So I need them to not only not devolve into gibberish, but remain smart enough to be useful at contexts several times longer than that.

> Simple as.

Neither Apple nor app developers control either what font sizes a user needs or how many apps they're running which produce menu bar icons. In that context, "not so long that it [...] pokes into the menu icons" isn't even well-defined. It's literally meaningless unless you parameterize it according to factors like those, which is not "simple as" anything.

It's a computer screen, not a page in some particular print magazine.

> it seems more like a "don't make your list of menu entries so long it spans the notch and pokes into the menu icons"

Only counting menu bar items that either (a) come with the operating system or (b) are imposed on me by applications that my employer forces me to run for compliance or other purposes, there are eleven mandatory icons in my menu bar at all times. So it doesn't matter whether the app in focus has few menu items or many; I run into this issue regardless.

> I prefer to blame Rider

There are a few ways to make sense of the situation, but none of them look great for Apple tbh.

If the menu bar is well designed but it doesn't work well with increased display scaling, accessibility is a second-class (or worse) concern in Apple's design.

If the menu bar is well designed but it doesn't work well when there are dozen menu bar icons, then it isn't suitable for environments where users don't control the number of menu bar icons they have to deal with— this, of course, is many professional environments.

So either: macOS isn't genuinely intended to be accessible, macOS isn't a general-purpose operating system for professionals, the menu bar has a bad design, or some combination of all three.

Of the three, "the menu bar's design is bad" seems the simplest and least absurd.

The other thing that kills me about Gemini is that the voice recognition is god-awful. All of the chat interfaces I use have transcriptions that include errors (which the bot usually treats unthinkingly as what I actually said, instead of acting as if we may be using a fallible voice transcription), but Gemini's is the worst by far. I often have to start conversations over because of such badly mangled transcriptions.

The accuracy problems are the biggest and most important frustrations, but I also find Gemini insufferably chummy and condescending. It often resorts to ELI5 metaphors when describing things to me where the whole metaphor is based on some tenuous link to some small factoid it thinks it remembers about my life.

The experiences it seems people get out of Gemini today seem like a waste of a frontier lab's resources tbf. If I wanted fast but lower quality I'd go to one of the many smaller providers that aren't frontier labs because lots of them are great at speed and/or efficiency. (If I wanted an AI companion, Google doesn't seem like the right choice either.)

Maybe the model is good but the product is so shitty that I can't perceive its virtues while using it. I would characterize it as pretty much unusable (including as the "Google Assistant" on my phone).

It's extremely frustrating every way that I've used it but it seems like Gemini and Gemma get nothing but praise here.

It indeed is. It's a way of coping with systems that are fundamentally illegible and unpredictable. If you have full rights over your machine and you're not running extremely shoddy software, you should never have to reboot your computer to make an issue go away. And rebooting your computer often guarantees that you'll never actually understand whatever issue is plaguing you.

Encouraging people to reboot their computers is promoting a fundamentally superstitious mode of engagement with machines that are generally reliable and predictable, instead of approaching them in terms of cause and effect. At best, it's the tired point-and-click sysadmin's workaround for not knowing what their system is doing.

Maybe for overwhelmed IT departments running half-baked operating systems loaded to the gills with invasive and meddlesome corporate spyware suites so inherently complex and complicated in their interactions with each other that the system itself is rendered more or less incomprehensible (even to the people administering it), just asking users to reboot is the right play to write in the tech support playbook. Maybe it's got the right ROI for a geek reluctantly roped into giving free tech support for a relative. But it's absolutely mumbo-jumbo and a sign that the "troubleshooter" is probably either ill-equipped to understand what's going on or just not interested.

I've never ended up with undesired software on my system except for under two circumstances: either (a) it's installed by the OS vendor, or (b) some proprietary indie software I used got bought by a shady company who now wants to spy on me and sell my data. Systems like Gatekeeper don't protect against either.

> Also, it’s just such a bad security precedent. This page describes the error you get as “the typical macOS Gatekeeper warning”, as though it were just another piece of corporate silliness, like clicking through a EULA.

It mostly is another piece of corporate silliness. For most people it rarely does something useful. But I agree; if you're courting normie users you should just pony up and get your code signed and notarized. Otherwise just tell people that if they don't already know what Gatekeeper is and understand the risks of bypassing it as well as how to do so, your software isn't for them.

I also felt that it was probably good for me for her to break my flow and demand my attention every now and then. It helped remind me to get up and stretch and be human better than I otherwise would have done.

GitHub's log streaming also sucks. It's very laggy and chunked, whereas GitLab's is pretty much real-time.

The term "open-source" exists for the purposes of a particular movement. If you are "for" the misuse and abuse of the term, you not only aren't part of that movement, but you are ignorant about it and fail to understand it— which means you frankly have no place speaking about the meanings of its terminology.