keeglin

I recently started using a Mac at work and Gnome aping MacOS is the only thing that makes sense.

The applications selector, the settings drop-downs... spatial Nautilus... it didn't just start with Gnome 3. These are all poorly-implemented, half-baked versions of MacOS features. It has been going on for years.

I mean, the thin scroll bars for $deity's sake! On MacOS this makes sense because the trackpad and trackpad/mouse work, and work very well. On Gnome, it makes no sense at all since you can't hit them with the mouse pointer.

The pain is very real with Gnome.

It's a very, very poor ape of MacOS.

It's client-side, and works very well for email. It used to be that email notifications through Thunderbird waited until your next email refresh interval, but I noticed they are coming in at the same rate as the Outlook clients after the last update to Owl.

Calendaring through Lightning is incomplete and experimental.

In the "spaces" vertical toolbar on the left, Owl has added a Teams button recently, as well. It opens the Teams O365 app in a tab in Thunderbird, which I really like. I haven't had a chance to check if any meeting or audio features work there.

Uh, right? The demo page renders fine on this decade old core i5-3337u, with all the vulnerabilities patched.

I agree with this, but I like the Albini version. My first listen to this track (in a long time since hearing the other version) the vocal is centered with good imaging, and is much less boomy than the original CD version.

Very much like it's a person in a room, instead of processed.

It is far less "in your face", and arguably, teenagers then might not have thought it cool. Like a band from the 70's or 80's.

Thank you for this! That just brightened my evening. It's sounding _incredible_.

Credit card tokenization is a thing, and commonly used in retail. It leaves the last four digits of the number intact to allow searching for transactions from the POS; but other numbers are scrambled. Credit card data is otherwise stored in the POS systems tokenized. It takes all teeth out of credit card data for PCI requirements.

In this case, the tokenization is the measure itself.

Saying that modern monitors are more color accurate that CRTs really undersells the difference. Having been a professional photographer before a button presser, I feel I have a need to step in here. This narrative is so, so horribly wrong.

Nearly any given color CRT (in the 90's era) has a far flatter visual spectral response than modern ubiquitous displays. Each color has meaningful contrast; whereas the typical blue-LED is heavily weighted towards blue.

Even if a new display measures better, your brain interprets color from a tube better.

The only established displays today that approach that flatness (exceed them) are genuine three-color OLED displays, which are prohibitively expensive as packaged as a computer monitor.

I have some mild hope for new display technologies that I'm hearing about. I'm betting we are five years, at a minimum, before displays with that color quality are common.

I was going to go with 10 years. I mean, nobody cared about Madonna's "Ray Of Light" beyond 1999.

On the other hand, artists - like Dolly Parton - have made long careers out of songwriting that have carried them into their senior years, so it's a balance.

Clearly 99 years is absurd. Maybe 20 years is the balance to strike. Dolly would still be doing just fine with that term.

Your first claim I think is better stated that older CDs cut in their time from original sources sound better than similar music with modern processes. For pop, especially.

I seek out early 80's - early 90's CD (with sprinklings in pop to the early 00's).

As long as a computer decides where your time and energy is going as conduit for communication, it has become a moral arbiter. Facebook is harmful. Computers can't do this; they don't breathe.

Unfollowing everything restores a user's agency when using the service, which is where it should be.

This is one of those moments to remind everyone that computers and computer algorithms do not, and can not, replace human empathy.