It's fascinating that one of the top features insiders are interested in is making File Explorer more dependable.

They took a real punch to the gut when File Pilot rolled out and showed them what their own devs should have been doing.

Took the beta for a quick spin and... wow, the speed is truly astonishing!

Windows doesn't feel slow because the kernel or the filesystem is inherently "that" slow, it feels like a sloth overdosing on heroin because nobody at Microsoft gives the slightest crap about making it even a tiny bit faster.

It's staggering how the instant you double-click a file in File Pilot you're... back in the tar pit. (The Windows image preview app just spins... and spins... while it does God-knows-what with my CPUs.)

The contrast of going from one to the other makes the quality difference glaringly obvious.

The Windows filesystem is very slow. It's not the main cause of slowness in Explorer, but it's still a real problem.

File pilot seems to use an immediate mode UI to be responsive and uses 10% cpu even when idle or minimized. I'm not sure that's worth it.

Directory Opus has been doing that for decades.

I'm sure it did, but that app looks like a Win XP-era app (not even Win7). FilePilot is fast, looks good & feels modern (support a command palette, fuzzy search, etc). The only downside is that it runs on the GPU and so running it inside a VM is a bit of a hassle.

You can completely customize how it looks.

The reqs are likely a side effect of how the application is built and the fact that its made by a solo dev.

I find it more pleasant to do UI within the context of a video game renderer than to bother with ui libraries and native hooks.

You only have to deal with windows enough to get you a rendering context: then you can do everything in your walled garden.

Hadn't heard that name since the Amiga days and had no idea it was still around!

I think he discovered cultural history.

Also uses the word "excavating", maybe he read a bit of Foucault.

Can you give some more details on what you consider culture and what kind of books you read to that end?

Looking for something external, trick, app or whatever, and generally relying on science for concentration is conceptually the wrong approach.

Could you please elaborate?

I guess the poster may have meant that concentration is a skill you develop - an internal quality - and any seeker should keep in mind that there are no excuses: you have to "actually do it", not e.g. attempt getting it from the outside while internally remaining alien.

When you learn acrobatics, you may research about the shoes and haircut etc. that hinder the least and facilitate the most, but it will remain an ability, a skill, not a prosthesis, not an externally enabled state.

Moreover, it may have meant that since concentration is also a negative state (to gain concentration avoid its disturbances), you have to declutter, not to add further - to remove elements, not to pose them.

Moreover, it may have meant that to learn riding a bicycle, you "do it" (you climb the bike and attempt action), you do not «rely[] on science». The "science" is inside (natural cybernetics, feedback based skill building), not explicit outside.

Your diffuculties arise from the way you talk about the problem.

You ask how you can be sure that a person can change their identity? Your question already presents a mechanism that naturally doesn't work. What is implicit in what you're saying is that changing somehow involves taking something out and putting something completely different in. As in taking out one set of desires and replacing them with some other desires. That is certainly not what happens.

To change some of your desires is to understand them and understand how they arise. That's very related to how you talk to yourself and what expressions you use and where they implicitly lead you. That is the way you speak imposes a certain view of the world, what it consists of and what is possible within it. (That's not to say that you would suddenly be able to fly but there is a whole human domain that you might start discovering from the inside as a human being rather than looking at yourself from the outside as a collection of organs).

Those are mostly either heavily marketed recent books or some very popular books considered "classics" that sort of circulate as representing some field (which they mostly really don't).

If I had made a similar (probably much shorter) list about programming languages it would include Go and Pascal as mind-expanding languages.

Yasujiro Ozu was making films since the 20s.

One follow up question you might want to be asking is why you thought that in the first place and what it has to do with current societal views.

Well, we genuinely do have a far better understanding of the natural world than the ancients. Many practical problems they faced have been effectively solved by technology, like food scarcity, communication, transportation etc. To me it seems more surprising that there hasn't been similar progress in our understanding of society and the human condition. We're still struggling with most of the same issues they were.

That is mostly my point. What conclusion can you actually make about any other society, current or historical, on the basis of "our practical problems being mostly solved by technology"?

I think the danger in this focus on technology now is that it is so easy to dismiss anything at all that ancient Greeks or whomever said as not even simply wrong but even trivial and unworthy of being studied.

Of course I used to dismiss most earlier writings as well. What could they possibly teach me, after all everything is so advanced now? This kind of attitude being widespread and I think entailed in most modern science talk (as an unspoken and easy conclusion that mostly never becomes explicit) is part of the reason we struggle with the same issues as you say.

The logic why I thought so is simple: I'd read Aristotle views on physics initially (complete garbage) and assumed if one part (that I can easily verify) is garbage, then other parts (that are not so easily verifiable) are likely to be garbage too.

If I see something wrong published on the topic that I know well, I assume that the quality of the content from the same source is not any better for the topics I don't know.

It is a good general principle but the heuristics/shortcut doesn't work sometimes.

That is unfortunately the case with me and it took me several years to start realizing that prolonged stress can result in this cascading effect where muscles tightening can distort your body slightly. This in turn can put strain on muscles initially unaffected which can themselves become locked because you cannot release the initial strain. By the time I started realizing it I couldn't answer anymore the question what it feels like for my body to be relaxed.

Are you doing better now?

I think interpreting the intention of the author and the students should take into account that the author's research is in human-computer interaction and that the students most likely are aware of that fact as well.

But a project manager would allocate 2 hours just for the initial project discussion meeting, so 2 hours and 4 hours are obviously not project manager estimates.