News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Apple’s 2016 in review by ekianjo on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:27AM (#13307161)
So what? The key take out here is "faster", so asking questions is not necessarily irrelevant, instead of focusing on making one's horses shinier or more economical. You need to find out what problem to fix.
Re:Apple’s 2016 in review by lurkinggrue on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:41AM (#13307214)
These days all apple will give you is a thinner horse with less features.
Re:Apple’s 2016 in review by paublyrne on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @05:54AM (#13308307)
A thinner, slightly faster, slightly blacker horse that will needs to stop for water a little sooner.

I like the 2016 MacBook Pro. The disappointment I felt was that after such a long wait for the update, I was expecting/hoping for a best of breed laptop, with no real flaws. In day to day use I don't actually think about its various (and widely discussed) flaws so much, and I just get on with using it as a tool to do my work.

The Touchbar is useless, though.

Re:Apple’s 2016 in review by AnthonyMouse on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @02:21AM (#13307384)
> The key take out here is "faster"

Even that part is mostly wrong. A fast horse can run more than 40MPH which about all you can expect from a car in a city. The main reason most people don't own a horse isn't that a car is faster.

Users ask for things that are obvious. No kidding faster is better. Can we have it cheaper and more reliable too?

If you ask most people in 1870 how to improve those aspects of a horse they'll tell you all about horse breeding but that doesn't get you a car.

Re:Apple’s 2016 in review by ekianjo on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @06:34AM (#13308461)
> Even that part is mostly wrong. A fast horse can run more than 40MPH which about all you can expect from a car in a city. The main reason most people don't own a horse isn't that a car is faster.

Only on flat ground. Make a horse go uphill for a while and he will soon stop if carrying anything. A car, even an ancient one, not so much.

Add to that that cars can maintain a sustained speed as long as they have fuel, and of course cars are much faster than horses all things considered, and of course this is one of the reasons of their adoption - you can get much farther with a car than with a horse in the same amount of time, and it needs less maintenance as well.

Re:Apple’s 2016 in review by AnthonyMouse on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:56PM (#13311883)
> Make a horse go uphill for a while and he will soon stop if carrying anything. A car, even an ancient one, not so much.

> you can get much farther with a car than with a horse in the same amount of time, and it needs less maintenance as well.

But that's not faster. That's endurance, reliability, economy. You're arguing that the tortoise is faster than the hare, but "being faster" isn't how the tortoise won the race.

Re:Apple’s 2016 in review by dragonwriter on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:59PM (#13311930)
> A fast horse can run more than 40MPH which about all you can expect from a car in a city

A slow car can go much more than 40 mph. Both cars and horses may be practically limited by traffic most of the time in crowded urban environments, but cars are still faster, even in most cities, on both peak and practically-attained-average speeds.

Re:Apple’s 2016 in review by AnthonyMouse on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @03:13PM (#13312615)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T

"The Model T had a front-mounted 177-cubic-inch (2.9 L) inline four-cylinder engine, producing 20 hp (15 kW), for a top speed of 40–45 mph (64–72 km/h)."

Being faster than horses isn't why cars won. Given the choice between a modern car and a hypothetical horse with the same or higher top speed, most people are still not going to choose the horse.

Re:Apple’s 2016 in review by lostboys67 on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @05:54AM (#13308308)
Your ignoring the massive additional logistic costs that horse drawn transport has vs mechanised.