This is going to sound like a really weird and irrelevant nitpick, but I dislike how they changed the version numbers to be year+1. I like that they all unified and have a relationship to the current year, but we're not buying cars. We're getting operating systems and not being confused about chronology is pretty important for bug tracking or other minutiae. Plus, the Mac lineup use(d) the year of release. Why move away from it? Is it really necessary to market and sell an operating system like it's a car or the latest Microsoft Office suite?
They’re telling you the year where the new OS will be stable enough that it’s a good idea to upgrade (joke’s on them, I still haven’t “upgraded” to Tahoe…)
TBH Tahoe feels like an especially buggy .0 still. I'm updating as soon as my laptop shows it as available in the hopes that it'll feel closer to a .1 than what Tahoe is.
From a psychological standpoint, maybe customers thinking 26 is old on their brand new device in 3 months isn't exactly good. People might start expecting 27 in 3 months when actually 27 is going to be around for most of the year.
It's not year+1, it's the year that most overlaps with that OS being the latest. 27 will be the latest OS for ~9 months of 2027 and only ~3 of 2026.
I also don't know why this would be considered more confusing for chronology. The year is in the name, whereas it was previously at best, years since version 1, or something more confusing in the case of macOS. I couldn't keep track of all the latest OS versions before, now we will be able to going forward.
They do yearly major releases in September for all their OSes. They are directly tied to the year.
But Ubuntu sticks to the year and month the OS was released. I think OP was complaining about MacOS using year+1 as the version, even though the OS is being released in the current year.
I personally find Ubuntu's versioning to be the easiest to understand because you know when this Ubuntu version was released. It would be very annoying if they called Ubuntu 26.10 Ubuntu 27, though.
As someone who has been doing iOS programming for ~16 years I'm glad they did something. Nothing better than running Xcode 16, on macOS 15, to do iOS 18 work. Unless, of course, you also have watchOS 11 work too.
This feels like the kind of thing where the mismatching version numbers bugged some influential people internally. But I suppose a practical application could be recommending matching versions if customers run into issues since they are trying to integrate devices more.
The users in question are posting on a public forum under a username of their choosing, and it's still an invasion of privacy to read those posts and play pretend matchmaker?
For starters, it breaks two rule of the thread: "Agencies, recruiters, job boards, and so on, are off topic here" and "please only email these addresses to discuss work opportunities".
> The users in question are posting on a public forum under a username of their choosing, and it's still an invasion of privacy to read those posts and play pretend matchmaker?
Yes it is. There is an aggregation happening, that is not available on Hacker News per se. To make this aggregation easily available to anyone else is some kind of privacy invasion. To make matters worse, usernames can be traced back to IRL individuals, depending on the information they put into their "About" page on Hacker News. So yes, this is indeed an issue.
I think it's naive to be bothered by the scenario you describe just because it's visible to you and yet it's still being done everywhere you go whether you like it or not. Similarly, just because this Show HN is visible to the user it becomes a privacy issue, whereas hundreds of web scrapers are doing the same to HN every day and you don't know about it.
We are living in the Wild West of privacy. If you don't like it, you can share your grievance with the people running the public space or disengage entirely. It's still going to happen.
A third option is to air your grievances on that same public space and find people who feel similarly and care enough to raise their voice, and hopefully spread awareness and affect change. Which is also totally valid and what these users are doing.
You hung up a “services offered” flyer on every town square around the world and want to control what people do with the information after you’ve shouted it into the void? Don’t post if you don’t want every tom, dick, or jAIne reading your stuff.
The same principle applies: You would have to leave the service when it starts introducing such things.
As a market-driving force in the real world, basically an impossible task for the collective. However, occasionally consumers do successfully band together to abandon a service due to some perceived slight.
Been using it for half a year and so far it's doing well. I never remove it from its case so there's not much wear happening on the connector. At least it protects the original port as well.
The creator is really nice and basically handles everything himself. I had n issue in the upper separate piece and I learned just the top part can be ordered and replaced for cheap.
But how can I find the answer to the question without reading punchy headers followed by paragraphs like
> How We Leverage Naming
> Our Naming Strategy, Explained
> Why Swedish Is Important
> The Bottom Line
And unforgettable aphorisms like
> It isn't just a name—it is the output of a scalable, globally coordinated, linguistically validated, Swedish-inspired naming framework designed to optimize brand consistency
to let me know? I'm completely lost on this page and can't find the answer without these.
How long until someone invents a fully-integrated local video and audio adblock filter running on a passthrough VR headset or smart glasses? The progress on this front is taking a while. I wouldn't mind if the audio filter is white noise and a portion of what I see is blurred out. Maybe to make it more efficient, only scan near the places I'm looking at via foveated rendering.
How about we just get on with it and delegalize ads already? They’re a net negative in every form, subsidizing disgusting companies that shouldn’t exist, infringing on everyone’s privacy (including your children! think of the children!!!!!), and making us jump through all kinds of ridiculous hoops to minimize our exposure to them. I don’t think the solution is more hoops.
I don't think ads should be illegal because companies have a right to try to send me information or inform me of their products, but I also have a right to block them. The problem is that client-side computing seems to be lagging behind. Once an effective local video+audio filter is invented, it's either game over for adware or another arms race will begin where humans and classifiers can't tell what an ad is anymore (this has already run to completion on many platforms like Reddit, Amazon, and Google Maps anyway).
Criminalizing information flow is a non-trivial problem that I wouldn't want governments to be in control of.
Ads and the surveillance ecosystem are more than just a company sending you information. They're paying another company, which that other company uses to provide services below cost (often free, and often creating network lock-in effects), which is clearly an anti-competitive business practice. Ads completely destroy markets they operate in.
"companies have a right to try to send me information"
The problem isn't one company sending information unsolicited, it's when hundreds of thousands of companies flood every communication channel with their own unsolicited advertising.
Email, phone have become unusable channels, not to mention much of the web.
reply