mr. h

randominternetperson said:

When they introduced the Big Sur name, there was some joke about other companies trying to steal their process?  He must have been referring to something specific, but it went right over my head.  What's the example of another company naming something after a California landmark (or whatever)?

+1

CheeseFreeze said:

prismatics said:

It’s macOS 11. Is it now without Darwin Kernel or without NeXTSTEP inside, or is there something else that makes this worth an increment?

It’s just branding to emphasize the big change to their own silicon, and to align their branding to iOS/iPadOS which also has one number. The X was getting weird.

Yes, they'll probably start incrementing the major number once a year now, just like their other platforms

mcdave said:

The new UI looks very tappable.

That's an interesting observation and not one I'd considered. However, I think this is more about harmonising the design language across the different platforms - macOS did feel a bit "odd one out". Whilst this has made it look more tappable, I think there remain plenty of elements that in reality, are still too small to be used via finger-tap, and will always require a mouse pointer. In short, I don't think this means that they are working on a touch-capable Mac.

I'm a bit disappointed they didn't take this opportunity to rename the Finder to "Files"; I wonder if they had debates about that?

I think the i7 option is poor value for money relative to the i5. The i5 has the same graphics core as the i7, and supports hyper threading. Bumping RAM to 16 GB is a good move.

The i5 processor + 16 GB combo does move you closer to 13" MacBook Pro pricing territory. If I was you, I would try to hold out until the next 13" MBP refresh, which is rumoured to happen "soon" to "soonish". You will then be able to make a more informed decision of MBP vs i5 Air.

elijahg said:

Right so what exactly have I misrepresented by saying police ...

The misrepresentation is your loose use of language. The way you phrase it "police have been", "the police", implies that this is occurring at an institutional level, deliberately. This is demonstrably not the case. The cases highlighted in the media are anecdotal cases of individual officers getting it wrong.

Is the media doing an important job by identifying and highlighting these missteps? Yes. But many articles are pitched in a deliberately click-baiting, hyperbolic manner, which is especially disappointing when it's done by supposedly respectable broadsheet publications. It's wrong to imply that these anecdotal cases are indications of a wider systemic issue. In any organisation that contains many thousands of individuals, it is literally impossible to ensure that every single one of them will always do what they are supposed to, because they are human and humans make mistakes.

What is vital is that the system is at least reasonably good at identifying when problems occur and correcting them if necessary and possible. So like I said, media reporting misdeeds is important, but let's not do it in a way that misrepresents the overall picture and gets people unnecessarily riled.