As a very simple example, airdrop to macOS with multiple logged in users will frequently pop up the confirmation notification in the user account that is not active.
I wonder if this was a design choice, so if I’m on the computer and a call comes in for them, I can let them know and maybe hand it off?
The alternative would be they would have to answer on their phone (assuming they have an iPhone, which may not always be the case), then use handoff to get it on the Mac.
Perhaps I don't understand it but the encryption security model for MacOS/iPadOS/iOS currently doesn't allow multiple different encryption keys for each user. So any user can decrypt the whole drive and while it does enforce user permissions, the security model can't support true multiuser.
I actually don't know if Windows or ChromeOS support this either but this is certainly something Linux can with LUKS et. al.
Non-admins getting prompts for system and app upgrades is mildly annoying. The bigger one in a family setting is the clunky sharing. There's no good way to share a photo library or music library between users. The Unix version of making a folder shared by a group doesn't usually work for Apple apps.
Switching users while changing displays often results in an incorrect resolution. That’s such a basic thing: different users have different preferences for their displays and keyboards attached to the displays. Yet this doesn’t work reliably, as if during some moments the login window just doesn’t want to adjust resolutions.
As soon as I added a 2nd user, my Samba share totally broke and days later I still don't have it working. It was fine for over a year and now I'm close to deleting my 2nd user just so I can access my Mac Mini across the network again.
> Give x < y, it's easy to construct x + (y-x)(sqrt(2))/2.
That's only obviously irrational if x and y are rational. (But maybe you meant that, given an arbitrary interval a < b, you first shrink it to a rational interval a < x < y < b?)
The original title made clear that this was about sizing for women's clothes. I'm not sure why that was removed; it wasn't clickbaity, and made the title more informative. In fact, I'd argue that just "Sizing chaos" is more clickbaity. (The article itself doesn't seem to have an official title.)
The url includes "womens-sizing" but I don't see that phrase on the page when I view it. "Sizing chaos" is the HTML doc title which is a legit option HN titles (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). That's why we went with that one.
For potentially interesting context, I notice in inspecting past articles that the pudding site regularly uses three different titles between the homepage, the article html title, and the title in-page (if any). In this article’s case, the homepage subtitle is much better than either of the other options:
> The inter-generational struggle to find clothes that fit more than a tiny portion of women
But I’m not sure if that’s a better title for HN or not. I sure like it, though.
> The keychain system is so hidden from users it was hard to even get to for myself.
These days, keychain access is under /System/Library/Core Services/Applications/Keychain Access.app. That's not intuitive, but, once you know it's there, it's not hard to navigate to it. Was it different under older versions?
Apple moved it there in macOS Sequoia, from Utilities, because they were worried it would be confused with the Passwords app. Apple reminds you that you're actually looking for the Passwords app at every turn:
Tip: You can find all your passwords, passkeys, and verification codes in the Passwords app on your Mac.
However, while Spotlight works well when you know what you are looking for, it can still be useful to navigate the filesystem, and it's too bad that Apple hides tools in relatively obscure locations rather than somewhere like /Applications/Utilities.
My bad – that was a misleading thing to say! Thanks for pointing that out. I figured out what I said wrong. (Caveat emptor, I do biostatistics now.)
The context IIRC was this: one of the key results of the class was generalized Stokes' theorem, but this case (since was a 200-level class) we mostly just looked at differential forms on open spaces in R^n, and then said a few quick things about differentiable manifolds.
At this more concrete level, then, I remember that we constructed de Rham cohomology (fixing an open subset of R^n) beginning with the cochain complex given by vector spaces of k-differential forms and exterior derivatives, instead of working more generally with a cochain complex on modules.
But think I said something wrong here, which I why you were (rightly) confused. I'm not sure that the above distinction matters anyway since IIRC, you can get Mayer-Vietoris by showing that de Rham cohomology satisfies the Eilenberg-Steenrod axioms (stated for cohomology), and the Eilenberg-Steenrod axioms only need abelian groups anyway.
But I'm also 90% sure that TFA did something more direct to get to Mayer-Vietoris that I've forgotten, since we didn't use that much homological algebra.
Im talking the fundamental language framework. 'Everything is an object' and method calls are actually message passing are the two reasons that objc and ruby are actually smalltalks.
I’ve tried to explain this before and unless you’re steeped in late binding, encapsulation, and message passing, the details are lost on most people (it seems including modern language designers).
For the GP, in most languages the dot or arrow operator is field access. If that field is a function reference, parenthesis are used to invoke it.
From outside of the object, neither Ruby or Objective-C allow direct access to object fields or functions. The dot operator sends the object a message that be bound to anything, and even rebound at runtime for specific instances. There is no difference between access and property and calling a function - it’s all messages. Smalltalk and Objective-C (before dot operators) don’t even have different syntax for data fields and functions calls. Ruby’s no arg messages are similar.
Most of the time that distinction doesn’t matter. But writing things like wrappers and proxies becomes trivial. A object can forward any message it receives, and if it sees on it wants to intercept, it can do that easily. Most of the time modifying existing programs and frameworks can be as easy as rebinding some logic to something that wasn’t part of the original program.
This comes at the cost of some runtime performance, and possibly some complexity. The elegance outweighs those, imho.
>The dot operator sends the object a message that be bound to anything
Modern obj-c "dot notation" + properties + synthesized ivars add a lot of syntactic sugar that make things more confusing, if you go back to original obj-c where it was just ivars and explicit getters/setters, things are a lot easier to understand.
> For a community that prides itself on "one small tool for a specific purpose," people sure like to use VIM for a thousand different purposes by hacking plugins. This used to be derided as the microsoft way decades ago.
I'm not sure that this is the meaning of the slogan. The slogan says that a programmer shouldn't try to make one tool to do all things, not, I think, that users shouldn't be given the freedom to adapt their favorite tool to do all the things that they want to do. (Imagine, for example, if one applied this understanding of the slogan to C, and regretted the thousand and thousand thousand different purposes to which users were putting it!)
As a parent, I would want to know everything about anyone who's going to be around my children in any capacity. That doesn't mean I have a right to it, though.
how else would you interpret admitting you don't think parents should have a right to know the backgrounds of the people with access to their children before making informed decisions on whether or not to allow it?
please, show me your good faith interpretation and i will take back my comment
Why are you saying unbounded when the discussion is about court proceedings and convictions? There is a clear and consistent boundary here, no one is asking for search logs and round the clock surveillance.
what if these “others” voluntarily apply to a position where they have regular contact and help take care of your children? is it ok then to be informed on whether or not they are a convicted child rapist?
> Why are we protecting criminals, just because they are minors? Protect victims, not criminals.
Protect victims and criminals. Protect victims from the harm done to them by criminals, but also protect criminals from excessive, or, as one might say, cruel and unusual punishment. Just because someone has a criminal record doesn't mean that anything that is done to them is fair game. Society can, and should, decide on an appropriate extent of punishment, and not exceed that.
What problems do you see with multiple users on macOS? I don't use it intensively, but I've never noticed issues.
reply