Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | galad87's commentslogin

TCC is a leaky shoot at limiting non-sandboxed apps permissions. The actual macOS sandbox is a different thing.

I would say that TCC is working as intended, unfortunately, with many obscure behaviors to avoid breaking existing apps.

It's even more unfortunate that a lot of apps that could be easily sandboxed aren't.


TCC is a different thing. Sandboxed apps work differently and won't need those TCC dialogs.

Safari, or better, macOS and iOS include a software AV1 decoder (libdav1d), but it's used only to decode avif, and to generate file previews in Finder.

It's missing the double click on a number feature from minesweeper.


chording is available only during peace times


It's still middle-click in my muscle memory from the Windows XP days!

God, I used to be _really_ into Minesweeper.

One of the earliest games I made back in college was a 3D Minesweeper cube. I remember being really proud of one little detail – the detection and automatic resolution of ambiguous clues that would require guessing, which always annoyed the heck out of me in every other version of Minesweeper.


Oh, me too. Do you have your game still available somewhere?


Nah, this was 20 years ago or so! Would be fun to whip up a modern version though.


Clearing more than one sector at a time requires allied support.


Added double click feature


Double clicking on a tile doesn't seem to do anything different than a single click (Firefox on macOS)


Oh, I see - double clicking only works when you have already marked the correct number of adjacent mines. I didn't remember that's how it worked in the original.

I also never knew it was called "chording", that's worth an explanation.


Because that's by design. The windows are meant to have different corner radius, they even explained it at WWDC. Then people forgot and rediscovered it again, like it was some new thing.

I am not saying that it's a good idea to have different corner radius, just that it's nothing new.


> they even explained it at WWDC

Did they explain the reasoning?


> In the new design system, windows now have a softer, more generous corner radius, which varies based on the style of window. Windows with toolbars now use a larger radius, which is designed to wrap concentrically around the glass toolbar elements, scaling to match the size of the toolbar. Titlebar-only windows retain a smaller corner radius, wrapping compactly around the window controls. These larger corners provide a softer feel and elegant concentricity to the window…


Just a bunch of words that raised no red flags, maybe sounded like a decent idea even, but when you see it how is your reaction not “oh, that’s bad”

I feel like this is the design process. You have ideas, they sound ok, you try them out, and then immediately you revert a lot of them. The ideas without the taste to know when not to do something is becoming the new Apple way


I think what they're saying is that larger radii are for 'real windows' that have toolbars and such but there are 'mini windows' and those get smaller radii. It doesn't seem well enough baked for them to release it like it is but there are other UI problems that I've been annoyed about for a long time (in particular shadows around window boundaries so you can never get a truly flat tiled experience).


Rounded corners (and the utterly massive drag area next to them) are touchbar 2.0. Features that no one asked for, has questionable value, and that provides marginal benefit even for its intended audience (touchscreen macs, no doubt).


So, there was no reasoning.


To align the window corner radius to the window close/minimize/resize buttons distance from the edge of the window.


Except it kind of fails at that too. The window corners seem to be either based on those squircle things or some kind of other varying radii curve which eases out into sides much more gradually than proper circles. The window buttons (close, minimize) the round toolbar buttons anchored to top right corner are based on proper circles. Attempting to center circle in a varying curvature corner results in varying spacing between the circle and corner, which defeats the whole point of why different windows have different corner size (not calling it radius because they are not circles).

When the top right corner contains a search field instead of rounded button, that also seems to use varying curvature instead of capsule with proper circles at the ends. Still results in varying spacing between window corner and the toolbar content.

And that's just the 2 top corners. Attempts to align top corners result in even bigger mismatch with the rest of the window content. For example calculator -> it has a grid of round buttons. While the window corners might match top bar (as good as they can due to different shapes) the main calculation buttons don't match the corners at all.

Similar problem affects many of the popups which have something like confirmation button anchored to bottom right corner.

Rounded scrollbar handle - not aligned with bottom left corner size, instead it awkwardly gets cut of by different amount in each program.

Menus also have this disease. The non circular corner curve of overall menu shape extends way past the corner of item highlight resulting in varying spacing and making it feel almost like whole menu has bulged out instead of flat sides.


Exactly!

And to OC you're replying to: window close/minimise/resize were already equidistant from window edge on macOS 15 and probably earlier.

Here is a screenshot (safari in the background, textedit in front): https://pasteboard.co/OeMBTDKGsTx9.png

In MacOS 26 it's only weirder, because as you say - due to squircle window corners, now we have this constantly varying distance to the edge.

EDIT: I "get" apple's fascination to squircle, but why they made it such a big radius. Probably no one would've complained if they just have changed from current ~15-20px rounded corners into ~15-20px squircles, but they went 50px+ on toolbared windows.


I'd rather have my corners perfect and not have the constant eyesore of pixels bleeding from other windows' corners!



The sad part is we all know the real solution is to just UNDO THE DAMN FISHER PRICE ROUNDING

NO ONE CARED THAT THE WINDOW CORNER RADIUS DIDN'T MATCH AN IPAD, IT DOESN'T NEED TO


It's because touch screens are coming to MacBooks.


Every device compatible with the Matter standard[1] can be used with Apple Home (and with every other solution that supports Matter, like Google and Amazon ones), so almost everything is compatible with everything out there.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_(standard)


Why don't they advertise this? Crazy I've never heard of it.


It should be based on the app size, so maybe developers will stop shipping apps with a single feature and one button that takes 700 MB because of random bloated third-party SDKs that aren't even used.


Money makers on the AppStore are games, and games need assets in high definition. Third party SDKs are probably a drop in the bucket in comparison with visual assets.


They need locale-based app bundles to make that realistic then. If I need to support every locale I can, I need to bundle the frameworks necessary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmeCYiD0hnE


All I read about is that it's less hardware friendly than H.264 and HEVC, and they were all complaining about it. AV2 should be better in this regard.

Where did you read that it was designed to make creating an hardware decoder easier?


> AV2 should be better in this regard

Will it, though ?

Why create a SW spec and hope that the HW will support it ? Why not design together with HW ?


It was a presentation on AV1 before it was released. I'll see if I can find it but I'm not holding my breath. It's mostly coming from my own recollection.

Ok, I don't think I'll find it. I think I'm mostly just regurgitating what I remember watching at one of the research symposiums. IDK which one it was unfortunately [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/@allianceforopenmedia2446/videos


I've heard that same anecdote before, that hardware decoding was front of mind. Doesn't mean that you (we) are right, but at least if you're hallucinating it's not just you.


I assume there is a reason for leaving out Windows Me.


From the article:

> Note: I am skipping Windows Millennium Edition (Me) because while it had changes under the hood, visually it is pretty much Windows 98 Third Edition.


I remember it had a default black bar with a gradient and bold yellow text for the title.

Found a video of it: https://youtu.be/nVZW8i9-92U


We don't talk about Windows Me.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: