The point they made about grade school, to me, points more towards early recognition now leads to more kids having a shot at top schools.
Not because they have a 'disability' or a particular type of accommodation, but because it was caught early enough and worked with by people that cared, that now they have a model for learning that better suits them. It was never an issue with intelligence, only that some of us* run into walls because the standard learning lane is pretty narrow. Crashing into those walls in grade school is likely what kept many people* from going to top colleges (or any college) -- but now that it's better understood and worked with at an early age we are seeing people show up who can do the same correct work, but do it in a way that's different.
* Im also dyslexic, but from the days that wasn't a thing in my mediocre public school. I was simply a slow reader that couldn't spell (or pronounce or "sound out" words) or read out loud, but somehow had high scores in other language/comprehension test.
You incorrectly drew an implication. The authors words only actually imply that some accommodations are still needed, not that they are the same accommodations.
This conclusion is obvious given that the underlying condition is not curable.
You inferred or assumed that...OP didn't say it. It's common sense that accommodations would be different for children just learning to read vs. university students.
Lots of things don't go away, like socioeconomic factors, intelligence differences, not having been tutored in childhood, but we don't accommodate for that.
Yes historically but not by design. It's more of a transition tactic.
Starting with iOS 26, new UIKit and AppKit features are implemented by "native" SwiftUI (specifically, Liquid Glass's implementation). In recent years they have also been replacing UIKit/AppKit-backed SwiftUI views with "native" SwiftUI implementations.
But besides this technical change I don't think Apple has any desire to bring SwiftUI to other platforms.
BTW: https://skip.tools has bridged it to Compose. Your SwiftUI code runs in native Swift on Android.
Just the other day I was making brownies and I always make them from scratch, but my partner has been making a particular box mix forever and thought I'd buy one and try it since its easier than from scratch.
But it wasn't better. I like to get a nice glossy top on a brownie with a fudgy consistency under it. The glossy top cracks when you bite into it and it's amazing. But there's no way to do that with a box mix. The top comes from whipping air into the butter, egg and sugar mixture but a box mix is one bag. You try to beat air into it and you develop the gluten and it turns out terrible.
Box mixes are acceptable. But they don't beat from scratch by a long shot, unless its your first time or to ever for baking.
Cake mixes almost always come ahead in blind taste tests. Very few bakers short of folks with a lot of volume are doing stuff from scratch.
It may or may not be healthier, but the subjective taste preferences of the masses is pretty much settled fact at this point.
Frosting is a different topic - totally agree there, but I haven't seen any blind taste tests on that one.
The professional bakers around me who do a dozen cakes a day or whatnot are all pre-made mixes, maybe some small modifications to the mix, and from-scratch frostings. I'm not sure I could even find a local spot with cakes made from scratch - at least in the traditional sense. The spots making 200 cakes a day perhaps, but those are going to look a lot more like the mixes you buy from Sysco or whatnot.
Don't neglect the cultural component when considering taste tests. I've heard there are many americans who actually prefer american chocolate. To me it tastes like sugary beeswax with a hint of sock.
I wonder what is the proportion of that according to countries. In France, there's a label "fait maison" that's supposed to limit how much the baker or restaurateur rely on pre made mix. But besides this if a professional baker uses a premade mix, how do they differentiate themselves (but then I guess from my experience in the US some shops mostly compete on decoration and not taste)
> Cake mixes almost always come ahead in blind taste tests.
Could be a "New Coke"[1] thing, where people just like the one with more sugar. There's a reason food companies pack the stuff into everything - it (usually) works.
> It may or may not be healthier, but the subjective taste preferences of the masses is pretty much settled fact at this point.
The masses sustain Hostess by buying enough of their atrocious boxed "cakes" and cookies. I really wouldn't trust their taste buds.
If your argument is, "if making cakes for the masses, boxed is fine," sure, I don't disagree. My argument is that I hang out with folks that do care about that kind of thing and basically never go to the middle aisles of a grocery store - that crowd will appreciate baked with straightforward ingredients. Flour, sugar, actual cocoa powder, yeast, whatever.
> The professional bakers around me who do a dozen cakes a day or whatnot are all pre-made mixes, maybe some small modifications to the mix, and from-scratch frostings. I'm not sure I could even find a local spot with cakes made from scratch - at least in the traditional sense. The spots making 200 cakes a day perhaps, but those are going to look a lot more like the mixes you buy from Sysco or whatnot.
95% of bakeries are using a box mix and a packet of jello pudding. That's the secret.
Ability to cook is a spectrum. In order for your statement to be true, then the average cook must be 'almost always' better at producing cake than the average bake mix.
> Because they finally understood who was actually using our product.
Yes!!!
> The biggest problem with most engineers is actually over-engineering.
Err, wait, go back to step 1. Over-engineering is sometimes a byproduct of not understanding the customer use cases. That lack of understanding is the biggest problem.
So, I’m an “engineer” —- my most common frustration with other engineers is their lack of interest in understanding of the actual product being sold. In my experience, sometimes the reason is job-fit issues, sometimes it’s ego, but usually it’s a combination of culture and incentive.
As a user, I couldn’t care less about the algorithmic beauty of the type system if it works, lets me type complex things reliably, and is fast enough to stay out of my way. Does it do that by being a mess of duct table and plywood? Totally fine for me.
And yet TypeScript doesn't fail with a cryptic nonsensical error just because you have the impossible component with an unfathomable number of two nested lists, like in SwiftUI.
No, I'm saying it has a worse system than Swift's. The point I'm making is that they've designed things such that the normal case doesn't hit this, while Swift keeps adding APIs that exercise the worst of their type system.
