I'm not a hoarder like most people imagine, but I have hoarder tendencies as my two storage units can attest. My main challenge has always been that when I have invested the (significant) effort in organizing things in a reasonable way, some life event soon comes along that causes everything to go back into disarray. My "stuff" is almost entirely various types of tools for doing various types of things that I have gained skills in over the years as personal education or hobbies.

My dream, which I'm hoping to soon realize, is to build myself an expansive workshop that has defined spaces for everything so that I can actually do things and make things when I want to, with all the necessary tools present, and without requiring external storage or cluttering my home. Right now most everything I don't use daily is stored neatly in labeled totes which are tracked in a spreadsheet and on shelving units in a storage unit off-site. Certainly not the cluttered mess that most people think of, but at the same time I have many things which are not used every single day that took years to acquire along with the companion skills and I have no intention of getting rid of.

In times gone past, I wouldn't appear as a hoarder because land, housing, workshop space was all massively more affordable and so I would have achieved my dream many many years ago. It's pretty incredible in how disappointing our current timeline is that someone who earns a massively outsized income compared to the average cannot afford to have a designated place to exercise their hobbies, because property pricing is so out of whack with what is reasonable that you need to be a multi-millionaire/billionaire to afford the space to do and have things without it appearing as a mess.

This is a preface to the fact I see these same problems with my older relatives, many of whom are now incapable of ever again participating in some of those hobbies due to physical infirmity. They spent a lifetime learning and collecting the tools to go along with that learning, and in many ways those tools now represent physically the manifestation of their entire life's work, and they cannot give them up, even as they can neither afford the space to keep them organized nor have the physical capability to continue working those skills even as a hobby, so it all just lingers around them as so much clutter and unopened boxes in the attic. This isn't quite the trash bags of magazines level of hoarding that most people think of, but I already know I will be responsible with the mental and physical effort to deal with this situation after my relatives pass, and yet I already find myself in the same situation. Wouldn't it have been so much nicer if they would have been able to pass along the property, the tools, and the skills to the next generation instead of being priced out and it all ending up in a dump eventually?

I'm not sure who the author is, but the fact they choose to be stymied by SSV (which can be disabled) to avoid investigation down that path, which is similar to the path enthusiasts do with Windows to build tools like Tiny11, NTLite, and distributions like Atlas, feels intellectually lazy. Asserting that macOS is not UNIX (it is, quite literally, including the most recent release Tahoe) and then arguing with folks who corrected them in the comments, makes me think the author wasn't really interested in answering the question they put forth and instead were trying to mystify readers to shut down exploration and curiosity.

It is entirely possible to gain an understanding of those processes running on your computing system and to decide which process you don't want to run at startup, this is regardless of the desires and intents of the maker of the computing system, as long as you retain control of the hardware. Many of the Windows optimization tools at various points even involved community made binary patching. There's no basis to claim that it's not possible to understand or take actions, it's just that the Mac community has a different set of priorities and focus areas than other computing communities, so nobody in the community has yet invested the effort to do so.

You could summarize this blog post as answering "No" to the question in its title, without actually exploring the question to determine if that's a true answer. It's not a true answer, and won't be until we completely lose control over our own hardware.

Howard Oakley has been writting about macOS internals for a long time, and 99% of the time, his essays and articles are excellent. This is not one of them. Don't be put off by this one article - the site is a goldmine.

> Not everyone owns headphones. Some people might have received the speaker as a gift or decided on the speaker instead of headphones. How people spend their time outdoors is not up to you or I to decide. If they want to listen to music from a bluetooth speaker, that's what they want to do. There's a lot more outdoors for you to use as well so rather that stewing, just find more outdoors. Especially on trails. Just keep going. Or wait until they have kept going. I've never seen a bluetooth speaker that's big enough for someone to be on a trail with that doesn't "go away" after a minute or so.

I am very open to the argument of "you do you", which is pretty much my philosophy also. But I do think there are /some/ limits to this, because some behaviors are inherently anti-social. My philosophy is more than "you do you" should apply to policy and regulation, meaning that we should not criminalize or directly punish anti-social behaviors that don't cause direct and immediate harm. But that definitely does not mean that we should not shame people for acting in completely inappropriate ways, or directly inform them that their behavior is unwelcome, or otherwise seek to ensure that we act to exist in spaces devoid of anti-social behavior.

I've had this same exact scenario happen, and I simply spoke to the person and told them to lower the volume, use headphones, or stop altogether because they were scaring away the wildlife that I was there to see and photograph. They apologized, lowered the volume, and we both went back to doing our own thing. Most people are reasonable, and act in anti-social ways due to lack of awareness not malice. We are both sharing the trail, and we are both there to experience nature, and that very well might include many different modalities (including accompanying music), but if someone is acting in a way that completely prevents me from enjoying nature I definitely have the right to say something, to complain about it, and to complain about it after the fact, and "you do you" is not a valid argument in response to that.

> Most people are reasonable, and act in anti-social ways due to lack of awareness not malice.

Sometimes. I’m pretty sure that very often it’s because they simply do not care that they are being rude/inconsiderate/whatever. But even the willfully rude will likely lower the volume if you ask them nicely because not caring about being rude is not the same as wanting confrontation.

I've been on both ends of this. One of the local parks allowed for permits to use amplified sound which we took advantage of about once a month weather permitting. Lots of complaints to the point I often interacted with police. We showed them the permit, we'd show dB readings from a meter, the police would leave, we'd keep going. It's a public place being used in a way allowed by those that be. There's no bluetooth speaker today that can compare to our use of amplified sound.

We all have rights to be in public parks/trails/etc. Cities have ordinances about nuisance things like loud anything. If you're on a trail and someone comes along with a speaker you don't like, just let them pass. They aren't hurting anyone/thing, you're just annoyed. If you've plopped down in the park or at the beach when someone else comes along, you can talk to them about, but they again have rights to do it.

You are free to talk to your local representatives to change ordinances if that's how you feel. Good luck with that if that's what you so choose.

I think you're confusing the issue here. You were in a public place that explicitly allowed loud music with a permit. You obtained that permit, and you did what you were explicitly allowed to do. Great; you did the right thing.

But on hiking trails (and in many parks), there isn't that sort of thing. While some will prohibit loud noise, many don't say anything about loud noise. In those cases, in the absence of guidance, we should do the thing that is courteous and considerate of others: not play loud music.

Local parks are quite different from hiking trails.

A public park and a trail have very different meanings in my mind. When I say that I have encountered this on a trail, I'm specifically referring to trails in places which are designated wilderness areas, which are not subject to any ordinance. The US has a lot of national parks, national wilderness, and BLM land that is completely open to the public. That's a wonderful thing, but it also does not make sense to call for a park ranger to get involved in what is fundamentally a discontent at someone else's anti-social behavior, when I can simply have a conversation with them.

Behavior, and the response to behavior, exist on a spectrum. The fact you responded to me pointing out that "you do you" has philosophical limits, but that those limits should not involve criminalizing behavior, by suggesting I should campaign to enact an ordinance seems extremely obtuse. There is no need to change the law to criminalize making noise in a natural area, but similarly it's perfectly appropriate to tell someone to stop doing it.

> The US has a lot of national parks, national wilderness, and BLM land that is completely open to the public.

Many concerts, shooting ranges, and other loud activities occur in two of the three categories you mention above. All a lot louder than multiple hikers with Bluetooth speakers.

I won't even get into ATVs.

(Not disagreeing with your intent - merely pointing out to other readers of the various socially acceptable uses in these lands).

It's simple. You do you, but don't bother other people. That's all there is to it.

Prezto is faster than OMZ, and has been for over a decade. Starship is faster still. I switched from using Prezto standalone to using Prezto + Starship and relying primarily on Starship several years ago. I'd be surprised if many people are still using Oh My ZSH in 2026 vs using Prezto, anyway.

zsh4humans is even faster than Prezto, according to their benchmarks. that’s what I’m using daily.

> Yet Japan DOES have a strictly hierarchical work culture, where openly countering something your boss says isn't exactly welcome. So I wonder how this sort of "Trust your employees to have good ideas" thing came about.

What happened is that they bought into the Edward Deming viewpoint of Total Quality Control (TQC), and instituted this throughout their business in a way which melded correctly with their culture, ultimately resulting in Kaizen and The Toyota Way. It didn't happen overnight, it happened over a period of about 20-30 years, so that now we think of it as something inherent to Toyota that is not possible to replicate. Because of Toyota's strict commitment at the upper levels and the strict hierarchy of Japanese work culture, once they had committed they expended every necessary effort until the thing was done, which differs from American companies where it's often hard to get folks to even try anything new in the way they approach their work.

> once they had committed they expended every necessary effort until the thing was done

That's too simplistic to describe the reality of humanity. Whatever Toyota's discipline, it's a matter of degree and they have challenges implementing it.

When you take macro photos with close focus, your depth of field is like a very thin slice of the scene, you can think of it of having a plane of just a millimeter or so deep that you are scanning through the subject, taking a frame each time. So if your subject is something like a monarch butterfly which is generally around 30mm in length of body and close to 55mm considering both wings and body, you might need to take 60-70 frames then focus stack them afterwards to get critical focus on all parts of the subject.

I'm not sure what folks use now, but Zerene Stacker ( https://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker ) was the gold standard when I was doing serious macro photography about ten years ago.

I used to have a macro lens, and while I quite enjoyed it, I found that since I primarily do wildlife photography I could use a longer focal length telephoto lens at distance to get nearly as much detail by filling the frame with the subject. I have quite a few butterfly photos that were taken with a 300mm or 400mm telephoto prime, not a macro lens, and you'd be hard pressed to know the difference.

That's not true of /all/ macro photography, it depends on the specific details of the subject you're most interested in capturing. Without a macro lens you aren't going to capture the subtle textures of a butterflies wing, but you can certainly get a good photo of the entire butterfly including the textures of its eyes without a macro lens.

That said, I love doing proper macro photography. It does require a bit more kit though, you really need a ring light or a dual-flash, and a tripod and focus rail to support doing focus stacking to get extremely detailed shots. Agreed though with your sibling comment that manual focus is fine. There's really no reason to worry about refocusing on a subject once you get initial critical focus, it makes more sense to move the camera/yourself (which is the way a focus rail works).

The camera they want is also the camera I want. I say this as someone who still regularly shoots with an Olympus Pen-F and also has a Fuji X100VI, and primarily shoots a Nikon Z8 but wishes there was a more compact entry into FF. I actually really like the m4/3/MFT format, especially for travel photography, but it's a struggle because the best lenses are Pana/Leica and the best bodies are OM/Oly, and neither has done much to really develop the technology in the last 10 years. MFT feels dead, but even as a dead format, nothing compares to the size/weight flexibility it gives you.

Great, I bought a 2024 Mazda 3 Premium Turbo over an Audi RS3 or VW Golf R in part because it had all physical controls and the touchscreen functionality is automatically disabled over 10mph. It's a great car, and between the simple button/knob driven UX and the HUD, I can make changes without looking away from the road while driving, which just plain makes sense for a car. The Tesla idea of putting a big tablet as your only interface to the car was stupid and insane from the moment it was done, it's shocking it took this long to return to sanity. Let's hope other manufacturers follow suit.

You were shopping a Mazda 3 Premium Turbo vs an Audi RS3? The Audi is almost twice the HP and double the cost of the Mazda. I'm not sure physical buttons would really be my driving consideration between those two cars.

Yes. I was shopping all available compact sedans and hatchbacks with AWD and turbocharged motors. My budget was wide and I enjoy spirited driving, I would have loved for the RS3 to work out, but it didn't for several reasons but the primary was that the interior UX was pretty awful.

That's a pretty frustrating market segment to shop for in the US these days, given there are so many good options that just aren't sold here. I was looking for similar cars early last year and quickly ruled out Golfs (and a variety of others) over the total lack of actual buttons. So annoying. I wound up with a Mini Clubman—another fun premium compact that's now no longer being made.

Yeah, I also considered a Mini then, and just took my wife shopping for her new vehicle. She also likes smaller cars so we considered getting her a 2026 Mini Cooper S but they've gone the other way and done almost everything on a single center-screen, there's no actual instrument panel anymore, but there is a HUD at least in the higher trims. Ultimately this was a huge turn-off for her, and we ended up getting her a 2025 Lexus ES350 (which I realize is quite a bit larger vehicle than a Mini Cooper).

When I vehicle shop, my budget isn't endless, but it's fairly uninhibited because I keep cars for an average of 10+ years and I like driving and want it to be an experience I enjoy. That said, companies just aren't making cars I like much anymore. I /loathe/, utterly /detest/ crossovers, and that's the vast majority of new vehicles being brought to market. Even vehicle lines that I previously liked, such as the BMW 3 series, have become enshittified in weird ways that dilute the core concept of that particular vehicle line. I'd love an E92 M3 w/ DCT but made in 2025/2026, but that's not made anymore and I think the current G80 M3 is a much worse car in every way that matters to me, even though the S58 is in some ways a better engine.

It's really disappointing and frustrating trying to find a decent vehicle these days.

Ironically people are constantly surprised every time this comes up that I cross-shopped a Mazda 3 vs an Audi RS3, but if you put aside some of the cost difference (which isn't as large as you think, it's 50% more, not 2x the price), Mazda is trying to up its game and move into the Japanese Luxury space to compete with Lexus, Acura, and Infinity rather than the other Japanese brands. Some issues aside, I think the execution on the interior of the Mazda 3 Premium is pretty great, especially at its price point ($40k base).

> For motherboards sold at retail the manufacturer's site will normally have a list, and they may provide some BIOS updates over time that extend compatibility to newer chips.

Ah, but if you want to buy a newly released CPU and the board does support/work with it, but nobody has updated the documentation on the website: How do you know?

Ultimately it's always a crapshoot. Some manufacturers don't even provide release notes with their BIOS updates...

Back in the day, this is what forums were for. Unfortunately forums are dead, Facebook is useless, and Google search sucks now. So you should just buy it, if it doesn't work ask for a refund and if they refuse just do a chargeback.