I really wish people would stop trying to innovate with user interfaces. In a comment below you criticize this UI because it doesn't have delimited interface elements. I agree that non-delimited user interface is really bad, but I attribute that mostly to Microsoft's flat design innovation, which I didn't like at the time, and I still wish I hadn't had so much influence.

As for invisible scroll bars, again we agree. But I think that was Apple. I'm sure somebody will correct me if it wasn't.

I've been gaming for twice as long as you. You're picking the wrong games.

Oh? If I’m picking the wrong games, and they’re all on the Steam top 100, what games should I be playing? Give me a 2025 title I haven’t tried.

Well, I don't know what you've tried, but apparently it all has microtransactions and DLCs.

Try Blue Prince.

PEAK

What did you think after you got into room 46 of Blue Prince?

This exact scenario happened with my dad 50 years ago when a little girl ran out to the street from between some parked cars. It's an extremely difficult scenario to avoid an accident in.

I've probably deleted 15 apps from my phone in the past year as I steadily move over to the web for everything.

My chat agent, file transfer tool, Grubhub, Amazon, YouTube, news, weather are all deleted in favor of a set of armored browsers that suppress the trash and clean up the experience. Its been an amazing change, as those companies no longer get a free advertisement on the application grid of my phone, making my use of them much more intentional.

Just to ground the discussion in Apple's criminal behavior a bit, here's some excerpts from a 2025 ruling about Apple's behavior in this regard:

> Apple’s response to the Injunction strains credulity. After two sets of evidentiary hearings, the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction’s goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream. Remarkably, Apple believed that this Court would not see through its obvious cover-up (the 2024 evidentiary hearing). To unveil Apple’s actual decision-making process, not the one tailor-made for litigation, the Court ordered production of real-time documents and ultimately held a second set of hearings in 2025.

> To summarize: One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive. Apple’s response: charge a 27 percent commission (again tied to nothing) on off-app purchases, where it had previously charged nothing,and extend the commission for a period of seven days after the consumer linked-out of the app. Apple’s goal: maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. Two, the Court had prohibited Apple from denying developers the ability to communicate with, and direct consumers to, other purchasing mechanisms. Apple’s response: impose new barriers and new requirements to increase friction and increase breakage rates with full page “scare” screens, static URLs, and generic statements. Apple’s goal: to dissuade customer usage of alternative purchase opportunities and maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. In the end, Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this Court’s Injunction.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...

So, I wanted to avoid referring to this case because it undermines any discussion, but if you want to include it, the judge ruled in favor of Apple for nine out of ten claims made by Epic, including 1) Apple's 30% commission is not anticompetitive behavior, and 2) Apple has the right to not allow third-party apps on their platform. Apple, being Apple, attempted to subvert the part about allowing links to other storefronts by adding a 27% commission aas well as a scare page, which is what they are currently in hot water for. However, the overall decision was solidly in Apple's favor regarding the App Store's 30% commission and practices.

> One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive.

Epic is twisting other people's words here. Notice how they quote “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” but not the point about it being anticompetitive. It's because the decision never said that.

If you’re gonna cherry pick from that case, I’m not sure it’s going to go in your favour, as others have demonstrated.

Let's not put everybody in a cage because we can't stop dumb people from walking off cliffs.

That $45,000 factory worker is often operating a $1.5 million piece of equipment with $10-50,000/hr of materials going through it.

It's an entirely different cost structure.

Are you worried that you're going to become subject to attestation via systemd?

This is such an important point. As a father of two, children are turning out to be a very large investment...larger than anything else I ever will pour money into, probably by an order of magnitude (though not quite, since I have a house).

I talk to lots of people in SV, heads of design, engineers, as well as folks from around the world that I work with, from San Diego to Argentina and Chile. So many 20-30 year-olds have told me they are never having kids. Life is too fun, and they want to see the world. But training the next generation is hard work, and it's easy to do a terrible job. We want to incentivize people to have kids and be great parents. But that requires voluntary sacrifice, which is a hard sell.

If I hadn't had kids, I could retire now. As it is, I'll be lucky to be able to work and get a job so I can earn for the next couple of decades so I have enough to retire.