noreallyhn

People praise OS X's keyboard shortcuts for being consistent across apps, as opposed to e.g. having a different "find text" shortcut per app. They are also very strict about using CMD as the primary modifier key, as opposed to mixing up Ctrl vs Alt. This too is function, and it's something that immediately grates when you go to Windows from Mac.

What you are doing is praising Windows for letting you operate things by keyboard that are normally designed to be operated by a mouse, such as that "context menu" key they added to keyboards and which practically no-one uses on purpose. This is something that Apple minimizes by default, but which you can enable through accessibility settings and such. The fact that many Windows users expect this to be turned on by default has lead them to conclude that Macs can only be operated by a mouse.

Furthermore, "form over function" is what a lot of Windows UI looks like to me. On a Mac, a file icon in a window's titlebar is still a full reference to the file, and you can drag it out and do things with it. A file downloaded in Safari has a progressbar on its icon, and you can copy it to a different machine and open it to resume. The Windows equivalents of these things are just dead icons and broken file type associations.

The two OS'es have a radically different philosophy. But personally, I can't use Windows anymore once I realized how dumb "Ok" "Cancel" "Apply" is, as opposed to just being able to tick off a checkbox on/off and seeing the entire UI update immediately.

This is rather hilariously slanted. "Bigotry by subreddit". Really?

"[TumblrInAction], a subreddit dedicated to mocking Tumblr – where marginalized groups, particularly LGBTQ, post about their experiences"

Here they neatly imply r/TumblrInAction mocks LGBTQ issues when in fact, it mocks people who use identities as tools to divide and hit people over the head with. Which is incidentally what this report does:

"Overt bigotry: the use of bigoted (racist/sexist/homophobic etc.) language, whether targeting any particular individual or more generally, which would make members of the referenced group feel highly uncomfortable" In other words: assuming everyone in group X feels the same way about what the authors consider offensive language. This ignores e.g. the vast amount of gay people on chan boards who say "faggot" for fun to each other.

This so-called bigotry is contrasted with "supportiveness", apparently a desirable trait. Yet you can easily find people's horrible behavior being supported in more hugbox-style forums, when they get into an in/out-group fight and all the niceties go out the window for the sake of victimhood. We saw this with Atheism+, with r/GamerGhazi, and the "women in tech" activists.

Speaking of, notice how they explicitly contrast r/TheRedPill with a companion "Women in Tech" link in the footnote/popup for no stated reason. TheRedPill is supposedly "dedicated to male chauvinism", where "bigoted comments received approval". Well, if you define the entire subreddit's subject matter as bigoted, are you surprised the community appears to support bigotry by your own count? I have read TheRedPill, it is the male equivalent of Jezebel, nothing more, nothing less.

Really, this is just spreading fear about certain reddits, as the summary practically admits: which communities you should avoid, according to data. Yet the most toxic subreddit of all by their own data, ShitRedditSays, is nicely euphemized as home to "unproductive conversations". Also if the authors think they "delved deep into the darkest recesses of the inter webs," by analyzing reddit comments, they are naive beyond belief.