferable to directly harmful violent expression!), but other techniques should be learned and should be preferred out of habit.
That said, it's absolutely the case that "Not everyone is the same".
I think the message molecule is trying to convey is that hitting a pillow is an unhealthy way of releasing anger because doing so conditions you to...hit things out of anger. Maybe next time your pillow isn't around but your wife is and you're more angry than usual to the point that you can't cordon it off until you find a suitable pillow.
On the other hand of your response, exercise would be a healthy response but may not be possible in all situations. If you're angry at work for some reason, you can't exactly go for a jog in a business suit. The best response would be whatever calms you down and lowers your blood pressure and is something you could do in all situations.
Furthermore, it would help to be cognizant of what makes you angry so you can avoid those situations and/or just force yourself into them often so you become acclimated. YMMV
>> do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?
> he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
> Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to verbally warn them.
"If you're running from a cop, you must be guilty. Right?" - Guilty or not is for judge and jury to decide. So far the only charge will be "fleeing/evading the police".
"Which means you're a criminal" - you are not a criminal unless convicted.
"which means you're probably a serious threat to others." - 'probably' is the key word. Cops cannot shoot people because they are probably dangerous. "Probable cause to believe" is not the same as "probably".