Colors -> scroll down to 'Choose your accent color'
click a nice colour from the 'windows 'colors' tile.
Scroll down to: 'show accent color on the following surfaces'
click tickbox 'Title bars and window borders'
The homogeneous madness then starts to dissipate a bit...
I'm similarly confused that anybody would even think Apple claim to have invented these things.
Particularly so since in the Keynotes where SJ introduced e.g. the iPod he shows the state of the competition and has a good critique before introducing his 'lame' replacement.
>Monitors are bigger than ever with huge resolutions, and yet UIs are being dumbed down to
>uselessness and alienating an increasing number of users.
This! so much this!
Never have we had so much screen real estate, yet UI designers seem to want to compress the actioanable items into as small a space as possible, with the stated goal of providing as much 'content' space as possible. The result is swathes of pointless unused whitespace, or overly large fonts to fill up the space if anybody uses the app maximized.
Currently on Chrome, the tabs occupy what was once the Title bar (why ??!), same on Office apps where the save and search functions take space on the Title bar. Please, I'm an MDI guy, I hardly ever maximize application, and since the monitor(s) is so large, I like to have an easy to click Title bar to select my focus app, or to move the window somewhere. I've been doing this since the GEM days, and that's how I like it!
I would guess that the designers have nice clean desks as well, so all that whitespace is giving the illusion of cleanliness.
I also imagine that those designers would maximise a window where there would only be a single page in the middle of the screen and whitespace all around.
Looks "nice" from a minimalist standpoint but a complete waste of space otherwise.
But even then, probably still a better engineer than many people who are smugly declaring that he wasn't a good engineer.
After all, he was hired by Atari, and got parts delivered to him personally by Bill Hewlett and an internship at HP as he was a young electronics enthusiast.
Of course if he's being compared to Wozniak, well different league.
I'm not sure that these drone 'swarms' are going to have enough of a payload to take out anything significant like strong armour or heavy emplacements.
But against small units of well dug in, or hidden enemies - mortars, snipers or troops in trenches, I'm sure they'd be great. I'm thinking basically a grenade with wings that can hover, spot a target and be guided by an operator ~1km away.
> I'm not sure that these drone 'swarms' are going to have enough of a payload to take out anything significant like strong armour or heavy emplacements.
Maybe you're thinking of sub-$1000 quadcopter-type drones. I'm thinking of fixed wing drones, something like the Houthi Samad [1] or the Iranian Shahed [2].
The only way to generate a significant EMP is with a nuclear weapon, at which point you have bigger problems than drone swarms. Non-nuclear EMP weapons do exist but the effects don't extend very far.
>But against small units of well dug in, or hidden enemies - mortars, snipers or troops in trenches, I'm sure they'd be great. I'm thinking basically a grenade with wings that can hover, spot a target and be guided by an operator ~1km away.
I don't know why people insist on flying grenades with lots of electronics. That is very expensive. It would be more logical to use the drones for physical target acquisition and surveillance and then use an actual grenade launcher or other conventional weapons to do the killing blow.
Yes, but probably by being much more conservative and relying on the branch managers to have a close working relationship, or long standing banking relationship with the people seeking credit.
When that gets more automated - i.e. giving credit to somebody you've never met, then a centralized automated system for verifying trustworthiness is also needed to compensate.
It may even have the net effect of allowing some people to get credit that never could before, so swings and roundabouts I guess.
> In fact no European country should be OK with that
Russia's brutal annexations in the east following WWII pretty much assured that all European countries were, in fact OK with it.
WWII was the result of Germany trying to take over the continent. That led to Eastern Europe being invaded/liberated by the USSR and Western Europe being invaded/liberated by the US.
It's not correct to say that all Western European countries were/are OK with US power and presence. The major powers were divided on that. Germany obviously did not really have any say, France did not want the US to stay, the UK thought that it'd help them look more important than they had become. But smaller countries may see the US as a guarantee against larger neighbours trying to invade again, as I mentioned, a bit like South Korea does.
If it was anything like my old Nokia dumb phone days.