i'd venture a guess that they were given up on since they couldn't be styled like all native elements. also, check boxes remove one from whatever design the UI is meant to have. if you're recreating the look/feel of a control panel with buttons/knobs/sliders, check boxes are not something you would find. a flip/toggle switch or push button is common for 1/0 binary type options. a knob or fader allows for values between 0-1. you just don't see too many check boxes out in the wild.
Also, I find that there just isn't a one best font, even for one person. There are just too many variables that effect how a font looks, not limited to the screen itself, the graphics controller, the software where I want to use the font.
I haven't read this one. The inaccuracy and mean-spiritedness of Cunningham's criticism of Neil Armstrong's performance during his Gemini VIII flight (detailed in James R. Hansen's book) put me off this, personally.
It really bugs me that people don't realize research funding is only available if you say what they want you to say. That should be a red flag of massive proportions. Science isn't made this way. One could argue in science it is essential to fund and support every reasonable effort to discover holes in hypothesis. We don't do that, at all.
Good news is that it is very difficult to go-up against reality. Eventually physics wins, brutally so.
The closest I have seen to a refutation of climate change dogma is a private paper by Google Research dating back to 2014. That's right, we have understood some very important things about this issue since at least 2014...yet nobody talks about it and, much worse, none of this research is funded. They are looking for one, and only one, conclusion.
There are other realities that, once again, are brutally hard to avoid. For example, if tomorrow all of the US and China were to evaporate from this planet atmospheric CO2 would continue to increase. No effort to control this can produce a rate of change higher than about 100 ppm in 50K to 100K years. That's not a guess. We have known this for decades. All you have to do is analyze atmospheric CO2 ice-core sample data going back 800K years to reach this very simple conclusion.
The oil industry spends vastly more burying and trying to refute climate science than is spent on legitimate reasearch. The "everything is fine, keep drilling" camp already has 4/5 politicians and about half of the total money and resources, they don't need any help.
Also what are you even trying to argue with that second bit?
> Also what are you even trying to argue with that second bit?
A number of things. Perhaps the most obvious of them being that any proposed magical solution has to be compared to common sense baselines. We never do that.
Eliminating ALL of the US and China (as in: They evaporate from this planet and cease to exist) can't fix the problem. At all.
Taking that as a simple factual baseline, I can't think of a single proposed so-called solution that even begins to compare to such an extreme, much less actually reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The fact of the matter is it will take 50K to 100K years. We can kill ourselves in the process. We are not going to make it happen faster. We can't do that. We would have to violate the laws of physics. That tends to fall under the "impossible" category.
Stopping it from increasing is overwhelmingly simple. Just stop digging up carbon and stop releasing carbon tied up in ecosystems. The methods for getting energy without fossil fuels are accelerating at 20% or so per year, and last year displaced about 1-2% of carbon producing final energy. Luckily noone is proposing solving the problem by Thanos snapping a quarter of the population, so you don't have to worry about something as obviously idiotic as that not helping.
As to removing it, there are on the order of a billion with enough wealth to wield about 10kW without dropping their quality of life below the people they stole the natural resources from. This is enough energy for direct capture and sequestration of 10-20 tonnes of CO2 using industrial means per year using current technology. There are also many biological means that would have even greater impact just using a fraction of the land used for pasture.
There is no technical limitation to undoing the damage in a century or even a few decades, merely one of political will.
So I reiterate. What is your point of bringing this up? Why are you repeating this? What are you even trying to say?
> There is no technical limitation to undoing the damage in a century or even a few decades
That's where you are wrong. That's where all of these hand-wavy so-called solutions are wrong.
It is impossible to do this in a century.
It is impossible in anything even remotely close to a human time scale.
A 100 ppm reduction in atmospheric CO2 takes a minimum of 50,000 years and, more than likely, somewhere in the range of 100K.
So many things people ignore in these arguments. For example, world-wide population will nearly double by the end of the century. We are 8 billion today. Even if we take a low estimate of about 11 billion, that's adding the equivalent of TEN USA's, two India's or two China's.
Imagine that. Add two China's to the planet and actually claim that we can UNDO atmospheric CO2 concentration inside of a century.
Enhanced weathering experiments indicate that slreading basalt dust over agricultural land in quantities roughly equal to iron tailings (a large portion can be thise exact iron tailings as it is often basalt hosted) would sequester 1ppm per year whilst improving yields. It is not enough to offset current activity, but it is enough to bring levels down to something less bad in fairly short order.
This is just one of many possibilities.
The last resort one is iron seeding the lowest-life portions of the pacific. It is proven to work at many times higher scale for much lower cost, but the potential harms are not yet fully understood.
I've tried a number of alternatives and keep coming back to Evernote's legacy apps (Windows and Android). The features I use are just right, and syncing just works, always.
A key feature for me is being able to (with the legacy desktop app) open multiple notes at once, something that I've not seen anywhere else. (I assume this is because the legacy app is a native Windows executable, whereas multiple windows are not supported in the cross-platform frameworks everyone uses nowadays. I may be wrong.)
On a new tablet I was forced to install their new app, and I find it just OK. I don't like it as much as the older one, but it's usable.
Once Evernote shuts off the legacy apps, I will be searching for an alternative once again.
Most features that appear to only be available in native apps can quite trivially be added using any cross-platform framework like Electron. Multiple windows is not something the is platform-restricted i.e. even web apps can do it if they try.
Have you given Notesnook a try? While it doesn't have multi window support they have it on their roadmap: https://notesnook.com/roadmap
I've been a regular Evernote paying user since the mid-naughts, using it mostly as a document archive (the built-in OCR is nice) ... but usage kicked off for me when I switched my main workhorse to a MacBook Pro two months ago. I guess it's mostly related to Evernote suddenly being fast.
At this moment? Well, I'm in Daytona, Florida attending the HSR Classic 24 Hours weekend of vintage racing. If you have any interest in motor racing and have not been to a vintage event, you need to. The variety of cars is huge. These events are usually pretty low-key compared to the current professional series. Often there are very few restrictions on where one can wander, with paddock access included in your reasonably priced ticket.
+1 for Take Command. I've used it since its mid-90s iteration, and still use it nearly every day. It has a great mix of command prompt features and batch file language enhancements.
The first one (of many) that comes to mind is not looking to the future when I started life on my own. Had someone told me when I was in my 20s that a day would come much sooner than retirement age when I would be sick of my career (and had I listened--not at all a given) I would have been much farther ahead in my life now. If I had started investing right from the start, especially as the stock market was booming back then, I could have retired some time ago.
Related to that, I wish I'd found and fostered some sort side gig that would have allowed me to eventually ditch the 9-to-5 work life.
I wish I had realized how important it is to find some place you enjoy living (for whatever reason--friends, recreation opportunities, favorable weather, etc.), and then doing what you can to make a life there. Instead, I pursued jobs wherever they took me and I think my family paid a price for that instability. I didn't realize for a long time, but I think that I, too, paid a price for all those relocations in pursuit of the next job.
And then related to that, I wish I had not been so optimistic about my jobs. I should have realized that no matter how convincing the dream being sold to me, it was never going to be that good. I should gave treated my jobs as paychecks, as means to another end, not something into which I should pour the best of my attention and purpose of life.
