What do you mean? In my experience and according to the article, it scrolls pages at a time when you left click on the gutter.

This sounds similar to Microsoft and the start menu. A few years ago I went to extreme lengths to disable cortana (powershell guid uninstall). This invisibly and inexplicably disabled updates to the start menu search feature. The index remained the feature worked, it just never got updated again. No amount of manually reindexing the disk helped. Reinstalling cortana got it working.

I really like Finder. It's consistent, reliable, accessible, and predictable. There are easy ways to see the real file system and windows certainly doesn't do any better in this regard (see: libraries and other namespaces).

Check the HIG. It says to use 'File'. I'm sure the goal here is consistency. It's a Human Computer Interaction (HCI) fundamental principle.

https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...

To be fair, it does say

> If your app doesn’t handle any types of files, you can rename or eliminate this menu.

Nearly every example in the original post just gives more specific names to the type of files the application works on, including applications that are extremely file-centric like QuickTime Player and Word. One of the best counter examples in the OP is Claude, but that's only because, for whatever reason, Claude doesn't have an export, import, or attach option, probably because it's just an Electron app.

This is largely the consequence of the Windows API having a built in option to use these buttons, without having an option for custom text. It would be a lot more work to build a custom window with custom buttons than just callong this API.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winuser/...

You could set a custom text by sending WM_SETTEXT to the respective button. It wasn’t a recommended practice, though.

Especially considering the quality of the app and how long bugs last.

This was very common at the time. I suspect there was a technical reason, maybe freeing up the CPU and memory from dealing with music and offloading that to the CDROM drive.

There's a reason you used to have a separate four-pin cable going from the CD drive to the sound card ;)

Due to the way computers cost a fortune back then, you could skip huge parts of hardware changes in the space of a few years. I must have skipped over that part and jumped from no CD audio (or CD-ROM at all) to, everything over IDE.

Never knew about the 4 pin link.

It was just a standard way to play CD-quality audio tracks (by actually playing CD audio tracks!).

I thought the pitch for just-cameras was that the hardware was cheaper and that it's what humans are "using", evidence that it should be sufficient. Just-cameras was to take more engineering to build upnfront but pay off in lower costs in the end. That argument disagrees with the graph that's presented.

The argument made more sense 5+ years ago, but the hardware costs of sensors such as LIDAR has plummeted.

In addition, a certain CEO of a certain car company has made very aggressive sales pitches about how LIDAR isn't necessary and even going so far as to sell unfinished self driving solutions as being completely capable of doing so.

So hypothetically, if that car company were to adopt LIDAR, they would have been selling their solution under false claims in a sales capacity.

Sure, cameras (eyes) are mostly all that humans are using, but two points:

1) the vehicles aren't quite matched with the same experience and intelligence (right now) as exists behind a human's two "cameras"

2) we hold self-driving robots to a much higher standard. meatbags are getting smushed in large numbers daily by other humans, but a single robot smushing a human is headline news for days. giving the robot vastly more information about the world around it, in much higher detail will eventually allow it to drive much better than us.

[obviously we should hold them to higher standards, we should create something much better at driving than the best humans]

Yet people still have to work the same number of hours each day - they are performing the same amount of labor, just in a different form.

There’s more to labor than hours worked. Sitting at a computer for 8 hours is a different load than landscaping for 8 hours in the middle of summer.

Number of hours worked has actually been trending down for a very long time.

Most people landscape their own yards recreationally. They do it for fun, in their free time, at their own expense.

When I was a teen, I had a full time summer job doing yard work. At the end of the day I'd be utterly worn out.

Working with my head is a heluva lot easier.

Did they not look up the PC manufacturer or model number to verify this hypothesis?