Balder

As if people are forced to publish there.

TIL, I did some research because of your comment and indeed, the difference in their use cases is mostly a market thing, not so much a limitation of each one. This answer is particularly good at explaining that.

Ah, the eagerness to publish some “news” based on a Tweet or a Reddit post from a random person with no confirmation at all.

Something like tauri does, by using the OS web engine, so the apps can be a few KB (depending on the code of course).

Also there are better solutions if you want to have your UI in HTML nowadays. You don’t need to embed a whole web browser in each app.

I don’t trust my mobile - they’re much harder to make private and “yours” than a desktop.

Still mobile phones are designed with much more security in mind than desktop environments, and basically everybody has a device.

It will never have this since it’s incapable of using native widgets and theming

You can criticize Electron’s performance and memory footprint, but as long as there’s an API to access something, it can access the same features as a native app, it just depends on the company’s willingness to do it. HTML is also one of the best platforms in terms of accessibility.

The problem though, is that cross-platform apps are optimized for that: sharing the same code among systems, and using specific OS features complicate things, so the tendency is to use the same solution for all of them, even when it isn’t the correct one. Also, they make it possible for developers who don’t know a certain OS well to still build for it, making things potentially worse in the user experience.

I always felt like I was alone in this thinking. I think anyone with a bit of a security mindset don’t want everything connected, besides it makes them more expensive and easier to break. It’s certainly very convenient for programmed obsolescence.

It’s more that there is a vocal minority against it. I’d guess most of us are mostly neutral about it, we see the problems and the benefits but don’t see the need to comment everywhere about our feelings towards it.

Possibly preventing being locked out of the EU.

It’s a common trap for certain types of people to assume technology can fix problems that are inventive or socially driven.

But the thing with users is that their learning depends on their motivation. Just like we all, they don’t care about something until it becomes an inconvenience and then there’s a reason to learn.

So as long as there are resources to learn when you need it, I don’t think that’s a problem.

But it is unreasonable to expect the average users to care about what the file structure should be when current computers can search through anything in 1 second and they think it’s good enough.

I’ve been reading the book “A Small Matter of Programming” which discusses a bit end users relationships with computers.

I think people who are into computers get surprised to know most people just don’t care about how computers work and they shouldn’t have to. They want software that is easy to use and allows them to complete their task. Ex: a spreadsheet is an incredibly powerful software that hides anything about how computers work but still allow users to create multiple different “apps” by effectively programming.

This is one reason Apple is so successful and a lot of tech users don’t understand it. Apple creates “abstractions” so that end users don’t have to deal with low level details — something they don’t want to. They want to see the machine as a black box that just provides them some service easily and smoothly.

Most of the “decaying” tech skills people say are actually stuff people don’t need to know nowadays. Everything is an abstraction anyway, and most people tinkering with desktop computers aren’t aware of how the graphics software is rendering the screen, for example.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

It’s not that they’re stupid, it’s that their incentives aren’t the same as the long term wellbeing of the company.

I think people don’t yet grasp that LLMs don’t produce any novel output. If that was the case, considering the amount of knowledge they have, they’d be making incredible new connections and insights that humanity never made before. Instead, they can only explain stuff that was already well documented before.

Yeah. I’m not sure that statement applies. It’s easier for humans to check something than to come up with something in the first place. But the thing is, the person doing the checking also needs to be proficient in the subject.