I disagree.

If you have four files:
MyNotes
mynotes
myNotes
Mynotes

there is absolutely nothing about these names that tells a human what the difference might be in the contents of these four files. The GUI can't fix that. The differences in the file names are not meaningfully significant. A human would still have to open all four, to see what's inside and how they differ. Worse, a nontechnical user wouldn't understand why there are four items listed, when they seem to all be the same thing!

My disagreement with you, is that it's a problem to solve. I say lots of cars is a good thing. They give more people freedom to move about as they choose.

The problem is congestion and pollution. We should indeed try to solve those problems. But the large number of cars is not, IMO, a problem on its face.

Actually, humans do see a distinction between My Notes and MyNotes. Many business and product names, for example, intentionally remove spaces between words. For example, MySQL is recognized as a specific database technology, while My SQL would be seen as either a mistake, or as someone describing their own SQL style.

Similarly, though many people make punctuation mistakes, they don't consider an exclamation point as the same as a question mark.

So no, I DON'T agree with your point. And also, I don't agree with your point. But then, I repeat myself.

This. Linux has always been built by hobbyists, for hobbyists. This attitude from Torvalds is an example of why it doesn't catch on with regular people. No regular person would think a file name MyNotes is a different file from mynotes. If you can't meet people where they are, they will not use your tech.

Whatever the technical issue, the underlying issue is that humans have to use computers, and humans don't see case as significant. To a human, the file name MyNotes is the same as the file name mynotes, and they certainly wouldn't expect the two file names to be two separate files. If you didn't have to worry about humans, then Torvalds is right. But if you want humans to use your system, then you have to design it for humans.

Fine, you win that point, partially. But it's still a big enough country that, if you live in a suburb of Amsterdam, you aren't biking to work in the city center.

The key phrase in the FAA statement is "which are likely to create sparks or generate a dangerous evolution of heat". Not all damage, even damage that deforms a device, is necessarily dangerous and likely to catch fire. Now, if the deformed device was starting to heat up, then yes, absolutely, land the plane!

Charging the power bank? That's not an iPad. I'm pretty sure the regulation doesn't prohibit charging your iPad by plugging it into the USB port on your airplane seat. Yes, power banks are dangerous and are and should be regulated.

I provided an actual link for my statement. Do you have a source? I doubt it, I call BS.

The number of options available, depends on your target customer.

If your target customer is hobbyists, tech nerds, programmers, audiophiles or videophiles, then yes, you want to provide lots of options. If your target customer is ordinary families or elderly people that just want to watch TV, then it should just plug in an go. It shouldn't be necessary for them to read the manual or adjust "dynamic range" in order to watch TV.

There are plenty of well-made TVs. I personally have an Amazon Fire TV, a Roku TV by Phillips, and a Vizio. I didn't have to adjust the settings on any of them, except on the Vizio, which I use as a computer monitor (I had to set it to "Computer Mode"). All of them show excellent pictures, without tinkering. Now, if I *want* to get fancy with the settings, I can. But it's not necessary.

Aircraft safety is paramount, yes. But that does not equate to diverting a plane because an iPad is damaged.

iPads have been known to catch fire while charging. https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/0... Should planes be diverted if someone charges an iPad? No.

Both charging an iPad, and a damaged iPad, are potential fire hazards. But the potential is tiny. In one case, we accept the risk, even on an airplane. In the other, apparently not.

It wasn't the passenger that was stupid here. It was the airline / pilot / crew, for considering the jammed iPad an emergency worth diverting the plane.

We should obviously provide AI with UBI, to make sure it can have a good (artificial) life.

Not as bad? Kind of a low bar.

I've tried Bing many times. And I've tried other search engines based on Bing APIs, such as Duck Duck Go. I always go back to Google, because I get better results.

You're right, there are countries where many people bike to work and everywhere. And those countries are *poor* countries. They bike because they can't afford to drive. They live in cramped, squalid conditions. If they could afford it, they would drive. I don't think it's a step forward to reduce the standard of living, because people like you think there are "too many" cars.

This is Microsoft marketing about how great its AI is. They think it will be so capable that it will replace whole divisions of companies.

As anyone who has actually used AI knows, it's still very, very unreliable. Managing a "team" of AI bots would be kind of like managing a team of high school kids. You spend more time training them, telling them what to do, and correcting poor performance or incorrect work, than you would spend just using a small, capable, less expensive human team.

AI can be a productivity booster, in the hands of someone who is skilled in their domain. In the hands of someone who doesn't know what they are doing, it's the blind leading the blind.