dysamoria

I've not noticed any reduction in clone or junk apps...

tallest skil said:

foljs said:

You're doing it wrong then. "Redundancy" on a single drive is not a replacement for backups (plural: as you should not only backup, but backup to more than one location).

You’ve never made a copy of an file so that you could make changes to the copy without worrying about screwing something up and accidentally working destructively rather than non-destructively? Are you so accustomed to a nondestructive workflow that it didn’t occur to you, or are we just so old that you were never raised outside one? 

You can still do that with APFS. You're not understanding the difference between what the file system does with bits on the physical storage device and what you the user are experiencing. There's a layer of abstraction between the two. The user sees nothing different from before, but the actual data storage methodology in the physical storage device works differently from before. The difference is invisible to you as the user and you keep working the way you always did.

If you copy a file for the purpose of working on a duplicate (to preserve the original as a "safety copy"), the file system will create a new record in the file system but not change any other bits in the storage device's physical media. When you modify and save your document, this is when the file system changes bits on the device. It only writes bits that differ from the original file. It associates these bits to the new file's file system record. Any bits that are unchanged between the original file and the new duplicate file will continue being read from the same physical location as before. There's no sense in duplicating the unchanged bits on the physical storage device.

As you change and save the duplicate, the file system will write more data to the device for that duplicate, and it will refer less and less to the original as it is reading from the device (because your changes aren't in the original file).

If you keep working on your duplicate file, it will eventually change so much that, due to writing changes to the file system, the space the new duplicate consumes on the volume may approach or equal the space consumed by your original. The duplicate file record will no longer refer to file system nodes storing data for the original file because those are irrelevant to your new file. No matter how much you change the duplicate, the original remains unchanged.

We aren't dealing with real-world objects here. You can treat bits of data composing a file in a molecular manner, rather than the monolithic manner we treat physical objects like pages of paper, paper folders, or paper books.

If you treated physical objects the same way as APFS treats file copies, you'd have a book sitting on your table. When you copy the book, you'd start by placing a new cover/title page on the table next to the original book. As you write new content, you're writing them on new pages of paper and sitting them in a pile, under the new cover/title page, on the table next to the existing book. The more pages you change, the larger your stack of pages for the new book becomes.

If you wanted to read the original book, you do nothing different from before. If you want to read the new book, you would read all the pages in order like before, but you would read unmodified pages from the original paper book and read the modified pages from the stack of pages you've been piling up on the table next to the original.

It's messy or impossible to treat physical objects this way, but it is simple and efficient to handle bits and bytes of data in this way.

The only caveat is file system corruption. If the device suffers corruption to the bits referenced by multiple records, those records will all include bad data and therefore result in the user seeing multiple corrupted files. This is why we do backups to other storage devices. This is why we have always done backups, and should always do backups, to other storage devices.

That new control center looks absolutely horrible. Total garbage. I thought it looked bad but it is even worse when seen in use.

• extra effort to get to the control center

• nothing looks like a control, requiring touch and gestural exploration and wild guesses (which tends to scare off new users, who won't use it for fear of doing something wrong).

• nothing looks distinctively different from anything else (compounding the current disease of flat design in the icons). Why do we have to spend so much more time switching context with Apple's current design? Nothing has distinctiveness, that's why.

• no color??

• Too much customization choice leads to bad visual design and no layout consistency between devices and users. Customization is not the end-all be-all of giving users a good system. Now when users customize their CC, they'll memorize their own layout (the few people who will customize this) and hit a road block when they use someone else's customized CC. This is one of the things Apple used to be very explicit about NOT doing, yet here they are adding this edge-case customization crap, causing a complete redesign to an otherwise feature-complete usable prior design, instead of refining the [still hard on the eyes] existing design... and instead of fixing the MANY bugs still in iOS since this flat GUI BS started with iOS 7 in 2013!!

Why are we devolving computer GUIs to be no more than thin lines, black & white boxes with black & white clip art...??? It's either too low contrast or too much contrast. No middle ground. We could go back to CMYK CGA graphics at this point. Hell, monochrome displays, even, instead of the expensive full-color high-ppi displays being wasted on this difficult to look at (and to intuit) minimalist garbage.

The flat GUI design fad is like a bastard offspring between ASCII graphics and 90s-era Corel Draw/MS Word bundled clip art.

This new control center looks like they put the programmers in the design jobs at Apple (I think even the print team responsible for iOS 7's ugly redesign would do better than this new junker). Too lazy to learn graphic design and UX, or too cheap/poor to pay for actual expertise to create an interface with actual imagery, depth, distinctiveness, and more than two colors. That expertise used to be AT Apple. It used to be BRED at Apple. Where is it now???

This is curious, was expected, but is of no real interest to me.

• still an all-in-one with all the thermal and servicing problems that comes with

• the cost is extreme and there's no way I can afford to buy a powerful workstation more than once per ten years, nor could I afford to buy more than base RAM on purchase day.

Though I guess this shows us what to expect in the cost of the upcoming Mac Pro. It looks like my 2011 iMac acquisition is going to have to last me more than two years. If the upcoming Mac Pro does not offer replaceable RAM and storage, and the ability to clean its insides, Apple will have learned nothing. But I suspect that their notions of modularity for the upcoming model are purely based on them selling new computers more often, not owners incrementally increasing storage and memory over time.

tallest skil said:

And the species of animals who are monogamous for their entire lives? There's nothing natural about them? You can't have this both ways.

There are no such things as animals who are monogamous for their entire lives. It's a myth promoted by humans who think they need to prove monogamy is natural (while ignoring everything about nature) and "necessary".

Here're some references for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxQdLhOQf5c&list=UUeiYXex_fwgYDonaTcSIk6w&feature=c4-overview

Albatrosses:

"These life-long partnerships give the impression that the albatrosses are monogamous, remaining strictly faithful to their partners. But the evidence says otherwise. In 2006, a genetic analysis showed that more than 10 per cent of chicks had a sire from outside the parental pair-bond.

The latest study found an even higher level of infidelity. Genevieve Jones and colleagues of the University of Cape Town in South Africa followed the Marion Island colony for three years, and found that 18 per cent of chicks had an extra-pair sire." Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22063-zoologger-inbred-wandering-albatrosses-sleep-around/

Angelfish:

"Well, if they are mine aren't! I basically have a community tank w/tetras, angels, cories, bn pleco and gold algae eaters. My two females are taking turns with the male." Source: https://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/threads/are-angelfish-supposed-to-be-monogamous.229835/#post-2399504

Then there's this beast (Angler):

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/angler

Bald Eagles:

It seems there hasn't been a study on bald eagles similar to the ones that have shown the other formally assumed monogamous birds are actually sexually non-monogamous, but the likelihood is good that they have similar behavior, based on what is being seen in other avian species.

Beavers:

"Beavers are generally monogamous and mate for life. They usually only take a new partner after losing one, but occasionally practice other mating strategies."

i love the language here: "...occasionally practice other mating strategies"... That means they have sex with non-social bonded partners. They can't stand to say it directly. Source: http://www.landscouncil.org/beaverso.../facts_on_beavers.asp

General:

"Researchers in animal behavior have long known that monogamy is uncommon in the natural world, but only with the advent of DNA "fingerprinting" have we come to appreciate how truly rare it is. Genetic testing has recently shown that even among many bird species -- long touted as the epitome of monogamous fidelity -- it is not uncommon for 6% to 60% of the young to be fathered by someone other than the mother's social partner. As a result, we now know scientifically what most people have long known privately: that social monogamy does not necessarily imply sexual monogamy." Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/22/opinion/la-oe-barash22-2009nov22

Penguins:

"Emperor Penguins are serially monogamous. They have only one mate each year, and stay faithful to that mate. However, fidelity between years is only about 15%." Their domesticity lasts only for the current breeding season. Source: Wikipedia.

Swans:

"Swans have long been renowned as symbols of lifelong fidelity and devotion, but our recent work has shown that infidelity is rife among black swans," said Raoul Mulder from the University of Melbourne's zoology department. Source: http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Myth-of-Monogamous-Swans-25965.shtml

Well written article about monogamy's unnaturalness:

"Marrying for love is a relatively new concept. Beginning with Enlightenment -- the cultural movement of the 18th and 19th centuries -- when the pursuit of happiness became a legitimate human pursuit, marrying for love slowly but surely became an aspiration in the Western world.

But for most of human history, marriage was primarily a socioeconomic transaction. Spending the rest of your life with someone was more about the protection of property and the sharing of labor than it was about romance.

The side effect of the rise of marriage as a romantic proposition was that sexual jealousy became a more prevalent ingredient in marriage than it had been previously. Over time, sexual fidelity has come to be regarded as the barometer of a successful marriage -- regardless of what science tells us about natural human inclinations."

[...] "The evidence shows that monogamy is a rarity among mammals. Only 3% to 5% of all the mammal species on Earth "practice any form of monogamy." In fact, no mammal species has been proven to be truly monogamous." Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/opinion/laslocky-monogamy-marriage/index.html