cracki

Define "conscious" to arbitrarily include or exclude various depths of perception/cognition.

It's like declaring the existence of a "soul" to draw a line between humans and lesser animals. No such line in reality. No such thing as a soul either. It's a fantasy term, no correspondence to reality.

Reading for intent is pragmatic.

Reading adversarially is what people do who are looking for ways that something can be abused, from an offensive or defensive position.

Personally I am tired of the entire topic.

We know. This is not news.

Users of MacOS rarely have an active dislike for Windows, nor are they likely to announce this.

this is backwards. advertisers WILL pay you money for your eye balls. legitimate senders will not because it's insulting to ask them for money. this is like dating vs prostitution. if you rate what to let near your eye balls by the highest bidder, you'll get all kinds of diseases.

Never admit when someone else is right. They'll forget they were right and begin to think they won a fight.

Or something. You're right.

Hm... Why? Ah! Because you are also a tortoise

People aren't talking about AutoCAD, but things such as Autodesk Inventor, AD Fusion 360, ...

The reason being that Open Source is a bunch of people who approach EVERYTHING as a programming problem, and they are chronically allergic to graphics, graphical UIs, and any kind of sense of what user interactions are a good experience.

They don't start with "how do users want this to operate?" They start with a weekend of coding, applying their preconceived notions, a library of fancy algorithms that are not directly motivated by an actual feature, and they go from there. This does not lead to a good product, as in something that could earn you money on an open market. It only prevails, in spite of nobody wanting to pay for it, because they give it away for free, and they sink their own "disposable time" (and maybe even income) into the project.

Autodesk should have started their own ECAD from scratch. They have mountains of CAD know-how in house. Their acquisition of EAGLE did nobody any favors.

I am not sad to see it go. The only ones I know of who used to use EAGLE were those who got hooked on it when it was either free or the cheapest option for hobbyists and small businesses. It didn't win any UI/UX competitions, certainly not against the joy that is modern programs for solid CAD.

The history of FreeCAD proves that UI/UX is the hard part.

I am not trained to be a mechanical engineer. I wanted to explore 3D printing. The usual suspects (FOSS missionaries with a deep-rooted hotly burning hate for capitalism) gave me OpenSCAD, which was okay to dick around with but QUICKLY showed its clunkiness ("compiling"... what a joke). So then I gave FreeCAD a look, because everyone said it's just like the commerical programs. It was not. Documentation and tutorials were a mess. The program itself was a mess. UX that makes you want to strangle someone.

So then I looked for free student versions of commercial software. They had a clear UI and UX, clear tutorials. It was a joy to model the parts I needed.

If I needed 3D modeling for engineering in the future, I would absolutely pay for a commercial program. FreeCAD was simply no competition. I don't know if it is now. Nor do I have any motivation whatsoever to even bother to give it another look.

If I need a license for hobbyist purposes, I'm sure some of the commercial offerings are happy to give me one for free because that would translate into commerce for them if I ever needed it professionally.

Age has an effect, no matter if it's software or electronics. These types learned their trade once, some decades ago, and keep driving like that.

If you want old dogs to learn new tricks, teach them. No company has the money to spend nor the inclination to even suggest education to their workers. Companies usually consider that a waste of time and money. I don't know why. Probably because "investing" in your work force is considered stupid because they'll fire you the moment a quarterly earnings call looks less than stellar.