I agree with this assessment. Of course its not a solution. Its delaying the inevitable. But depending on the rate of "filling up the disk for unknown reason" it will buy you time.
So when you're running out of space, you immediately delete the junk file. Suddenly there's "No Problem" and you've reset the symptom back to hopefully well before it was an issue. Now you can run whatever you need to, do reports, do traces etc. Even add more storage if necessary.
More importantly, as soon as you delete that junk file now you have space for logs. You have space and time for investigation.
Its time to upgrade your PC. Now. We don't care you're running a presentation. yeah We'll let you delay it... for now.
Its time to dim your screen. We don't care if you're reading a recipe while you cook. No we won't put a widget to allow this temporarily. We think its better buried in the settings. And you'll have to set it back later.
Its time for feature X to not work or not exist anywhere. We don't care that it worked in the old version. We don't like it.
> Summed up in the following:
> Its time to upgrade your PC. Now. We don't care you're running a presentation. yeah We'll let you delay it... for now.
My roommate in college refused the Windows update request enough times that it just took the decision out of his hands and _told_ him it was rebooting...in the middle of a LAN Starcraft game we were having. (Hilariously, Starcraft also ran perfectly on my Wine/Ubuntu and had all sort of weird bugs and visual artifacts on his Vista/7)
I truly can't imagine how anyone can consider a system that reboots without your consent, no matter whether you're playing Starcraft or giving a presentation or launching nuclear warheads, to be appropriate for serious work. It seems like one of the very basic jobs of an OS to _not turn off while you might be doing something important_. Perhaps the answer is as simple as "there's a setting buried somewhere that all technically-literate Windows users change", but the default behavior is beyond insane.
I heard RMS once say "proprietary software subjugates people" and at the time I thought it was over-the-top, sort of out-of-place like "the people's front of judea" opinionating in the middle of a software meeting.
But wow, phones and computers nowadays are like a giant steamroller, squashing users common sense, interests and privacy.
The "settings app" is a convoluted mess which is made worse by the fact that it wholeheartedly embraced the weird "everything is an app, except for some things" philosophy.
There are settings that only apply to some "apps", there are "app wide settings", there are important settings hidden 4 layers deep under some category where one would never suspect them to be.
Then there's the fact that MS has the tendency to just silently revert settings, often privacy and telemetry related, after updates. On that end, Windows 10 very much feels like it's actively working against the user, it feels like you are only a tolerated guest on your own system.
> MS has the tendency to just silently revert settings
This is so user-hostile it's not even funny. Imagine if you had someone in your life who silently went back on agreements when you weren't looking. You would work to remove them from your life as soon as possible.
I don't, but MS ships an annual update that for the past couple years has included expansion of the Settings App and remove of Control Panel widgets. The original Settings App that shipped with Windows 10 was, as the op said, useless.
As MS has slowly whittled down and removed features from the Control Panel, they have simultaneously added analogs where appropriate in the Settings App. The Settings App in 20H2 is very different and far from useless when compared to what shipped a year ago, or when Windows 10 launched.
The main criticism of Windows settings is the silent reversion of settings which is tantamount to ignoring them. If Microsoft improved the clarity of the settings menu then that's nice, but ultimately irrelevant.
You shouldn't need a third-party utility for re-disabling settings after updates, and it's pretty clear at this point that Microsoft just doesn't give a damn about respecting the user's choices.
How? the existing handset manufacturers just need to make their phones functional enough for linux and/or provide the various blobs in a straightforward manner. And a suitable stretch goal? few or no blobs.
Alternative approach: release the blobs for old phones so we[2] can at least actually write our own updates.
There. No weird hardware needed. Just existing handsets. Just start there.
[1] next week is also good.
[2] or someone who is more clever, has more time available, or otherwise more motivated.
This yelling/screaming in particular is presumably done at high speed due to it being a roller-coaster and all. Is fast moving air in the outdoors really going to contribute to significantly high viral load exposure?
I'd love to see the studies backing up the idea that screaming is actually a concern. This is a science based decision after all...
Another aspect: Don't people line up before they get on the ride? Isn't that more dangerous?
And finally: Raised voices? Does this mean arguing in public is now an offence?
EDIT: Article does state: "These guidelines do not require parks to prohibit screaming."
Backing what up? The only mention of screaming in any of the documents referenced even implicitly in the article is in a non-industry-specific list of concerns to which the industry plan offers responses (which for screaming, etc., is “mitigate the risk with masks”.)
The actual state industry-specific guidance for reopening amusement parks doesn't mention screaming (but implicitly takes the same approach as the industry group plan, controlling any potential risk with a mask requirement.)
> And finally: Raised voices? Does this mean arguing in public is now an offence?
No, the non-industry-specific notes about that mean that an industry/activity where that regular occurs in groups that cannot effectively distance sufficiently or mitigate droplet spread by other means (e.g., masks) would be more of a concern for reopening conditions than if that were not the case, all other things being equal.
Who cares if it's a science-based decision? It's a near zero cost measure that requires no real effort to implement. This isn't about shutting down outdoor dining.
Edit: I guess nobody understands cost benefit analysis here. Yes, the strength of evidence is low, but so is the cost, yet the potential payoff is huge.
No, it isn't. There's a reasonable belief that droplets from screaming could aerosolize and get spread to others on the ride. Given that, it makes sense to implement such a near zero cost measure that has literally no potential to harm anything or anyone.
At the speeds we're talking about, is there even a threat?
If they really think this is a real threat then I'd fully expect them to be already cleaning the various surfaces of the ride each time. That means alcohol swabbing all hand surfaces. I'd also expect the people waiting in line to be fully masked without exception because people talking is a known aerosol vector.
That's the "reasonable" science approach to dealing with a known aerosol and surface infection threat. But I doubt they clean each time. I doubt they distance properly. In plenty of locations I'm sure they don't wear masks.
If they aren't already doing all those preventive measures then adding a "no yell / scream" requirement is actually just nonsense because the simple and basic actions aren't being done.
EDIT: on a more serious note, if there is no threat then the reason for the rule isn't health-related. That is even worse. That then makes it a rule put in place for health reasons yet with no actual health reasons. That's very bad public policy and sets a bad precedent since now anything can be justified for no reason. Doing it just for optics is even worse.
> At the speeds we're talking about, is there even a threat?
Again, who cares? Do you want to fund the research to find out? No? Well, here's a simple and nearly zero cost way to make sure screaming people don't transmit the virus.
If you don't care about evidence then this rule is therefore more about the optics - just the appearance of doing something. And because you don't care about evidence you can't then make claims about "making sure" because then you stray into the land of probabilities and possible guarantees. Which you can't do because that requires evidence to be even remotely useful.
If the rule has any validity then you ALSO can't tolerate people talking before the ride. Can't stop one activity and allow the other. Talking is a known infection vector since it can easily fill a space like a room with a significant viral load. This is how people get infected simply by entering a room full of infected air that has suspended viral particles in it.
But can you fill an area with a significant viral load when that area happens to be an open-air roller-coaster moving at high speed?
No, I don’t care about evidence for something so simple with such a low burden. If you want to fund the research on this, be my guest, and I’ll gladly incorporate it into my view.
without a more substantial argument, it doesn't seem like a "reasonable belief" to me. the fact that you have a bunch of people crammed together in a small train seems like it would overwhelmingly dominate the "safe or not safe" equation, not to mention the problem of how to get people to properly distance themselves in the long queues typical at amusement parks. if screaming is really the needle that breaks the camel's back, it's probably too early to reopen the parks at all.
So the government does its thing via WIC and distorts the market. The price goes up as the price-sensitive portion of the market disappears. Why wouldn't crime take advantage of this?
Alternative restated question: where are the competitors working to lower the price in a functioning economic dynamic? Enjoying the profits of a distorted market.
