I work with Windows as a requirement of my job, I'm in IT and I'm constantly in and out of the bowels of the operating system. I have a lot of thoughts on this stuff.
My first thought is, stop moving everything around. Even in Windows 10, if you're using an older version, say 1804, and you switch to a newer version, say 22H2, stuff is moved all over the place. It makes it super hard to direct someone blindly to the control they need to click to get something done. You're making my job much harder than it needs to be. Stop it. There's no reason to move this crap around.
To bring out my grumpy old man routine: back in my day, if you wanted to do anything, you went to the control panel. Everything you needed was there. Now it's in settings, no wait, clicking on this settings option for that thing now launches an appx thing that, surprisingly (/s) is broken.
Too many damn times have I tried to open their damned settings app or the new defender security appx dialog simply crashes. The solution is almost always dkim online repair. Well, if it needs repair so damn much, how about you just repair it for me as part of system maintenance? The fuck.
Windows 11 is a special form of suffering. Right clicking on a file and.... What the fuck is this? I basically click on "more settings" every time I right click. And the changes to the settings application.... Don't get me started.
Also, why in the fuck do we have copilot installed by default now? You're an operating system, stay in your goddamned lane.
The only good thing I can say about Windows 11 is that it has really good security. So good that I frequently have trouble doing routine things. Today, I was trying to run a PowerShell script and it told me some bullshit error, which is pretty common for PowerShell. After googling the error, the recommendation was to change the execution policy. I went to do that at an administrative PowerShell prompt and it told me that I didn't have access to change it. While running as the administrator. Yay. Shit is broken again. Fuck me I guess. I'm off to unfuck my less than five month old new work system because Microsoft can't get their shit straight.
Customization options do not and cannot help me. 90% of the time I'm working on someone else's computer, so I have to fucking deal with the default behavior because I'm not going to change it for 500+ users whom I support. I'm pretty sure I'd get more than a few complaints. So I have to fucking deal with whatever hairbrained decision Microsoft made about what should be default.
Windows 10 had its own share of bullshit. One of my most common annoyances was the way the OS decided to install fucking candy crush, every fucking time a new user logged into the goddamned computer. It's like playing whack-a-mole, but not fun and filled with uninstalls. I hope Microsoft made some good money on that brand deal, because I sure paid for it with my frustration.
After all of this, I keep finding myself in the fucking registry, and thank God that's one thing that hasn't been fucked over by their new UI team. I keep having to fix dumb issues by injecting registry keys so I can not deal with the stupid UI all the goddamned time. It's hacky, and I'm happier for it.
I could keep going. Pretty much every decision they've made in the past 5 years has been some measure of bad. The only thing I've agreed with them doing is finally ending internet explorer. Begrudgingly, edge is better, but not by a lot, IMO.
The last thing I'll say is that the tpm bullshit is going to give me an aneurysm. Having a TPM at Windows install usually prompts the system to activate bitlocker. Bitlocker itself isn't bad, but it's fucking terrible when windows does this shit and doesn't really inform the user about it. Nobody knows that they need to back up their goddamned bitlocker recovery keys, so inevitably, when something goes wrong (we're talking about Windows here, something will go wrong) and the system stops booting, you need the fucking bitlocker recovery key to do anything. Your option, if you can call it that, if you can't get the recovery key, is to format all of your shit, and reinstall from scratch. I know several people who have lost a lot of work and irreplaceable files, like pictures, because bitlocker fucked them over and they had no idea it was even running.
Sorry about your loss, but all those family photos you saved that don't exist anywhere else are locked behind basically uncrackable encryption, get fucked, I guess.
I'm going to cut this rant off. Needless to say I'm pretty tired of Microsoft's bullshit. Make an operating system. That's what people want. That's it. We shouldn't need "debloat" scripts to fix your nonsense. Gah.
As a middle class kind of person. My boss still wants me to drive my gasoline powered vehicle an hour each way to get to an office so I can work on systems remotely.
.... Or at least, that's what my old boss wanted me to do. I left that job, but there's a lot of people in a situation where they can and should work from home and never even need a vehicle, yet, because of reasons, they have to get dressed and emit greenhouses gasses to satisfy some capitalists need to control and oversee everything you do to earn a living.
Ridiculous and harmful. Not just to the environment, but to workers, financially and mentally. It's completely unnecessary.
If we want to get serious about this stuff, how about we reduce how much we need to rely on vehicles as a first fucking step. We're pushing electric vehicles on everyone, and a large portion of the population doesn't even really need a car, except to satisfy their bosses need to be in control.
Every doctor I've ever seen talk about diet, says that we should reduce our meat intake. They never suggest nor imply that people should go vegan as an alternative.
At least, from my limited experience.
I would argue that if someone has no intention of giving up meat, of which, there are plenty of people who are in that situation, then reduction can help improve the situation.
If someone is considering, or at least would consider going vegan, then veganism is the right choice, reduction may make the transition more difficult in the long term.
Thoughts? I'm happy to discuss. I just don't have the time right this second to do a ton of reading/watching content about the other side of this discussion, so I'd like to know what you have to say.
At a high level, I have no control over your actions, you have no control over mine. We can argue until we're blue in the face, but when someone walks away after that argument, they're free to do as they please.
Physically, you don't need to eat meat. I'd recommend a good dietician if you want to go vegetarian or vegan, at least until you figure enough out that you can maintain the intake of all your required vitamins and nutrients as you transition. There are more than a few of them that are typically provided by meat products for most people's eating habits, you'll want advice on how to suppliment that without relying on pills. Suppliment pills can be helpful, but you probably don't want to have to take them all the time.
Eating meat can certainly be healthy too, speaking mainly for ones nutritional needs. The nutrients in meat are, in some cases, fairly rare in plants, so it can vastly simplify the job of meeting your nutritional needs.
For vegans, on a social and societal level, I agree with the concepts surrounding factory farming and the unethical treatment of the animals that become meat. No argument from me. However, thinking that any meat consumption is tantamount to murder, is not a view I share. Animals, and their meat, are eaten by other animals (including humans - separate from farming... I'm talking about actual hunting here). In nature, there's no hesitation about this, no remorse, and no known sorrow from the animals who "lost someone" to being food. Sadness over the passing of an individual is almost (but not entirely) a human phenomenon. Same with morals and ethics... To name a few. Ethically, I don't personally have a problem with animals dying for food. I do however have a problem with the abuse and maltreatment of animals that will become food. While alive, animals should be given some measure of dignity and respect. They should not be forced into living their lives in small cages and jammed together with hundreds of their kin in a confined space the way factory farming often does.
Eating meat does not and should not imply that a person is complicit nor agrees with the concept of factory farms or anything they do. Some people do not have the time, effort, money or focus to dedicate to finding alternatives. You don't know their life and you should not judge based on their eating habits alone. It's presumptive and arrogant to think that people have the bandwidth to even grok the concept of changing their entire lifestyle because of factory farms. In the same manner, vegans and vegetarians should not be negatively judged for their decisions either.
The only points of contention I have in the whole debate is that eating meat, in and of itself, whether you bought it off a shelf or obtained it through hunting, does not make one a murderer; and, while it's fine to share ideas, demanding that others change their ways because you have an opinion, is unacceptable. If someone is curious and willing to listen, sure, chat all you want. However, telling them that their choices are wrong and that they must do something differently, isn't a practice I can support.
At the end of the day, as most people learned from the lion king, there's a circle of life. Things will die so other things can live. Plants will absorb the minerals and nutrients from the rotting corpses of so-called "higher" life forms, and those "higher" life forms will eat the plants to live. Those plant eaters will be eaten by other animals, who will eventually die and become fertilizer for the plants. The cycle continues. Eating animals is something that animals do all the time, and it's not condemned. News flash, humans are also animals. We have the ability to eat and gain strength from meat. You have the free choice to either partake in that activity or not, but make no mistake, that's your personal choice.
IMO, we should all eat more vegetables. Meats have become so prevalent that there's basically meat included in every meal of the day. That's a bit much. Eat a salad. Everyone should reduce their meat intake, at the very least. If you want to go all the way to being vegetarian or vegan, go for it. It's your choice, your life, your body, and you're free to use it, and/or abuse it, in whatever way you wish.
For me, the ethical problems of factory farms are definitely an issue. Personally, I'd rather see a regulatory solution for the treatment of animals, since it would improve the life of all of those animals (at least for the duration they're alive), and improve their situation when they are slaughtered, so it is more humane. After they have been slaughtered, my level of care about how they're treated, pretty much disappears. As long as the resultant product is safe and not harmful, I couldn't care less. I'm only concerned with their life from birth to death. After that, meh. Regulatory changes would be simple and more effective than trying to change the hearts and minds of everyone in an effort to have the pubic at large, stop eating meat; bluntly, trying to convince an entire society to do anything for it's own good, is pretty much impossible. I'm not sure what the "annoying vegans" (not all vegans, just the ones who get in people's faces about it), are trying to prove. They won't convince everyone, it's basically impossible. It's like they've taken on this impossible task and it's not going well, and they're steaming mad about it.... Bro, you did this to yourself. I believe the only way to put an end to the animal abuse in factory farms, is to regulate it. I don't know what that regulation looks like, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have any ties to nor interest in becoming a politician/government decision making person. I know change is needed and I have no ability to enact that change, but I would vote for anyone who did.
I don't consider death, in and if itself to be inhumane. I consider torture to be inhumane. I consider forced imprisonment in a small space to be inhumane. I even consider suffering to death, it be inhumane. Euthanizing something, can absolutely be humane. I don't believe that factory farms are being humane by my standards.
I don't think that asking them to be humane to their flock is too much to ask. Our food deserves it. They're giving their life for your ongoing existence and enjoyment, the least we can and should do, is ensure they're not spending that life in pain.
The act of someone sitting at a brand new Mac, with a never-before-used interface, and immediately clicking the computer icon to drag it to the trash, is such a powerful image for me.
The statement of, "this is what I think of this computer" is so strong, because I have to believe that whomever did that must have been a tech person to be at the event; but perhaps they just thought it was a shortcut and didn't like shortcuts on their desktop so they tried to remove it? Like, you can do this with Windows.... Because the computer object (in Explorer) is immutable, and any reference to it is simply a link to that object.
I prefer the thought of them just being like "this computer is trash" and doing that, and causing the system to crash.
This just puts a huge spotlight on the thing I hate the most about my line of work. I'm sure it's not just my line of work with this problem, but there's plenty of examples of workplaces that do not have this problem.
My career is in IT support. Whether doing systems administration or networking or something else related, it's my lifeblood.
Almost every job I've ever had in this field works on the basis of tickets. A concept which, isn't in and of itself a problem, nor is it unusual. Similar systems exist in many careers; they're similar to a chit in the restaurant industry, which contains an order, which is passed to the kitchen for the cooks/chefs to complete. Same thing. And there's examples of this same idea across many careers, called all kinds of things from a requisition, to a work order, they're all variations on the same idea.
The trouble begins with how tickets are worked and completed. In other industries, you pick up a task, whether a chit or work order, you finish the task, and you mark it as complete, but in IT, it's very different in one key way. We have to not only justify and report everything we do, but also mark down exactly how long it took. It's this last point that's the problem. I am under continual scrutiny, every minute of every day to justify what I've done, and when I did it. In every job I've had, my ability to fill every second of my day with records of what I've done and how long it took to do is praised, or the lack of that ability can create some significant issues with maintaining my employment status.
There are good reasons to keep these records, to have a record of changes, and coordinate with coworkers, in the event they need to continue work I've started, or vice versa, and to note when something changed so that if issues arise, those actions can be examined as a potential cause. But this requirement has become weaponized by every employer to keep a stranglehold on productivity. If you take too long on a task that they think should have taken less time, you're suddenly found in a meeting where you have to explain why you were so inefficient. If you excel and you're able to complete your tasks quickly, that faster pace becomes the new standard, and anyone who isn't capable of keeping up gets reprimanded for dragging their heels and wasting time.
The goal posts continually move. I can't so much as take an extended shit without someone taking notice.
Meanwhile, so many jobs are simply focused on being present and looking busy. Before I went into IT, I worked at a grocery store, and short of clearly and obviously standing around doing literally nothing, no manager even took notice of you. If you were doing something, literally anything that looks even remotely productive, you were left alone. Which isn't to mention all the down time, when there isn't anything to do, and you just go and adjust the products on the shelf needlessly because it made you look busy. That same concept can be applied to a lot of different jobs, but with IT, it's not sufficient to simply look busy. Your time must be put into a ticket.
Old computers wouldn't turn themselves off, they had no mechanism to control whether they remained on. Power was controlled by a heavy duty switch on the side of the PC (some manufacturers moved it to the front or something too, but many had it on the side/back).
When ATX became a thing, power controls were done by a trigger wire from the main board to tell the PSU to turn on fully. This is how things are still done. With 80+ Silver/gold/whatever rated PSUs they actually don't really turn off anymore, power draw just drops to next to nothing when the system is "off".
The hardware switch would physically disconnect the power to the PSU. So when you shut down, this message was displayed, most notably by Windows 9x, to inform you that it had finished the shutdown process and you could flick the switch to turn the power off, and it wouldn't cause any damage to the system.
The idea itself can be a rather interesting thing to explore as a thought experiment. Obviously the premise of the trolley problem is ridiculous, especially today since trains and especially trolleys are becoming much more rare for most people (with the exceptions for railroad tracks across roads, and passenger rail lines like subways and surface passenger services like we see in bullet trains). There are still railcars, like light rail transit in cities sometimes, but again, it's fairly rare overall for the general public as a whole.
The idea of trolleys is a fairly outdated one and most of the safety systems in modern allegories are so robust that dangers are generally minimized.
Nevertheless, the moral quandary of whether you are responsible for injury or death as a result of your action (or inaction) is a fascinating mental exercise and has resulted in more than one discussion of adjacent morality concerns with the friend I mentioned. It's fascinating to study overall, even in a casual context like we do.
I understand there's a lot more to the picture when dealing with it in a more formal study, and that this question is only one piece of the puzzle when performing such studies.
The part that frustrates me more than anything is that people stop at whether or not to pull the lever, and run with it in memes and alternative solutions, rather than grappling with the moralities that are the root of the original question as part of the study. This is supposed to invoke a deep consideration about your actions and the responsibilities you may or may not be accepting when getting involved in a situation, and how your specific world view and moral "code" (so to speak) factors in. All of the memes and reposts of it, to me, always feel like it cheapens the meaning behind the initial problem as stated. However I understand that highly involved analytical thinking that forces you to consider all of those deep underlying concepts, requires significant mental work; system 2 work, of you will. Where you have to engage with your analytical "slow" thinking mind to really grasp, and our default reaction, as a species is that such thinking is usually something that will put us in danger, since our fast thinking system 1, can easily just blurt out an answer without considering it any further, saving significant mental effort.
I understand why people reduce this dilemma to the mechanical components of throwing a switch, but I always feel like they're missing the entire point of the exercise.
I'm always sad when I see this stuff. I know it's all jokes and whatnot, but the entire meme has been born out of a fundamental misunderstanding of the dilemma that the trolley problem is supposed to represent.
The question isn't, and has never been whether you throw the switch or not. The question is that if you throw the switch, are you responsible for killing the one, or conversely, if you do nothing, are you responsible for killing the others?
Whether you throw the switch or not is immaterial to the point. Kill one or kill four (or whatever) it doesn't matter. You didn't create that scenario, so by your inaction several people died, are you responsible for their deaths, considering you never put them in that position? Or are you exempt of blame since you basically chose to be an onlooker?
I don't really blame anyone for not getting it, I sure didn't for a really long time until my friend rephrased the same dilemma in a different way (and omitted the trolley): you go to lunch and have a delicious subway sandwich, but you were not very hungry so you only are half. On your travels from Subway to wherever, you pass by a homeless person begging for food. If you decide to ignore them and keep your food for yourself for later, and that person dies of starvation later that same day because of it, are you responsible for their death?