The screen size advertised by Apple measures the "full screen" area, the undisturbed 16:10 rectangle of pixels. I just took measures on both a 14 and a 16 inch Macbook Pro. The screen we get is indeed slighly larger.
If you want to avoid the extra space, it's as easy as using a 16:10 resolution size. The menubar will drop down to the 16:10 space.
I just tried to do this and Apple has obfuscated that there’s even a 16:10 option. You have to click deep into the Displays customization presets menu. They don’t even label the presets with a display ratio and have them labeled with some obscure Apple design lingo (Apple XDR (P3-1600 nits)).
To change it you have to first display the hidden list by enabling a “display resolutions list” toggle.
That is not something a “I love Apple because it just works” person can figure out.
Exactly my point. The setting you’re likely looking for is hidden and a similar one of even more advanced color profile technical options is front and center.
The Spain blackout was caused by a multitude of reasons. Lack of stability was one of the factors, but there were other causes, such as energy generation facilities disconnecting while the oscillations were still under a nominal range, or a generator ordered to become online to induce stability, that started driving the load in the wrong direction. All this was compounded by a distribution network unable to redistribute or at least isolate the problems to individual regions, resulting in a complete blackout.
All in all, it's several things that need to be reinforced. The distribution network needs to be smarter. The energy generation facilities need to be tested through their entire voltage range, so they can be counted upon. And there has to be more voltage inertia available in the network.
It's important to note that the infamous Dropbox comment was not just misguided. It was wrong.
The proof is that multiple competitor products have been launched since, and all of them have had sync issues at some point, with different degrees of severity ranging from sync delays, through data conflicts, up to loss of data in all synced devices. To this day, I still trust Dropbox more than its competition. This includes custom rsync scripts.
This is impossible by design. Decades ago there were some distributions that had this as a goal (e.g. Mandrake, Suse), they included an application similar to the Windows Control Panel to manage everything. But such applications can never reach into all the corners, unless the distribution is severely locked down. The example of this extreme is... macOS. And still, there are some cases where dropping into the command line is the better or even the only option.
Back on Linuxland, the userbase realized this about two decades ago, when Ubuntu launched. Having a nice default experience was considered better than having easy tweakability, because Ubuntu could also be configured to the fullest extent in the classic Linux way of reaching into the guts of the system and rearranging things to taste. Not that I would ever recommend tweaking Ubuntu too much, but it can be done.
What about the other end? Most people who like fiddling with Linux by reaching into its internals have settled on distributions such as Arch, where this way of managing the system is expected and thus the distribution works to ensure this experience is as easy and predictable as it can be, by providing a good happy path experience for common scenarios, and providing top-notch documentation for common and uncommon customization options, or minority hardware platforms and devices.
The control panel doesn't need to reach all corners.
Just enough corners to cover day-to-day usability so that new users would be able to help themselves if they get stumped.
That set of corners has been pretty much covered by Windows 95 when it comes to the GUI.
For tweakability, command-line interface isn't unfriendly — the commands are.
People love talking to ChatGPT. This tells you how friendly typing interface is.
I'm not saying that natural language processing should necessarily be a feature of the interface (although it could make a lot of things much smoother), but FFS, an interactive dialogue-based CLI is a much friendlier thing than "figure out the right incantation" paradigm.
> Each time the Leta application is restarted (due to an upgrade, or new version) server side, a new secret hash is generated, meaning that all previous search queries are no longer visible to Leta.
If I read this correctly, the cached data is per-instance, there would be no way to share cached data among instances if each one has its own secret hash and they are cycled on each start.
