I find it really frustrating to not have a touchscreen on a laptop (e.g. scrolling and zooming Google maps).
I don't understand what I'm getting for the price difference compared to a similar windows laptop.
I don't like how the Ctrl/Fn/Alt/Cmd keys are used, but that's just because I'm used to Windows. (Remapping then doesn't help because commands are divided differently been those modifiers).
I do like that it has a native bash shell instead of having WSL with its separate filesystem. But I doubt that that is a common reason people choose macs.
It's a map site that helps you identify places around the world. Google maps is so commerce-focussed, Open Street Map often lacks an explanation of what something is.
But it clearly has issues such as not licensing the background options so it has watermarks and popups.
Lack of trust: what was it doing behind the scenes? What's if it just went and ..... allocated memory all by itself!!
Optimization wasn't so good back then. People believed that they could write better assembly. For speed and size.
Memory was tight. C would include big libraries even if only one function was needed. If "hello world" was several k in size, that added to the suspicion (even though that was a fixed overhead in practice).
Oh that's a good idea. In fact with more measurements, it would become harder and harder to ignore them corresponding to a spherical model.
Every degree of latitude would be a degree of shadow angle.
For flat earth, it would be on an inverse tangent curve. Even if it was argued that the air somehow bent the light to distort results, what are the odds that it would do so in a way that exactly matched a sphere?
Someone should set this up as a world-wide science project. It would be easy to coordinate measuring at the same time.
If so you should really have a check up with an eye doctor, there are lots of eye health tests that you should regularly get beyond checking that you can read a chart at a distance.
Re needing lots of space: you can use --link-dest to make a new directory with hard links to unchanged files in a previous backup. So you end up with de-duplicated incremental backups.
But borg handles all that transparently, with rsync you need to carefully plan relative target directory paths to get it to work correctly.
I can't recall storage costs (they're on the website somewhere but are not straightforward).
I was paying maybe $7 a month for a few hundred Gb, although not all of that was glacier.
But retrieval was a pain. There's no straightforward way to convert back from glacier for a lot of files and there's a delay. The process creates a non-glacier copy with a limited lifespan to retrieve.
Then the access costs were maybe $50 to move stuff out.
I moved to rsync.net for the convenience and simplicity. It even supported setting up rclone to access s3 directly. So I could do cloud-to-cloud to copy the files over.
I can chain an encryption process to that, so it encrypts then backs up.
I can then mount the encrypted, remote files so that I can easily get to them locally easily (e.g. I could run diff or md5 on select files as naturally as if they were local).
And it supports the rsync --backup options so that it can move locally deleted files elsewhere on the backup instead of deleting them there. I can set up a dir structure such as
Oldfiles/20240301
Oldfiles/20240308
Etc that preserve deletions.
I find it really frustrating to not have a touchscreen on a laptop (e.g. scrolling and zooming Google maps).
I don't understand what I'm getting for the price difference compared to a similar windows laptop.
I don't like how the Ctrl/Fn/Alt/Cmd keys are used, but that's just because I'm used to Windows. (Remapping then doesn't help because commands are divided differently been those modifiers).
I do like that it has a native bash shell instead of having WSL with its separate filesystem. But I doubt that that is a common reason people choose macs.