The frame is a compositional aid, and it does have quite a strict relation to what the camera is capturing.
The best version of your complaint is that the viewfinder does not have accurate frame lines that account for parallax at various distances, which is true, but there are still ways of using the viewfinder to assist in composition.
If you take two or three shots at two meters, and look at what the camera captured versus where your composition was in the frame, you can immediately intuit a baseline for where the frame lines 'should be' on the viewfinder at two meters. "Occupies the bottom right two thirds of the viewfinder" for example.
Without a reference frame, these intuitions (and your aiming of the camera!) are going to be far less accurate.
It's totally incorrect to state that the area served by either Sydney or Melbourne airport has less economic activity than the area served by "any airport in the US", or even the vast majority of US airports, so whatever laptops-at-airport (and I suppose airpods-in-ears) is a proxy for it sure isn't economic activity.
This is the primary reason the Minibook X won out in my searches: It's the only small device that has a keyboard layout that puts all of the keys in the right spots.
They're sometimes an odd size, but when I hit the wrong key due to a sizing constraint, I don't even have to think: Backspace, hit the right key with mildly adjusted positioning.
I've tried a few machines with different layouts, and that's never the case - and having to stop and look at the keyboard to find a key interrupts flow in the worst kind of way.
I have this laptop, and it is amongst the best laptops I have ever owned, despite being awful in many ways. It has almost completely replaced my use of my M4 Macbook Pro, simply because I always have it with me. That, and it can run Linux.
I don't share the complaints of the OP about the keyboard or the screen, though. The keyboard is fine, I can hit about 110WPM on it, slower than my regular pace, but enough that there's no dramas. The layout is great: Occasionally there's keys that are too small (looking at you, apostrophe) but everything is at least in the right spot, which is way more important.
The 2K display at 10" is high enough DPI that everything is totally crisp, and you can unlock ~95Hz (bad for video, good for everything else) with a bit of a tweak. You can also smash a byte into the EC at the correct offset and access the full unrestricted BIOS -- mostly to crank the RAM up to 4800MT/s.
I'm running vanilla Arch with Niri and Noctalia, and it's a dream. It's my primary dev machine, used in combination with a remote server with a tonne more grunt. If it broke tomorrow, I'd buy another - and I wouldn't do that with my macbook.
I don't mean to tar you with a too-wide brush, and I feel like you have a good handle on your personal acceptance for LLM assistance. No complaint there.
I do think, maybe alternative to your view, that LLMs can provide useful feedback to graduate-level employees in most fields.
It is not that the work can be done by LLMs -- we're not there, yet, in software or otherwise -- but that LLMs as useful tutors specifically in regard to denouncing known bad ideas is largely applicable all over.
What I mean by the above is that I have yet to find a truly interesting idea spun from whole cloth by an LLM. They're mediocre at it. They're trained from the aggregate thoughts of those in every industry, and you and I both know that the aggregate of the industry is, generally, mediocre.
Conversely, though, is the hit: They won't be worse than mediocre. An indefatigable tutor who gives no great advice but will counsel you against blowing yourself up (or cutting a limb off with a rope, or falling overboard) is, to me, worth an amount.
The failure modes will get better, the advice will get better. Are we there, now? Unsure. You can tell us all better.
> Yes, but no room is made for people who see no use for it. There is a forced-consensus that this technology is useful, which I have to combat against at work.
This is the crux of the issue -- The technology is useful. Using it appropriately is probably the thing that people are ignoring, but you're conflating one and the other in your comment.
It is not useful to you in this case, and complain that it is an overall detriment in your industry. Those are fine and reasonable statements and conditions, and I see no reason to disagree with them... But your first statement, people who see no use for it? That is, to me, as off-putting an opinion as the consequence-unaware hypebeasts who are running OpenClaw with access to their trading accounts and can't see why others aren't.
I sympathise with the idea that everyone wants to use the new hammer and so is treating every problem like a nail, but hammers are still pretty good tools. (And you can ignore the ex-NFT-fans hammering on their dicks in the corner.)
That’s also an algorithm. An unsophisticated one, but an algorithm nonetheless.
You can (and should) argue that such a simple algorithm doesn’t “count”, but fundamentally the exact wording of the grandparent post never works, legislatively.
It was absolutely not the case two decades ago.
There were no other options for an enterprise fleet, 20 years ago, if the question was asked. If you weren't Google (who never asked the question anyway), the answer for managing 25,000 endpoints was to use Windows devices with Active Directory as the management plane. Anyone doing anything else was in for a world of hurt... and that's why every enterprise ended up on Windows, and why everyone targeting enterprise management targeted Windows -- because that's what the endpoints were already running.
What killed AD & GPO was Microsoft, in their bullheaded push toward Azure everything. Instead of listening to what it was that the enterprise customers actually wanted, they designed a system that made sense to them, but to no one else. The original UI was written in Silverlight. It was horrific.
Group Policy and Active Directory are dead, for all intents and purposes.
It's now Intune (via OMA-DM), and Entra. Both of those products are about as bad as you might imagine the "cloud" versions of GP & AD might be.
They are better, in ways -- no longer having to care and feed for domain controllers is nice, and there's no longer an overhead for additive policy processing, so endpoints only get a single set of policy and log on much quicker -- but for the most part, enterprise management of Windows devices is in a worse place than it was ten years ago.
Try to figure out how long it will take an online Intune device to discover a new policy: As far as I can tell the answer is "eventually". There are bandaids for this, because of how infuriating it is, of course, but all time guarantees are basically gone.
Ask me a decade ago what an enterprise should do, and my answer would be straightforward: AD, GPO, Exchange.
...Embarrassingly, I have typo'd in my original post, and it's too late to edit. Pints are 570ml (not 470ml) everywhere on the East coast - hence why a half pint in Tassie is often called a ten - because it's 10oz, or half a 20oz/568ml pint.
I was decidedly not old enough to drink in 1990 and culture in general in Australia was much less homogeneous back then, so you're probably right for the times.
As someone heavily involved in the hospitality (read: beer) area, this doesn't really line up with reality in Australia: there's only one state (South Australia) that doesn't agree on the major standard sizes: Pints are 470ml, schooners are 425ml, a half pint is 285ml, and a pony is 140ml.
There's colloquialisms for a half: pot, or middy, mostly. Hobart will call a half pint a ten, because it's 10oz, but they also know what you're talking about when you ask for a pot or a half pint.
Then there's South Australia, which will serve you a pint at 425ml, a schooner at 285ml, no one there outside of specialty craft beer bars have any idea what a half pint is, and if you want a proper pint you need to ask for an imperial pint. I have never seen an 'imperial pint' advertised in Hobart - it's just called a pint there.
Source: I have pretty extensive drinking experience in pretty much all of the Australian capital cities, except Perth.
You shouldn't need a medical background to know that having something press on a spot for a couple of hours will leave a depression in your skin.
You have probably fallen asleep on something patterned or folded and have it leave an impression on your skin before: This is no different.
Other places it happens: Watches that are slightly too tight or have ridden up an arm. Glasses arms pressing against your temple or behind the ear. Tight socks after a day wearing them.
It's not a medical problem. It's just general physics.
Not using the combination for one of its ambiguous purposes does not strip it of ambiguity, you've just trained yourself to avoid those circumstances.
That, of course, is one of the pain points that the article addresses: Training yourself to do so is additional cognitive load that never should have been necessary in the first place.
I flip between macOS and Linux and, occasionally, Windows. On one of my laptops, insert is also a Fn switch away, so I have to either remember that this machine needs Ctrl-Fn-F11 specifically when I'm copying from terminal.
On another keyboard I have the same problem, but insert is mapped to a different key entirely, so it is ctrl-fn-equals, and fn is on the opposite side of the keyboard from ctrl.
Contort my fingers in which way on which keyboard? Mental load and annoyance I don't need.
and
https://x.com/drewpusateri