Each folder has a remembered display state. If in large icon mode, you can drag icons around into the positions you want and they'll stay that way the next time you visit the folder.
The idea is that it's not directories that are just bags of files, but files occupy spatial locations in folder windows.
Ah, this makes sense. Am I hallucinating that columns widths used to be remembered many years back? In other words, in column view, if you resized a column for a given folder, close Finder, and reopen to that folder—it would remain the same width.
Finder is mostly unusable for any directory containing long filenames since it doesn’t remember this. But I swear it used to. Am I misremembering?
I just tested and for me they seem to be remembered for my Downloads folder. Weirdly, at first it didn't seem to be remembered, but then I pressed ⌘+J to look at the view settings, and now when I change a column width it seems to be remembered...
This has been called out by the Moody's Analytics economists in their podcast [0] for a while. The generally accepted explanation is that online job postings no longer map 1:1 to actual open positions at companies, ie many companies are not actually hiring despite having a listing for an open role.
This has become common enough that it has gained it's own term: "ghost" postings/listings.
We also have the unemployment numbers, and they are low. If job openings were largely ghost listings, and we were in a stealth recession, we'd see it in rising unemployment. Now unemployment HAS been creeping up, but still is low. If it hits 5% then I'd worry about a downturn.
Does this 5% include people who have fallen out of the unemployed bucket into some sort of long term bucket? I know multiple people who have been looking for 6 months+. Not to mention underemployed.
It never has. The labor force participation rate for 25-54 year-olds is a better metric for such things.[1] Last time it was this high was 1990s through 2002. (Before that, it was never this high.)
The shape of that graph is roughly equivalent to the shape of labor force participation for women [1]. I don’t think that detracts from your point in regards to the last 20-30 years, but in regards to “before that it was never this high” I think it’s evident that the societal shift of women joining the workforce is the reason, not an improvement in the economy.
The data in the FRED link doesn't come from online job postings but rather from surveys that businesses complete about their open positions. They don't really have much reason to lie in those surveys (or at least not any more than they have in the past?)
I'm super bummed about this. I absolutely loved slackmojis, it made it possible to find and add new emojis to Slack in sub 10 seconds.
Slack re-doing their UX back in 202X was the moment I realized they were past their peak. Virtually no one liked the new UI but they were too tone deaf to listen to users.
Really hoping some startup builds a spiritual successor and knocks them down a notch, because this cease and desist attacking their very own community to me reads as them being in the "milk the business for all it is worth" stage.
Is there anywhere you can watch these old flash creations like Xiao Xiao and Homestar Runner with the original vector graphics? The reproductions I’ve seen on YouTube are terrible, in part because of the obvious video artifacts that don’t preserve the edges, but also because it loses all interactivity.
The versions linked to in the article use the original vector graphics. In fact I think they're the original post location (NewGrounds). From there you can follow the link to the author's page, which has them all:
There's good reason to believe that OpenAI's success (or failure) and the success of many other firms are correlated. If OpenAI's bubble bursts, then that is likely to spread to other close firms and – depending on severity – any other firms that are merely associated.
NVDA, MSFT, AAPL, META, and GOOG are all heavily investing in AI right now, and together make up 28% of the money tied up in S&P 500 indices. Simply investing in the S&P 500, which many people do, exposes you to meaningful downside risk of an AI bubble pop.
Fraudsters almost certainly gain access to old accounts specifically to "buy" that trust and then farm it for their own uses.
I wonder how much a 20-yr old Amazon account is worth on the grey market. Mine is about that old, and I have – legimately – returned thousands of dollars worth of goods (that were faulty or just didn't work the way I liked) and it is probably very difficult for Amazon to distinguish between my legitimate returns and a hypothetical alternative where I'm a fraudster that just purchased this old account and am laundering broken electronics through the returns system.
