it’s a mistake to blame every OS X interface disaster on “the NeXTies” and their design skills.
Certainly, some aspects of OS X, like Columns view, came straight from NeXT; but attributing other elements, like the Dock, is not so easy.
Further, many of the problems with OS X have to do with poor implementations rather than poor design.
Columns view, taken by itself, is fine.
That the Open/Save dialog implementation of it is so horribly broken is a separate issue,
as are the facts that the spatial Finder views are slow and not spatial enough.
the real cause of OS X’s interface problems is not poor design
but (for lack of a better word) poor supervision—the result of Steve Jobs’s dissolving of the human interface group.
With no one enforcing consistent interface principles and a woefully incomplete set of guidelines, it’s really no surprise that we are where we are.
I noticed no discernible difference between the two item trackers.
I did notice that the AirTag seemed to update a bit more frequently, but it was a difference of just a couple of minutes every time that I checked.
There was no difference in the distance that they seemed to be trackable at and there was no clear difference in the intervals in which their location was updated when away from me.
The AirTag is easier to set up, because you just hold it near an iPhone and it connects right away. With the Chipolo, I held it near my iPhone and was then instructed to press on it (there's a built-in button function).
when tucked away in a bag or couch cushion, the ONE Spot is not as muffled.
Both the AirTag and the ONE Spot use CR2032 batteries that are designed to last for about a year and that are replaceable, so there's little difference there.
The AirTag is more water resistant,
There is no equivalent feature [to AirTag’s precise locating with U1] on the ONE Spot,
but even if it did, Apple doesn't let yet third-party companies access the U1 chip in the iPhone
(though this is coming).
In its notice on Wednesday, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) outlined eight offensive acts that have recently been investigated in order to create an environment for commemoration of the anniversary that is “festive and warm” and yet “serious and solemn.”
One of the cases involved Beijing Haoso Finishing Touch Technology (北京好搜点睛科技有限公司),
which operates the advertising business for the 360 Search platform (so.com) under Qihoo 360, the Chinese internet security company.
Beijing Haoso is accused in the notice of having “failed to review the content of the relevant advertisements,
and to prevent others from releasing illegal advertisements with the help of the platform.”
This included advertising content that “appropriated the images of staff at government organs,”
and that apparently offered collectibles related to the Party’s 100th anniversary.
One of the more colorful violators on the SAMR list was China Brewing (Beijing) Cultural Development,
a distributor of Chinese wines and spirits.
The company apparently created a standalone website to promote the 100th anniversary and its own commercial products,
and invited visitors to participate and become “the chief designer of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Party,”
by choosing from among 100 different commemorative images that included the Chinese Communist Party emblem.