TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

Neglify said:

Why does yhwx yhwx?

Someday we’ll cut him open and find out.

Not in my will.

Nor was it in the frog’s will I cut open in school. But that didn’t save it.

A frog isn’t intelligent.

(preemptive WRONG PICTURE)

Huh, that makes me think. . . .

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

Neglify said:

Why does yhwx yhwx?

Someday we’ll cut him open and find out.

Not in my will.

Nor was it in the frog’s will I cut open in school. But that didn’t save it.

A frog isn’t intelligent.

WISHS

The obvious comeback to “A frog isn’t intelligent” was “neither are you” but I didn’t want to say it…amd now you’ve forced me to do so. This is all your fault.

So let’s take an IQ test. Not enough for you? EQ test. I’ll take any test to disprove your offensive beliefs.

I don’t believe you’re stupid, you just set it up too good to completely ignore.

Should have added a qualifier sentence.

Neglify said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

Neglify said:

Why does yhwx yhwx?

Someday we’ll cut him open and find out.

Not in my will.

Nor was it in the frog’s will I cut open in school. But that didn’t save it.

Did you really cut open a frog in school? I never got to do that and I always wanted to.

I cut open a frog in the 7th grade, and I cut open a rat last year.

What kind of school did you go to that they didn’t let you mutilate dead animals?

Dek Rollins said:

Neglify said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

Neglify said:

Why does yhwx yhwx?

Someday we’ll cut him open and find out.

Not in my will.

Nor was it in the frog’s will I cut open in school. But that didn’t save it.

Did you really cut open a frog in school? I never got to do that and I always wanted to.

I cut open a frog in the 7th grade, and I cut open a rat last year.

What kind of school did you go to that they didn’t let you mutilate dead animals?

A sane, suburban, non religious school.

DuracellEnergizer said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

Neglify said:

Why does yhwx yhwx?

Someday we’ll cut him open and find out.

Not in my will.

Nor was it in the frog’s will I cut open in school. But that didn’t save it.

A frog isn’t intelligent.

Michigan J. Frog is plotting your “unfortunate accident” right now.

If his name was “A frog,” he’d have some leg to stand on.

So, did YHWX ever explain why file types extensions in file names are wrong? Other than he doesn’t personally like them, I mean. Something was said about how it was wrong on a technical level, but I never really saw anything that explained why. Just curious.

Desree said:

So, did YHWX ever explain why file types extensions in file names are wrong? Other than he doesn’t personally like them, I mean. Something was said about how it was wrong on a technical level, but I never really saw anything that explained why. Just curious.

File name extensions are wrong on a principled (and technical, as well) level:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.

I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”

It’s really interesting, I promise.

Sounds fishy.

Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.

The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?

It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.

Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.

Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)

Also: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2005/04/macosx-10-4/11/

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

BLAH BLAH BLAH

It’s not like what I said was just a huge incoherent mess of characters. There was actual meaning there, you just choose not to believe that.

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

BLAH BLAH BLAH

It’s not like what I said was just a huge incoherent mess of characters. There was actual meaning there, you just choose not to believe that.

Mini Frink to Frink Hater. Interesting transformation I must say.

DuracellEnergizer said:

yhwx said:

Desree said:

So, did YHWX ever explain why file types extensions in file names are wrong? Other than he doesn’t personally like them, I mean. Something was said about how it was wrong on a technical level, but I never really saw anything that explained why. Just curious.

File name extensions are wrong on a principled (and technical, as well) level:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.

I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”

It’s really interesting, I promise.

Sounds fishy.

Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.

The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?

It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.

Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.

Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)

Also: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2005/04/macosx-10-4/11/

I guess I can’t blame you.

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

BLAH BLAH BLAH

It’s not like what I said was just a huge incoherent mess of characters. There was actual meaning there, you just choose not to believe that.

No, I chose not to care. Just like pretty much everyone else but you.

That guy seemed to care.

When it comes to laptops I just cannot go back to standard laptops. They might be cheaper but they are also lacking a lot compared to Mac. First, majority of standard laptops has just awful screens. Mac had been for some time pretty much the only laptop with good 4K screen (anyway Mac screens are better in general). When you get used to Retina screen, you will see pixels on other screens. Second, standard laptops have useless touchpads that give me a headache when I try to use them. When you get used to Mac touchpad and go back to a standard laptop touchpad, it feels like someone cut off a few of your fingers. Then, obviously every standard laptop comes with a crap called Windows. Of course you can get rid of it and switch to Linux, but many of drivers are suboptimal or even non-existent in Linux.

TV’s Frink said:

This is dumb.

http://bgr.com/2016/07/22/iphone-7-apple-headphone-jack-lightning-dongle/

Many would agree.

I’m on the fence about it.

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

This is dumb.

http://bgr.com/2016/07/22/iphone-7-apple-headphone-jack-lightning-dongle/

Many would agree.

I’m on the fence about it.

Why would anyone be on the fence about something dumb?

It’s only subjectively dumb to you.