> Physical UIs can be more intuitive and usable than screens
A thousand times this.
Not related to guitars, but I do a lot of off-roading and the multimedia system is only controlled by the big screen. In bumpy roads it's a trial and error operation to skip a song. Give me my previous/next physical buttons back.
It just seems so insane to me that cars are even allowed to have touch screens. The last thing I want to do is to be forced to take my eyes away from the road in order to push a button on my dashboard. I'll never buy a vehicle with a touch screen.
Plus its like the worst touchscreen tech imaginable. Cars if they are going to have a touchscreen, should have that 15 year old blackberry storm touch screen tech with faux button haptics.
This is exactly why I bought a Mazda after loving my previous Subaru to death. Between when I bought my Forester and when I went to replace it, Subaru had gone all in on touch screen interfaces. Meanwhile, Mazda had declared they would never, citing studies they increase road hazard more than drinking alcohol.
For example, the BOSS Katana line of digital amplifiers has physical knobs. Of course, the knobs are digital rotary encoders. But do they have a display like most? No. So you have no idea of what you dialed in at a glance. It's easier to connect your phone through the USB port to the amplifier and manipulate everything through the app. It's appalling.
>> Physical UIs can be more intuitive and usable than screens
> A thousand times this.
A million times this, also for safety concerns.
The folks at Space-X are not idiots, and they put shiny touch screens in the Crew Dragon spacecraft also for the press to "ooooh! Look at that, ...just like our cellphones!", but all important controls are also behind real physical buttons and joysticks. A touch screen looks amazing and so futuristic, until the moment something hits it in the wrong spot and they lose all instrumentation and controls in one shot. For important stuff I'll always take traditional rugged controls over touch screens.
Not true. If you examine sci-fi movies from the 1960s onwards, you'll learn that the most futuristic-looking interfaces have the most buttons and physical affordances. Touchscreens were never regarded as futuristic, and thus rarely depicted in sci-fi.
That could be because filmmakers didn't know about their existence. SciFi predicts a lot but also borrows from current knowledge; for example, we've seen black holes depicted in different ways according to the knowledge of the time of the writing/filming.
Also, for many years before touch screens became reality the only known direct interaction with a screen was like a light pen, whose operation was slow and clumsy (can't "push" more than a "button" at the same time, wires, etc) which could have discouraged the idea suggesting to wait until the idea of operating screens directly using hands was conceived and became popular; probably in ST TNG LCARS interface.
Same. I pretty much scan it, anything interesting I open(which isn't a ton). Then, about once every few months, I get tired of seeing 20k unread emails, so delete all unread emails older than x.
Perhaps I'm not a power user, or constant marketing emails have just made me numb to it all.
I basically never receive an email to my personal account that I care about, unless it's a transactional email I just caused to be sent (password reset, email confirmation, shipping notice, that sort of thing) or I'm job-hunting. I go weeks sometimes without opening my personal email. I tried for quite a while to keep the inbox manageable with filters and aggressive application of the "mark as spam" button for anything from a sender I didn't care to ever hear from again, but at some point realized that I damn near never care about an email that I didn't expect to find, usually received within the last few minutes, so there's no point.
About once a month, I unsubscribe in bulk, and delete in bulk. Other than that, I scan my inbox once every day or two and read anything that seems relevant (maybe a handful of emails per week).
Before reading this post I had no idea of who Mattias was and had never heard of Oh Dear! or DNS Spy. I'm happy to read about other people's finance during my lunch break, but I question what are the motivations other than cheap marketing reach.
I can't pinpoint where from, but I knew the name already before those businesses were started. I think Mattias had been active in some open source projects before.
So this is just one counterpoint to yours, also it doesn't matter - I'm just trying to say that it doesn't look like cheap marketing reach to me.
Look from the other side as well. I doubt such transaction moves the needle enough in Oracle’s performance to mean anything to the pension fund’s investment. However, it’s almost an asset for the fund to be able to pursuit such lawsuit.
