On the one hand, I visually read a book significantly faster than 2x listening speed, so the speed in itself doesn't seem problematic.
On the other hand, if I'm listening while doing other things, then my attention is split. Which is why 1x works best for me. I can pay attention and still fold my laundry or make a meal or whatever.
Listening at 2x while cycling sounds positively dangerous to me. Unless you're somewhere with virtually no traffic, or you really just aren't paying attention to what you're listening to. Our brains only have so much bandwidth.
There are basic principles of design -- of balance, emphasis, color, weight, etc. -- that are very much part of a general "design theory". That aren't dependent on any particular school of thought.
> Every single one of these icons should be available to choose by the user.
They are. You can replace the icon of any app straight in Finder, in the Get Info window. Copy the icon from somewhere else, click the icon in Get Into to select it, and Cmd+V to paste.
I mean, you'll need to get the original icon, but that's not too much work. I don't think Apple themselves should be shipping every high-resolution icon they've ever used for every app. OS's are already large enough.
I've attempted this for the brave browser, which has a horrible icon in my opinion. It works but the original one self-restores after some time, even without updating the app.
No, unfortunately it doesn't. I've also looked for a way to script this and came up empty handed. If somebody knows how to programmatically set a custom icon for an app or arbitrary file in macOS, please speak up.
How does this work on laptop screens? E.g. running Chrome on my MBA with a notch, the Chrome menus take up 3/4 of the screen width, and then the remaining ~6 icons there is space for are utilities I need. There are even a couple more icons I regularly use and have to switch to Finder to access them, just because it has less menus. The idea is interesting, but it's not clear at all from the homepage how/if this works on laptops as opposed to large monitors, when you're using an application with lots of menus.
I'm also curious how this compares to other similar solutions -- QuickCMD, Raycast, Keyboard Maestro, Command Keeper, etc. It seems clear that its featureset is different, but it's hard to figure out which ones do which things. If you included a comparison features chart it might be helpful so potential customers can see what makes this one unique -- i.e. it's the only one that does X and Y and Z, because every other app only does 2 but not all 3.
Coming from Linux (involuntarily), the menu/tray implementation was one of the loudest UX issues I immediately discovered. Some functions can only be invoked from a system tray icon, and those actions can also be app/workspace-sensitive (like taking a screenshot with some special config using a screenshot tool). MacOS renders those functions inaccessible if the currently focused app has more than ~6 items in the menu.
Gosh, some apps even have menus so big, they don't fit on a single screen (btw, MacOS's solution is to compress the font, yeah, ask me how I know), leaving only the control center in the tray (which is completely useless in this scenario).
This is the first time I encounter a MacOS user who at least acknowledges the problem, albeit from a different angle: "you are displaying it wrong/your screen is too small".
Seeing as I'm not involved with developing macOS, I think it is?
> This is the first time I encounter a MacOS user who at least acknowledges the problem
Complaints about the menu bar icons are practically as old as the Mac itself. I don't know who doesn't acknowledge the problem. People have been complaining for decades now about having to buy Bartender to get around the problem.
Yes, the menu bar is a big issue.
So many useless icons and menus.
Because in macOS 26 it is easier to remove icons from the bar, I have added this "inline mode". A few users have already told me they removed everything and just put extra bar items, customized them however they want, so this makes it nicer.
Good question!
For that I built the floating mode for the app (You can see an example on the website)
You can hide and show it on demand with a simple hot key, of course, so it will be visible only when you need it.
Regarding the similar solution, we don't replace them, instead, we make them much more accessible and integrate with them amazingly well.
A lot of our users are saying that this app is the missing part for Keyboard Maestery and also a huge improvement for Raycast.
Because everything works with Deeplinks, it's super easy to integrate, and with the keyboard-only navigation options, everything is much faster.
Thanks. I think you just need to make this all clearer on the homepage!
The app looks cool but I think the big challenge is in demonstrating what makes it unique/better. You spend time comparing with icon managers, but that is not the competition. It would be much more helpful to me in understanding how it differs from the actual competition. And saying that it is the "missing part" or a "huge improvement" doesn't tell me anything factual.
Don't some of the competitors use keyboard triggers? Do they not also allow you to create deep links? Don't some of them also sit in the menu bar? This is why it's not immediately clear to me what specifically makes your product better. I'm assuming you have an answer, but that's where a feature comparison chart would really help.
Ok, I will try to explain this better
The main power of this app is that I am not trying to compete with them.
I work together with them.
For example, I put my ExtraBar RayCast deeplinks into a logical menu structure so they are easy to access and remember.
Instead of opening Raycast, looking for the actions, sometimes RayCast is opened on a different screen, so I need to go back, etc.
I just put the most used action on the ExtraBar menu and use simple keyboard navigation to trigger it.
The same goes for Keyboard Maestro.
I have this Reddit post that someone posted on ExtraBar:
https://www.reddit.com/r/macapps/comments/1q0aqu6/extrabar_i...
That has some explanation of how he uses it, so this may be helpful to get more usecases example
Ok that's definitely helpful. At this point I'm not really asking questions here for you to answer on HN -- just more pointing out that these are the kinds of things your site needs to explain. What this competes with vs. what it works together with is a great angle.
I assumed ExtraBar was intended to be its own all-in-one solution for executing commands. Now that you say it also works together with other utilities, that changes my perception completely.
It's an interesting article on this one particular mansion, but the idea that "the same tricks for more efficient heating can be used in modern designs" seems pretty silly.
We don't use fireplaces anymore (a major "trick" being to put them in the middle of the house rather than in the exterior walls), and while using large windows to capture sunlight and heat works great in the winter, it also leads to overheating in the summer and thus more energy for air conditioning.
> These are modest changes, imperceptible to most, and they won't enable us to forgo active heating and cooling entirely. But they do echo a way of thinking which, today, is oft ignored. Hardwick Hall was designed with Sun, season and temperature in mind.
Everyone I know who has built a house has thought very much about sun, season and temperature. This is very much a factor in determining the sizes and quantity of windows on south-facing vs. north-facing walls, for example.
Again, it's a very interesting article on this one particular castle, but the idea that it has something to teach modern architects and builders is pure fantasy. We're already well aware of all these factors and how they interact with materials and design.
> Everyone I know who has built a house has thought very much about sun, season and temperature.
I've lived in houses that certainly did not take into account sun, season and temperature. I learned a lot from that experience. My current house is optimized for it. I've learned a few more things about it, and could do better.
> the idea that it has something to teach modern architects and builders is pure fantasy
Not my experience with architects and builders.
For example, how many houses have a cupola? They're common on older homes, but non-existent on modern ones. What the roof does is accelerate the wind moving over the roof, then the air vents in the cupola let the wind through, which sucks the heat out of the attic.
Another design element is eaves. Eaves shade the house in summer and don't shade it in winter (for more heat gain). Eaves also keep the sides of the house dry, which means your siding and paint and window frames last a lot longer. Mine are 1.5 feet. Most houses around here have tiny or even non-existent eaves.
The advent of air-conditioning is when architects stopped paying attention to the sun.
> For example, how many houses have a cupola? They're common on older homes, but non-existent on modern ones. What the roof does is accelerate the wind moving over the roof, then the air vents in the cupola let the wind through, which sucks the heat out of the attic.
This one is genuinely obsolete. With modern techniques, it’s straightforward to build a reliable unvented attic, and there are few if any climates where a vented attic makes sense. There are plenty of climates where a vented attic, even a nice one with a cupola, is massively inferior to an unvented, conditioned attic.
Seal and condition your attic. Put on a decorative cupola if you like. If you live in a place with heavy snow load, you vent a small gap between the top of your attic and your roof surface to help keep the actual roof surface cold enough to avoid melting the snow.
I've been in an attic many times on a sunny day. The heat in the attic is well above what it is outside. I'm highly skeptical that an unvented attic is going to keep a house cool in summer.
Me too. But have you been in a competently built insulated and unvented attic? The insulation on top makes an enormous difference, to the point that the attic can usually maintain a very pleasant temperature.
While it’s true that the top side of above-attic insulation will be rather warmer than a vented attic on a hot sunny day, insulation on top of your attic also tends to work rather better than ceiling insulation. And there are plenty of other benefits to an unvented, insulated attic.
If you live in a climate where the outdoor air is generally fairly dry and also sufficiently warm that it spends most of its time above the interior dewpoint, then fine. You can vent our attic and it stays dry. This covers rather little of the world.
If you do not insulate at all and you heat your house when it’s cold or wet and you do not experience hot and humid weather, then there will be enough heat flow to keep your attic dry. This is generally an awful idea, but old insulated houses did work in many climates.
If you live somewhere cold and put fluffy stuff on your ceiling and you vent your attic and you have air leaks in your ceiling (hint: this is basically unavoidable) and it’s very cold in your attic, you may get condensation in the ceiling insulation or the attic. Mold time.
If you live somewhere hot and humid and you vent your attic, then you are are filling your attic with hot, humid air. Your dehumidifier or A/C will not control your attic humidity. But your A/C may cool parts of your attic, leading to additional condensation.
If you have nasty severe blowing rain, it may blow into your attic, leading to damage. This is a problem in hurricanes.
Wildfire embers can ignite the inside of your attic. You can try to use fancy supposedly ember resistant vents to mitigate this, or you can omit vents entirely.
If you seal your attic and control moisture in the living spaces well enough to avoid moisture problems and you have adequate conditioning in your attic, your attic will be about the same temperature and humidity as your living spaces, and you’ll be fine.
You can geek out at buildingscience.com. The author appears to have become increasingly convinced that vented attics are basically never the answer.
Around Seattle, modern houses are square boxes with a flat roof, and zero eaves. I watch these homes get built all the time. A few years later, I see all the water damage to the siding.
You're right about ridge vents, they behave much like a cupola, but the holes in them are too small for much airflow, and are easily blocked by debris, insects and moss.
That's a concern. It may be a good idea to put a connected thermometer and hygrometer in the attic. If it is ventilating properly, the temperature and humidity should be close to outdoor values.
Forced ventilation of the attic creates negative pressure in the attic, which pulls conditioned air from the house. The additional air movement (which you should minimize with air sealing) costs more than the additional loses by the mildly increased temperature differential through the insulation.
If you aren't using A/C and have the windows open, then it only helps, of course.
Unless you have really good insulation, in hotter areas, your roof will absorb a lot of heat and that gets transferred to the attic and then to the rest of the house. One of the cheapest and best upgrades in hotter areas is to have an attic fan and vents to send the hot attic air outside.
It's not like the wisdom is lost, it's just ignored in modern builds.
All architects think about siting and solar exposure. But the builders are in charge, and they optimize for what the market responds to -- which does not always include factors like these which contribute to long-term comfort and livability.
So I would say that consumers could learn a thing or two. That said, most buyers are not buying newly-built homes, so their ability to influence the inclusion of some of these features are limited.
The industry is downstream of market demands. If customers aren't aware enough to demand smart things, builders will skip them to save money, or to optimize for more visible features. Same old story.
> So I would say that consumers could learn a thing or two. That said, most buyers are not buying newly-built homes, so their ability to influence the inclusion of some of these features are limited.
Even then I think Americans are not at all well-versed in what makes a house a good house in terms of design or aesthetic and there isn’t a marketplace that exists to help customers shop and compare.
Today, if you’re buying a new build your only option is McMansion style or just a smaller and equally distasteful version of the McMansion. And yes they are all distasteful - it’s a matter of fact, not opinion.
So most people buying new builds end up with the same cargo culled designs. And then “architects” design more and more different versions of these horrendous designs and plop in things like Sedona Avenue near the golf course and that’s how you get suburbia. There’s never a market signal, despite the fact that we can build homes much more nicely and with techniques to be a little more naturally energy efficient and kinder on the eyes.
There is also much less competition with neighborhood design though surprisingly there have been some inroads there that have fostered some competition, but it’s mostly for now for the wealthy. I live in a neighborhood designed before cars, a neighborhood that today is largely illegal to build. But the home prices are highest here because the market is demanding this type of neighborhood - single family detached homes mixed with apartments and coffee shops and small offices and restaurants. “Mixed-use development”. It’s incredibly scarce and in most American cities it has the most expensive average real estate and tends to be the most economically vibrant. Little pockets of Europe.
Neither home builders or zoning officials have taste and because as you in my view correctly acknowledge the builders are downstream of market demands, because the market doesn’t even understand what is actually good and possible, the entire industry and government regulation apparatus is downstream of the sewer.
Or it is set out in building codes that they must design in a certain way.
In the UK that means adding lots of insulation. UK houses predominantly had a lot of thermal mass from the inner skin of the cavity wall being brick or later concrete blocks. The little wall insulation, if it even existed, was in the cavity. In a push for more insulation they switched to lightweight thermal blocks, and sometimes more insulation inside, or timber frames. All of which designed for insulation while reducing the thermal mass. No matter how much sun you put in during the day you only heat the air, which goes cold quickly. This is not the architects choice.
Architects can only design for orientation on a single house plot. In the UK they are trying to cram houses on at 50 to the acre or more due to the price of building land. They focus on best use of space, rather than orientation because of that
Even when the buyer is buying a newly built house, it's often already built or being built off of already existing plans that do not take these things into account.
> and while using large windows to capture sunlight and heat works great in the winter, it also leads to overheating in the summer and thus more energy for air conditioning.
A lot of contemporary energy-efficient designs slope the windows now such that light can enter in the winter but not the summer, but in the past this problem would have been remedied with awnings.
And if they are not used it's more of question of price and other available options and not "the modern architects forgot".
Making what's essentially "an insulated box" is far more universal climate-wise than most of the old methods, because what's good in summer (north-facing windows, good airflow, getting some cold from the ground) is terrible for winter and vice versa. And where it is useful, it IS used, just instead of fireplace having big thermal mass we have floor heating where the concrete floor is the heat storage (and sometimes extra tank of water)
And every method to make it "better" directly competes with "just buy more solar/battery to run heat pump cheaper.
>a major "trick" being to put them in the middle of the house rather than in the exterior wall
I vised Löwenburg in Kassel which has bedrooms with similar curtains around the bed. Much later (1891) and with other heating technology of note. I was intrigued by the fireplace design in the room immediately behind the bed. The open fire is backed by a huge granite block built into the wall. The room had a close connection to servant stairways directly down to the exterior.
The guide describe the otherwise plain room as a dressing room. It looked like a convenient place to store a lot of firewood to stoke the fireplace attached to the bed behind it to me.
> while using large windows to capture sunlight and heat works great in the winter
That's what awnings (or solar overhangs, or light shelves) are for. You block the high/hot summer sun but let in the low/cool winter sun.
> the idea that it has something to teach modern architects and builders is pure fantasy
Isn't the idea of mcmansions that they co opt smart classic design ideas, but use them in a manner which doesn't let them fulfill their function purpose(skeuomorphism)? So someone certainly has some things to learn
I think the idea with McMansions is that they are just tacky. Poorly aped styles. Columns that don’t do anything and are proportioned wrong for the load they are intended to look like they carry. Complex roofs that do nothing useful but “look fancy”. 100% style over substance, but with style that snooty people look down on.
I imagine that McMansions are generally about as energy efficient (per square foot) as other contemporary homes, though.
> That's what awnings (or solar overhangs, or light shelves) are for.
Right, this is my point. We already think about these things.
> Isn't the idea of mcmansions
I don't think McMansions, or whatever your favorite example of bad architecture is, shows that we've somehow lost knowledge. Architects and builders are aware of all of these things, but that doesn't mean there aren't still clients who want less energy-efficient designs for all sorts of reasons, like aesthetics.
We know how to build energy-efficient buildings that are appropriate for the location and seasons. We also know how to build buildings for other purposes, and are aware of the tradeoffs in how they use more energy. Energy conservation isn't the only goal in home design.
> I don’t believe I’ve ever seen shape utilized in generated ASCII art, and I think that’s because it’s not really obvious how to consider shape when building an ASCII renderer.
Not to take away from this truly amazing write-up (wow), but there's at least one generator that uses shape:
See particularly the image right above where it says "Note how the algorithm selects the largest characters that fit within the outlines of each colored region."
There's also a description at the bottom of how its algorithm works, if anyone wants to compare.
In the "Image to Terminal character" space this is also a known solution. Map characters to their shape and then pick the one with the lowest diff to the real chunk in the image. If you consider that you have a foreground and a background colour you can get a pretty close image in the terminal :D
It seems like the entire point is precisely to get around the CLOUD Act.
By setting it up with a European governance structure, Amazon can tell the US government "hey we told them give us the data, but they refused because that would send them to jail under EU law, and they're a legally separate entity so there's nothing we can do."
This is very intentionally not just a regular foreign subsidiary owned by the parent company.
There are several options for AWS. They can simply just obfuscate command to local employees. Or fly US employees there just for this one task. "EU law" will find out after they are back in US - if ever. There is no way to escape CLOUD Act if it is US owned.
"Obfuscating commands" isn't a thing. EU employees know if they are retrieving data or not. And they don't blindly run commands like they're dummies or something.
And if they fly American employees over, what makes you think they'd be let in the building, or under what credentials do you think they'd be accessing the system? Legally speaking, those Americans are simply from a partner company. Just because you're doing business with a partner company doesn't mean you let them into your building.
The point is that AWS is intentionally making it so they don't have options.
So yes, US law lets it go. The law is limited in terms of what it can affect outside US borders. If the EU doesn't want to cooperate, and the US isn't willing to engage in sanctions or war against the EU, then yeah the US is out of options.
There must already be protocols in place that prevent any random Amazon employee from getting access to sensitive data (like, the folks in the warehouses can’t just walk in to the AWS datacenters, I assume).
That’s who those US employees would be, from the point of view of the EU branch… no reason to assume they’d let them in. Flying people over to do crimes seems like a risky idea.
If it breaks the law in the EU, then the European employees staffing the data center refuse, because they don't want to go to jail or pay fines.
That's the entire point of setting it up like this.
Think of it like fast-food franchises. They have to sell the same food and use the same branding and charge the same prices. But if McDonald's tells you to start selling cocaine on the side, you tell them nope, that's not in the contract and I don't feel like going to prison.
What if the software is developed and potentially backdoored in the US and deployed by the EU team in the sovereign region? Or did they rewrite the entire AWS stack?
If the EU employees can look around the code, it would then get quite interesting if they were to point out a backdoor. which they would of course raise with an EU based CERT.
In a way that protects US customers as well having a set that can't be stopped from doing that.
I don't think there are any protections against that. On the other hand, you'd have to ask yourself how realistic it is that the US is forcing Amazon to secretly backdoor its own software for US spying abroad? I can't give an answer on that one, you'll have to form your own opinion.
I imagine that if a back door were ever discovered, AWS's reputation would tank so hard that a lot of companies would probably never do business with it again.
Over 100%, in that I'm sure multiple independent groups are working on it all the time. The spooks regularly place actual agents in foreign governments (the Germans found a big nest of them and nothing much happened in the end). There's no way it would be challenging for them to find an employee willing to cash a giant cheque in exchange for quietly granting their own government access.
People only struggle because of a self-centered view that everything is supposed to be for them, and things that aren't for them are a weird exception. A reasonable person will realize that the fact that they don't understand any of what it's talking about means they're not the target audience, and move on (or poke around out of curiosity).
It's just basic communications skills, and honestly decency, to describe what a thing is and who it's for.
Maybe someone who isn't the target audience still wants to learn about the thing? Which this site provides no way of doing. That's the problem. Why choose to be inaccessible like that, when it's so easy to add a couple of works and links?
> or poke around out of curiosity
You mean like by following links that are supplied? Because that's my complaint: there are no links.
> it's self-centered to want to communicate well?
>
> It's just basic communications skills, and honestly decency, to describe what a thing is and who it's for
What is the main country where dying pubs is such a big subject?
For f**ks sake I am not from UK yet it is easy to understand what it is all about from context and language. And I wasn't even aware of that tax change.
> What is the main country where dying pubs is such a big subject?
How should I know? That's the point. It might as easily be Ireland for all I know. Or maybe pubs are dying in Boston or something?
> For f*ks sake I am not from UK yet it is easy to understand what it is all about from context and language.
I'm happy you're so smart. Not all of us are so lucky, I guess.
> Pure US arrogance.
Who said anything about the US? You know there are people from a lot of other countries who speak English too? If your concern is arrogance, it seems like it's your own that perhaps needs to be dialed back a little.
Suggesting that communication can be clearer isn't a form of arrogance. To the contrary, it's something that comes out of empathy, identifying how communication could help more readers/listeners.
If they're not American, then following their own logic they probably shouldn't be heavily implying that they are. It's misleading. They should give context in each and every comment so that we know.
It's self-centered to want others to communicate well to you when they aren't attempting to communicate with you in the first place.
You want to learn about the thing? You have the entire internet at your fingertips. Click search bar, type "pub rates," boom, thousands of news stories.
If you want to know what's going on, put in the bare minimum effort to find out. If you don't care then ignore it and move on.
> It's self-centered to want others to communicate well to you when they aren't attempting to communicate with you in the first place.
For private communication, of course.
For public communication? On a .com? It's simple politeness, courtesy, and respect. It's about not wasting other people's time unnecessarily. It's just decency. I'm amazed that you can be arguing against basic decency and respect here.
Basic decency and respect is either ignoring it or putting in the three seconds of effort it takes to understand it, instead of complaining to someone who isn't even attempting to talk to you.
Are you the sort of person who goes up to people in public and asks what they're talking about? Because that's what you're doing. Except you aren't even asking, you're just saying "if you're going to talk in public then you need to explain your topic so everyone can understand it."
Your time isn't being wasted. It doesn't take any more time to think "I don't know what this is talking about, oh well" than it does to think "this mentions England and Wales, I guess it's about some local issue there." Unless you're so self-centered that the very idea of a web site's purpose not being immediately comprehensible to you personally is such an affront that you have to put in time to complain about it.
This is just about elementary communication skills.
You're arguing that obfuscation is somehow a good thing. How does that make any sense?
When people communicate clearly, it makes the world a better place. People understand each other more easily. They don't have to waste as much time figuring things out. It's the golden rule, treating others the way you'd like to be treated.
If you don't understand that, I genuinely don't know what to tell you.
You're on a web site with a vague title and a bunch of random links, and zero explanation on the front page for what it's all about. Do you also complain about that?
This is not obfuscation, this is aiming at a particular audience that you aren't a part of. This web site doesn't need an introduction so that people browsing from Kazakhstan can understand what it's about, any more than a calculus lecture needs to start with basic arithmetic to cover attendees with no math background.
You're doing the internet equivalent of yelling at people to speak English when they're having a conversation in another language. It's as uncouth here as it is there.
Right! Which is why you should give that context when you create something for public consumption. Get it now?
> You're on a web site with a vague title and a bunch of random links, and zero explanation on the front page for what it's all about. Do you also complain about that?
Yes actually. HN has a terrible design for new visitors. Why would I defend that? HN is known for a lot of things, but its design is not one of them.
> You're doing the internet equivalent of yelling at people to speak English when they're having a conversation in another language. It's as uncouth here as it is there.
No, I'm doing the internet equivalent of criticizing where someone is giving a public lecture but refuses to give it a sufficiently meaningful title so people know whether or not they want to attend it.
This is a public website meant for public consumption. Not some private communication I'm trying to butt into.
You seem to be trying to defend some kind of gatekeeping-through-obscurity, where new potentially interested visitors ought to be made confused and have to "work" to figure things out. Why would anyone do that intentionally, or defend that? It's just rude and thoughtless.
You're acting as though you're being kept out, because you expect everything you see to cater to you. You're not being kept out, you're just not being explicitly invited in.
"...meant for public consumption." Which public? Not one which includes you! But you insist that you must be part of the group it's meant for.
> Maybe someone who isn't the target audience still wants to learn about the thing
This is fair enough, but they don't make it too hard -- there's an About page, where the first line mentions England and Wales and the rest of the page makes it clear that the issue is about rate increases. Googling something like "england pub rate increases" will get you the rest of the way if you're interested.
(I think us non-Americans sometimes go a bit far with the whole "finally you're tasting some of your own medicine, Yanks!" thing, and I'm sorry some people are being aggressive. But I don't think this site is as opaque as you're suggesting, nor that it makes any more assumptions about its audience than lots of US-based sites do. They're targeting locals, and I think it's fine for a home page to start talking to its intended audience immediately rather than wasting space on an introduction for outsiders.)
International shipping is an entirely different subject. You can assume that .com is American unless otherwise indicated, and that you'll need to check shipping policies. Just like as an American, when I go to a .co.uk ecommerce site, I have to check whether they ship to the US.
And the web by a Brit working in Switzerland. It all runs on Chinese hardware with software written by people (and their dogs) from every nation on earth.
The point, if there is one, is buried in the details.
> Because the internet was invented in America so it's the only country where a country suffix was never used from the start of its popularity.
I expect some countries like the UK and Australia to use something like `co.uk`. I expect many countries to use their own top-level domain. I do not assume that some `.com` website is American.
Is “the only” based on experience? How many websites from how many countries have you come across?
> I'm not saying this is good or bad or justified or not, just saying what the conventions are.
Do people associate `.com` with “company”? Or just “regular website”? Are people even stopped from making a `.com` if they don’t have a “company”?
> I do not assume that some `.com` website is American.
If it's clearly local to somewhere (news, shopping, etc.) as opposed to global or a webapp or something, and doesn't say it's specific to any other country, then yes people generally assume it's American.
Because when sites are intended for audiences in other countries, they usually use a country-specific TLD. Which, for historical reasons, never became a convention in the US since it's where the Internet was invented.
If you haven't noticed that this is a clear pattern, I don't know what to tell you.
If it is a business, people expect the .com is the global/international/headquarters address, not an us specific one per se. Some will have other country codes mostly to avoid phishing but some only redirect it to a subpath on the com website to handle regionalities/languages.
Random examples of foreign brands/companys in completely different industries: https://www.nestle.com is the "global" address of Nestle, a Swiss company. Mitsubushi, a japanes company uses https://www.mitsubishi.com with a /ja subpath to handle japanese language. The FIFA, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association which was founded in Paris, France and is know headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, uses fifa.com as its main domain despite having several regional office accross the globe but none in the US.
On the other hand, if I'm listening while doing other things, then my attention is split. Which is why 1x works best for me. I can pay attention and still fold my laundry or make a meal or whatever.
Listening at 2x while cycling sounds positively dangerous to me. Unless you're somewhere with virtually no traffic, or you really just aren't paying attention to what you're listening to. Our brains only have so much bandwidth.
reply