When I'm using my macbook's screen, I usually expand a browser window to fill the whole screen -- it's a 13" screen so not using the whole thing makes things feel small. But most of the time my computer is plugged into an larger external monitor (20-something inches, maybe 27?), and there I don't expand any windows to fill the whole screen. I like having separate not-full-screen windows which partially (or mostly) overlap.

Somewhat relatedly, we use Windows at work, and it drives me crazy when I hop on a computer after someone's been using it and they have every single thing maximized, even Windows Explorer, on 27" monitors. A maximized browser, I get... I don't do it myself but I understand how it can be useful, but maximizing Windows Explorer is just insane to me, and yet a lot of my coworkers do it.

Is Ruby really the speed bottleneck in Homebrew? I would assume it would be due to file operations (and download operations), not choice of programming language.

Largely agree, though some things are notably difficult in some languages. Things like true concurrency for example didn’t come as naturally in Ruby because of the global interpreter lock. Of course there are third party libs, and workarounds though. Newer versions of Ruby bring it more natively, and as we’ve seen, Homebrew has adopted and makes use of that experimentally for a while, and the default relatively recently.

I can’t say that’s the only reason it’s slow of course. I’m on the “I don’t use it often enough for it to be a problem at all” side of the fence.

Parentheses in headings is a telltale AI sign now? I feel like this has been a common way for normal humans to write for ages.

Normal humans do it very rarely, LLMs do it all the time.

I wish we had metrics for claims like this. I feel like it's been a very common thing to see in blog posts written by humans, not AIs, over the last two decades.

It's probably not long till approximately nobody can distinguish LLM and human text.

"Permanent" as used in the article was merely in contrast to the concept of "going to get rolled back soon", not a true declaration of forever.

Maybe I'm getting worse at recognizing it, but I didn't notice anything that made me think it was AI-authored. What were the telltale signs you noticed?

But Apple has quietly built something else

Their reaction? Genuine shock.

Hierarchy wasn’t just a bullet point; it was the absolute anchor for the entire three-day session.

(and designers)

...

It just reads like a marketing pitch. Using an AI-generated header image gives up the game at the start

It can be inferred the use of "we" was as a quote. The bigger issue is that they did not clearly indicate that they were quoting.

Isn't it already like that, more or less, but the length of time it takes is longer than any software has so far existed?

You're too high by a power of 10.

oh, you're right. Sorry about that. (Can't edit my comment.)

I think you'd find quite a difference between 386,2 g and 3862 g, especially when wearing it on your head.

Yes. Sarcasm.

I have a pair of the first generation AirPods Max. They leave dents in my scalp if I wear them for any real amount of time. I've been an Apple person since the 1980s. This is one of the most disappointing Apple products for me ever, and I really don't want to know how much $$$$$ lifetime customer value I've contributed to Apple's bottom line.

How much does that matter for party balloons, though? It's still buoyant.

A spherical balloon 20cm in radius is displacing 41g of air. Even ignoring compression (which I don’t know enough to quantify the effects of, except that it will make the numbers more unfavourable), nitrogen’s 3.3%-lighter gives you a budget of only 1.35g for the balloon. I believe balloons hare heavier than this, so the balloon will still sink (a little more slowly than an air-filled one, but I’m not sure how noticeable the difference will be).

> which I don’t know enough to quantify the effects of

You probably do, actually! People constantly underestimate the grand utility of their basic education.

At near-atmospheric pressure and typical ambient temperatures, the ideal gas equation (PV=nRT) from introductory physics works very well and indicates that a 3% overpressure would make gases 3% more dense (linear direct proportionality). At some threshold of high pressures/ low temperatures, you'd want to switch your equation of state (EOS) from ideal gas law to something else. Peng-Robinson would be a good choice for a non-polar gas like Nitrogen, if its >10-50 atm pressure and/or < -50C temperature.

At 20 degC, 1.00atm to 3kPa gauge pressure, ideal gas law predicts nitrogen would increase in density by 2.9608%. Whereas Peng-Robinson predicts it would increase in density by ever-so-slightly more, 2.9623%. This is truly negligible, so better to use the simples EOS for explainability (which would be the ideal gas law).

Yeah, I didn’t know enough to quantify those effects! :-)

I feel like people really need to learn basic physics.

The gas inside a standard party balloon is generally compressed 3% to inflate the balloon. This wipes out even the theoretical buoyancy of nitrogen. And trust me, there was never any practical buoyancy to begin with. You’d need a ridiculously large balloon in a room with impossibly still air and impossibly null thermal gradients to even measure the buoyancy of nitrogen vs air. The buoyancy of nitrogen vs air would never be perceptible to human senses in any real-world setting.

It would be the same as just filling the balloon with air.

> I feel like people really need to learn basic physics.

I'm 20+ years out of college and I asked a question specifically because I was unsure. Give me a break. I'm sorry if "party balloon buoyancy physics" wasn't the part of my college classes that stuck with me.