[OT] Was: totally satisfied :D

[Paulo Pinto]

On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 21:15:24 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:46:00 -0400
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:05:35 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  
>> <SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:11:50 -0400
>> > "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I cannot argue that Apple's audio volume isn't too 
>> >> simplistic for
>> >> its own good.  AIUI, they have two "volumes", one for the 
>> >> ringer,
>> >> and one for playing audio, games, videos, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> > There's also a separate one for alarms/alerts:
>> > http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/12/01/13/user.unaware.that.alarm.going.off.was.his/
>> 
>> This makes sense.  Why would you ever want your alarm clock to
>> "alarm silently"
>
> I don't carry around my alarm clock everywhere I go.
>
> Aside from that, if it happens to be set wrong, I damn sure 
> don't want
> it going off in a library, in a meeting, at the front row of a 
> show,
> etc.
>
>> How would you wake up?
>
> By using a real alarm clock?
>
> Besides, we can trivially both have our own ways thanks to the 
> simple
> invention of "options". Unfortunately, Apple apparently seems 
> to think
> somebody's got that patented or something.
>
>> This is another case of
>> someone using the wrong tool for the job
>
> Apparently so ;)
>
>> 
>> I don't know any examples of sounds that disobey the silent 
>> switch
>
> There is no silent switch. The switch only affects *some* 
> sounds, and
> I'm not interested in memorizing which ones just so I can try 
> to avoid
> the others.
>
> The only "silent switch" is the one I use: Just leave the 
> fucking thing
> in the car.
>
>> except for the "find my iPhone" alert,
>
> That's about the only one that actually does make any sense at 
> all.
>
>> > It's just unbelievably convoluted, over-engineered, and as 
>> > far from
>> > "simple" as could possibly be imagined. Basically, you have 
>> > "volume
>> > up" and "volume down", but there's so much damn modality 
>> > (something
>> > Apple *loves*, but it almost universally bad for UI design) 
>> > that
>> > they work pretty much randomly.
>> 
>> I think you exaggerate.  Just a bit.
>> 
>
> Not really (and note I said "pretty much randomly" not "truly
> randomly").
>
> Try listing out all the different volume rules (that you're 
> *aware* of -
> who knows what other hidden quirks there might be), all 
> together, and I
> think you may be surprised just how much complexity there is.
>
> Then compare that to, for example, a walkman or other portable 
> music
> player (iTouch doesn't count, it's a PDA) which is 100% 
> predictable and
> trivially simple right from day one. You never even have to 
> think about
> it, the volume **just works**, period. The fact that the ijunk 
> has
> various other uses besides music is immaterial: It could have 
> been
> simple and easy and worked well, and they instead chose to make 
> it
> complex.
>
> Not only that, but it would have been trivial to just offer an 
> *option*
> to turn that "smart" junk off. But then allowing a user to 
> configure
> their own property to their own liking just wouldn't be very 
> "Apple",
> now would it?
>
>> >> BTW, a cool feature I didn't know for a long time is if you 
>> >> double
>> >> tap the home button, your audio controls appear on the lock 
>> >> screen
>> >> (play/pause, next previous song, and audio volume).  But I 
>> >> think
>> >> you have to unlock to access ringer volume.
>> >>
>> >
>> > That's good to know (I didn't know).
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, it still only eliminates one, maybe two, 
>> > swipes from
>> > an already-complex procedure, that on any sensible device 
>> > would
>> > have been one step: Reach down into the pocket to adjust the 
>> > volume.
>> 
>> Well, for music/video, the volume buttons *do* work in locked 
>> mode.
>> 
>
> More complexity and modality! Great.
>
>> >
>> > How often has anyone ever had a volume POT go bad? I don't 
>> > think
>> > I've *ever* even had it happen. It's a solid, 
>> > well-established
>> > technology.
>> 
>> I have had several sound systems where the volume knob started
>>  misbehaving, due to corrosion, dust, whatever.  You can hear 
>> it
>> mostly when you turn the knob, and it has a scratchy sound 
>> coming
>> from the speakers.
>> 
>
> Was that before or after the "three year old" mark?
>
>> >
>> > I don't use a mac, and I never will again. I spent about a 
>> > year or
>> > two with OSX last decade and I'll never go back for *any* 
>> > reason.
>> > Liked it at first, but the more I used it the more I hated 
>> > it.
>> 
>> It's a required thing for iOS development :)
>
> Uhh, like I said, it *isn't*. I've *already* built an iOS 
> package on my
> Win machine (again, using Marmalade, although I'd guess Corona 
> and
> Unity are likely the same story), which a co-worker has 
> *already*
> successfully run on his jailbroken iTouches and iPhone.
>
> And the *only* reason they needed to be jailbroken is because we
> haven't yet paid Apple's ransom for a signing certificate. Once 
> we have
> that, I can sign the .ipa right here on Win with Marmalade's 
> deployment
> tool.
>
> The *only* thing unfortunately missing without a mac is 
> submission to
> the Big Brother store.
>
>> I have recently
>> experienced the exact opposite.  I love my mac, and I would 
>> never go
>> back to Windows.
>
> Not trying to "convert" you, just FWIW:
>
> You might like Win7. It's very Mac-like out-of-the-box which is 
> exactly
> why I hate it ;)
>
>> Mac + VMWare fusion for running XP and Linux is
>> fucking awesome.
>> 
>
> Virtualization is indeed awesome :) Personally I prefer 
> VirtualBox
> though. (Although I worry about it now being under the roof of 
> Oracle.)
>
>> 
>> I recently learned objective C, and I'd hate to use it without
>> xcode, which is a fantastic IDE.  Obj-C is extremely verbose, 
>> so
>> without auto-complete, it would be torturous.
>> 
>
> Hmm, I'm glad I don't have to deal with Obj-C then. Sounds like 
> the Java
> development philosophy. Not that C++ is all that great either, 
> but at
> least I already know it :/


Sorry if this is duplicate, somehow my reply was lost it seems.

In big corporations you spend more time taking care of existing 
projects in big teams, than developing stuff from scratch.

In these type of environments you learn to appreciate the 
verbosity of certain programming languages, and keep away from 
cute hacks.

Specially when you take into consideration the quality of work 
that many programming drones are capable of.

--
Paulo