The Talk Show

355: ‘The Creaturest of Habits’, With Daniel Jalkut


00:00:00   Daniel, it's always good to talk to you. How's your summer going?

00:00:03   Fast! It's one of these things, I guess it's like accelerating as you get older. I think everything

00:00:08   goes by, it seems like it's going by faster. And this summer, it seems to exemplify that,

00:00:13   because in part, probably because we've been busy flying around here and there, not flying,

00:00:19   literally, but zipping around. So it's just been one of those summers where it's kind of like a

00:00:23   loosely connected series of days at home. And so it's like, "Oh, well, it's almost the end now."

00:00:30   I kind of always look forward at the end of the summer to the "boring" September where kids are

00:00:37   back in school. It's like I'm guaranteed to be at home. I kind of look forward to just like having

00:00:42   some long, boring days at home. Yeah, I always felt that way too. September and October might

00:00:48   be my favorite months of the year. I don't know why. It's like a combination of some of the best

00:00:54   weather we consistently get in the Northeast. I like that sort of back-to-school, sort of return

00:01:01   to normalcy, or the pattern, right? The sort of me. I mean, I'm the most creatureist of habits.

00:01:08   Is that right? I'm the creatureist of habits. Sounds like a D&D role or something.

00:01:15   I am one of the biggest creatures of habit. I'd say it that way. Maybe not pathologically so,

00:01:20   but when I'm knocked off my habits, I get grumpy. Like my inner Larry David

00:01:26   come out and needs to be suppressed. And it's sort of enjoyable, right?

00:01:31   Yeah. Pretty good.

00:01:34   Right. It is. And it is the privilege, right? The true privilege. I know people toss that

00:01:39   around a lot in the last decade, but truly it is. You can appreciate it. It's a

00:01:45   lucky that I love what I do and that me being lost in my work for a couple of days in a row

00:01:52   makes me feel good. It's like, man, what a privilege. I still think back to the manual

00:01:57   labor days, like when I was a stock boy at a big sort of combination, a Walmart type store called

00:02:05   Far More. And I was the stock boy and, oh my God, I just hated it because it was so monotonous and

00:02:11   it would be the same fricking stuff. Like every day at the, I used to work the second shift. So

00:02:17   like three to 11 and it's like the store closed at 10, I think something like that, maybe nine.

00:02:24   But anyway, my last hour or two, we called it blocking the shelves and all it meant was like,

00:02:30   you go to the big shampoo and hair product dial and go through from top to bottom, front to back,

00:02:38   every single item, move all the product that was left to the front so that it looked in the

00:02:43   morning when the store reopened, it looked like the whole aisle was freshly stocked.

00:02:47   What a boring thing. I think about that too. It must be better. I don't know if they let

00:02:54   teenagers do it, but maybe like if you're working after the store's closed, they'd let you use like

00:02:58   AirPods or something, listen to podcasts or music or something. But we certainly didn't have anything

00:03:04   like that. Just you left your own devices with the crap playing over the store speakers. And then some

00:03:12   days it would be like, "Hey, John, we need someone to go out in a parking lot and round up the

00:03:16   shopping carts." And it was like, "Oh, this is awesome." Right? Because it's something different.

00:03:23   Right? It was like, if I had now, if I was the shopping cart wrangler five days a week,

00:03:30   then it would have been like, "We need you to block the shelves," then that would have been my

00:03:34   relief. Right? But it was like, just what a true privilege that I love what I do.

00:03:38   Yeah. Well, let me ask you something. Because I only started, first of all, I never knew what

00:03:43   it was called when you pull the stuff forward. But I've noticed over the past few years, I have

00:03:48   some kind of like empathy for the store. And now when I buy something, I self-block the—

00:03:55   I kind of do that too. And I don't know if I'm a nicely conscientious person who would have done

00:04:01   that anyway, or if it's because I had the job for two summers.

00:04:04   That's what I was wondering, if you have like the empathy for the schmuck who's going to go around

00:04:08   having to do it. But yeah, I kind of feel like, I don't know, I feel like I'm a little bit like

00:04:13   overly conscientious about those kinds of things. Like, my wife gives me kind of a hard time because

00:04:19   like I, when I'm checking out at the supermarket, I like to put all the stuff on the half of the

00:04:26   conveyor belt that's closest to the worker. And she's like, "Why the heck are you doing that?"

00:04:32   I was like, "Well, it just makes it easier for them." But yeah.

00:04:34   It's sort of like my thing I mentioned recently, I think on the show, or also on the website,

00:04:41   I always forget where I said it, but that I say thank you to like the—

00:04:44   Oh, yeah, I heard that somewhere.

00:04:45   To our home assistants. Not every time, but I try to. But the other thing I definitely do,

00:04:51   and I know it's because I had the job for two summers, is I always return my shopping cart.

00:04:56   And I don't know that until I had the job once or twice a week for two summers that I ever realized

00:05:03   just how many people just leave their carts randomly. And surely it didn't make me bitter

00:05:08   about them. But I think before I had the job, even as a teenager, I might have done that too.

00:05:13   Like, "Ah, the return thing looks like it's all the way down there. I'll just leave my cart here.

00:05:16   It's an empty spot. It doesn't look like the lot's full. It's not taking up a necessary spot for

00:05:21   cars." But then once you're the person who has to go through the whole parking lot and

00:05:24   gather up every cart. Yeah, I never did that again.

00:05:28   But then do you worry that by returning the cart, you're depriving somebody of the job of

00:05:32   returning the carts?

00:05:34   Oh, I never thought about it that way. But I think no. I don't think anybody ever resents it.

00:05:38   Because I think anybody who has that job has other stuff to do anyway.

00:05:42   And it's the more carts... It certainly was my... When I had the job, the more carts that were

00:05:48   actually stacked in with each other in the official return troughs, I don't know what

00:05:54   you call those things. It always seemed better and nicer. Because it always seemed like the ones that

00:05:59   were left randomly were like at the four corners of the lot.

00:06:03   Yeah, I kind of think about it because I hate... Well, I sort of hate like all social interaction,

00:06:09   which is ironic in a way because here I am chatting with you. I love chatting with people.

00:06:13   I love being social. I don't actually like engaging with the checkout person at the supermarket. So

00:06:19   I will almost always go to the automated self-checkout thing. And then I wonder,

00:06:26   am I part of the problem here? Am I getting rid of... Somebody got fired because of me,

00:06:31   because they didn't need as many people to check people out.

00:06:34   But I think you're like me too. Because if you do talk to the checkout, if you do go to the human,

00:06:39   you are going to be friendly and make some point of sort of just being just a little bit like,

00:06:45   "Hey, I appreciate that you're here doing a hard job." So I do, but that's what I'm seeking to

00:06:51   avoid. It's not that I'm antisocial with them. I'm not really introverted. And like you say,

00:06:55   here we are on a podcast talking, right? And it's like anybody who's ever met me, hopefully I'm very

00:07:00   friendly. I'm not shy. I just always had thought introverted meant shy. And I'm not shy, but I do

00:07:07   find social interactions exhausting to some degree, not as much as other people do. But even this

00:07:13   podcast, like when I'm done recording the talk show, I feel to some degree emotionally spent.

00:07:18   I couldn't believe that the eye-opening thing for me is that there are extroverts who actually draw

00:07:25   energy from social interactions, right? Like I kind of thought extrovert meant...

00:07:30   Yeah, I don't know. You're a little obnoxious.

00:07:33   Yeah, it doesn't have a great reputation. The word doesn't really...

00:07:37   Yeah, I mean, it has a reputation of kind of a go-getter, I guess.

00:07:42   Yeah. But it's that explanation that introvert, all social interactions draw from your emotional

00:07:49   energy and extroverts suck it up and get more energy and therefore can keep going,

00:07:55   right? That once an extrovert never wants the party to end. I was like, "Whoa, that's not me."

00:08:02   I mean, it's really interesting because I always thought also that I was just 110% extrovert,

00:08:07   and my wife identifies as the same amount of introvert. But it definitely... When you start

00:08:14   thinking about those definitions and you compare yourself to the experiences of people who maybe

00:08:20   legitimately are introverts, I think we all have a little bit of both. So I definitely have that

00:08:25   experience. And I think it's also what I was saying about being overly conscientious,

00:08:31   that takes energy just to have the concern of how you're going to come off to somebody or what

00:08:39   they're going to think of you, etc. Right. And I don't know, helping to bag my own stuff and...

00:08:45   Yeah, of course. Got to do that. Yeah. Somebody the other day, I was checking out at our local

00:08:50   grocery store and they check out... It's a place with no self-check. Otherwise, I might use that

00:08:56   more frequently for the same reason as you. But he said, "I'm his favorite type of customer." And

00:09:00   I had no idea where he was going with it. And he said, "Well, because you bring your own bags."

00:09:03   And I don't know, Philly... I don't know, has Boston done this? Or...

00:09:07   Yeah. Well, in my suburb of Boston, Arlington, we have... It got rid of the plastic bags.

00:09:13   That's where Philly is. And Philly was supposed to do it right at the outset of 2020. And I don't

00:09:20   know why. God knows what the explanation was, but something COVID, okay, we'll delay it. And it's

00:09:27   like... I don't know. I guess because they sort of wanted... I guess the thinking was that when we were

00:09:35   so fearful that COVID was spreading through fomites, that they wouldn't even let you bring

00:09:40   your own bag, right? It was like they went the opposite way where, "Screw the environmental

00:09:45   impact. Right now, we're in a pandemic." And I get it because we didn't know, right? Nobody knew.

00:09:50   It really took surprisingly long to figure out how the hell COVID spread so that when we thought it

00:09:54   could be fomites, so let's be careful. I remember our local Trader Joe's, which you think of as a

00:10:00   forward-thinking lefty, hippie-dippie sort of chain, right? The type of place that was

00:10:06   the earliest to have customers bringing their own bags to pack up all their groceries. The rule was

00:10:14   you can bring your own bag, but you have to leave them in the bottom of your cart. And we'll put all

00:10:19   your items back in your cart, and then you go out in the parking lot and bag them yourself.

00:10:26   Again, I don't think that's unreasonable. I laugh now because it seems ridiculous, but I guess that's

00:10:31   why the city of Philadelphia paused the no plastic bags thing because they were sort of, "Hey, these

00:10:37   plastic bags are sealed up, so we'll let you use them." But anyway, he said, "It's because you

00:10:42   brought your own bags." And I was like, "Huh. Well, I'm glad he appreciates that because..."

00:10:47   - You're the friend of the worker. - All right. Let's thank our first

00:10:52   special friend, our good friend at Linode. This is actually where I have hosted Daring Fireball now

00:10:57   for more years than I can count. Although if I really wanted to, I'm sure I could go back and

00:11:03   count them. One of the new things they want me to tell you about is their new managed database

00:11:09   system, fully managed database service for, and here's where I start mispronouncing the names of

00:11:14   these database systems. MySQL, which in my head for years and years I thought was pronounced MySQL,

00:11:20   PostgreSQL, or is it pronounced Post-gress-sequel? MongoDB, I'm pretty sure is pronounced MongoDB,

00:11:30   and more. And you can easily deploy high performance database clusters. And these

00:11:37   managed databases allow you to quickly deploy a new database and defer management tasks like

00:11:42   configurations, managing high availability, disaster recovery, backups, data replication.

00:11:50   With managed databases, you get all of that. Fast, simple deployment, secure access,

00:11:55   daily backups included, and flexible plans for really big instances and really smaller ones.

00:12:05   Like everything else Linode does, they really do scale from the smallest of customers to

00:12:10   truly big enterprise ones. Go to linode.com/the-talk-show and learn more. And you can also

00:12:16   see why Linode has been voted the top infrastructure as a service provider by both G2 and TrustRadius.

00:12:23   Other things I'll just throw in. Award-winning support that they offer 24 hours, seven days a

00:12:28   year, 24 hours, seven days a week, 365 days a year to every level of customer. You get the same top

00:12:36   knot support as a big enterprise company, even if you're just a single person on a single plan.

00:12:40   Ease of use and setup. Developers have been trusting Linode for projects big and small since

00:12:44   2003. They make cloud computing fast, simple, and affordable, and allow you to focus on your

00:12:50   projects, not your infrastructure. So once again, visit linode.com/the-talk-show. You can create a

00:12:59   free account using your Google or GitHub account to log in or just use your email address and you

00:13:06   will get 100 bucks in credit just by using that URL linode.com/the-talk-show. All right, real

00:13:16   topics. This one's a bit heavy, but I'm really interested by it. Did you see, I linked to it

00:13:21   yesterday as we record this New York Times story about a father who had uploaded a naked photo of

00:13:28   his son at a doctor's advice because he had a rash on his genital area. Do you see this story?

00:13:34   Jared: I heard you talking with Ben on dithering about it just today.

00:13:38   Michael; Yeah. So we talked about it. I wanted to talk about it here, but for anybody who didn't

00:13:42   read the story, it was reported by Kashmir Hill, who's done fantastic work. She used to be at

00:13:47   Gizmodo years ago. It's no surprise that she's worked her way up to the New York Times. And just,

00:13:54   if you really think about the mechanics of being the reporter, like, it's such a hard story to get

00:13:59   and that sort of meta level really fascinates me. And the father in question, he only used his first

00:14:05   name in the story, but basically the infant son had seemingly a genital rash of some sort. Talked

00:14:12   to the doctor a couple years ago. I think it was probably, I forget the exact date, but I'm almost

00:14:17   certain if it was like 2020, COVID stuff is in place. So, so much medicine was going to telemedicine.

00:14:24   And the pediatrician said, "That sounds worrisome. Can you take some pictures of it and send me some

00:14:29   pictures?" And he used his Android phone to take pictures of it as best he could. And then he

00:14:35   sent it to his wife. So, I guess his wife maybe was the one sending the pictures to the doctor,

00:14:42   sent it to his wife through Google Hangouts. And then a couple of days later, his Google account

00:14:46   has been flagged and is like deactivated or paused and more or less comes down to their AI system

00:14:53   had, you know, the phone went, the picture went from his, or pictures went from his Android phone

00:14:58   to Google Photos. From Google Photos, he sent it to his wife by Hangout and that's it. But their

00:15:06   AI systems had flagged the photo or photos of his son's genitals as CSAM, suspected child sexual

00:15:15   abuse material. Trying to make this long, well-reported story short. It was human reviewed,

00:15:20   but the human reviewer thought it looked suspicious too and then that's it. But this guy

00:15:24   had everything in Google. It was like a Gmail address that he'd been using since the very,

00:15:29   he was apparently a very technically minded, I think he was a software developer even,

00:15:33   got on Gmail early, had been using it as his primary email address. His Android phone was using

00:15:39   Google Fi, their cellular service as a cell provider. So, that got shut down too. So,

00:15:44   he lost his phone number. So, just, and you know, all of his two-factor stuff was in Google

00:15:50   Authenticator. So, if you lose your primary email address and you lose your phone number

00:15:55   for SMS backups and you lose your Google Authenticator, think of how many things you'd be

00:16:02   locked out of. And I know, I guess a lot of things with two-factor have those things you can print.

00:16:08   They're like authenticator codes, but you get like a list of 10 of them and they say print these out

00:16:13   and put them in a safe place. So, maybe he wasn't permanently locked out of everything else in his

00:16:16   life, but that's a lot, right? And of course, then this thing goes to law. It's not just, oh,

00:16:22   a tale of a father who got lost his Gmail account. But you know, then it went to the,

00:16:26   it was reported to the police, the police investigated. The police investigated,

00:16:31   this is where the story at least has somewhat of an upbeat tint, where the police looked into it

00:16:36   and clearly saw that this, yeah, what this was incorrect. This was a father taking pictures of

00:16:43   his son and it happened to be the genitals, but at the doctor's advice, this is no question about it.

00:16:49   This is not sexual abuse. This was trying to get dermatological care for an infant.

00:16:55   You know, anybody who's had a baby, I think knows that you're wearing diapers all day and, you know,

00:17:01   what are they doing in the diapers? They're making them wet one way or the other. The rashes and

00:17:06   stuff happened down there. I mean, it's literally the phrase for diaper rash and there's all sorts

00:17:10   of things. Nobody wants a rash. And if you do get a rash, where's the last place you would like a

00:17:15   rash? So the police looked into it and that all went well, right? Because you can imagine how

00:17:20   that can go south. There've been stories along these lines where child protective services gets

00:17:26   involved. And if the first interaction doesn't go quite right, they can take your child away,

00:17:32   which is, I don't know, I can't imagine it, right? That didn't happen at least,

00:17:40   but he'd get locked out of Google.

00:17:42   Jared: Yeah, well, it sort of makes you wonder how often this happens and

00:17:47   are there worse consequences that haven't been reported in the New York Times?

00:17:52   Pete: Right. Right. And one of the things that Cashmere Hill emphasized in our story is that

00:17:58   we collectively outside Google and Facebook and whoever else does this sort of AI-based scanning

00:18:05   have no idea how many people there are because they don't report the numbers of,

00:18:10   and they certainly don't want to report the number of false positives, right? The people

00:18:15   wrongly accused or people who say they are. Google's internal system to human review it

00:18:21   clearly failed in this case. I mean, I guess we're presuming that what Cashmere, and Cashmere Hill

00:18:28   says that she saw the photos and questioned herself as the reporter, found the whole story credible.

00:18:32   The police did investigate and, you know, issued a report that exonerated him. So, I think it's

00:18:38   safe as we can be to say that he was wrongly flagged and Google's human review clearly failed.

00:18:44   How many times that happened so we have no idea because it for obvious reasons, most people,

00:18:49   if that happened to them, were wrongly accused of this. How do you go public with that, right? The

00:18:54   last thing you want to do is go public and have your name associated with being suspected of this,

00:18:59   even if you're innocent, right? Yeah. Yeah, I find it also just kind of,

00:19:04   the last thing I, the whole human review thing makes sense on many levels, but the last thing

00:19:12   I'd expect sending a photo of my kid to a doctor is that somebody at Google was going to eventually

00:19:18   be looking at the photo. Right. Like, it just, whatever the circumstances are. So, an AI system

00:19:24   I'm sure it's like one of those things that you agree to when you say,

00:19:27   "Okay," after not reading the long legal agreement on Google Photos or whatever, but I don't know,

00:19:33   in a way it's like, it's just such a weird consequence to not only have your child's picture

00:19:44   reviewed by somebody at Google, but the child's genitals. It's like, what? That's,

00:19:51   everything that's creepy about this to me is like the parts of it that aren't actually what the

00:19:58   alleged or feared behavior was. Yeah. It's one of those things where I can't really

00:20:03   imagine being the sort of mentally ill person who wants to look at child sexual

00:20:13   abuse material. And so, it's, I think it's good for humanity that the 99 point whatever percent

00:20:22   of people have repulsed by it as opposed to attracted to it. But just trying to imagine

00:20:29   a little, you can kind of see, you know, how like kid playing in a bathtub, which is what I posted

00:20:35   on during Fireball. But we took pictures of our son in the bath at bath time. You know, we didn't

00:20:40   think twice about it 18 years ago. I don't know. And I think there's pictures of me from the 70s,

00:20:46   like John's first bath or whatever. I think any human reviewer can look at that and say, yeah,

00:20:51   that's a naked baby, but it's typical family photo stuff. Whereas like my son has a skin condition

00:20:59   and swelling on his genitals and trying to show it as best you can to the doctor. I can't imagine how

00:21:05   like a reviewer would say, oh yeah, this one's a problem. This goes into a different pile than

00:21:10   an 11 month old who's in the swimming pool in the backyard on a sunny day or something like that.

00:21:14   But it raises some technical questions too. Really can't stop thinking about it, how it's such a,

00:21:20   it's so nuanced. The only thing I can say for sure is it seems to me that Google should have

00:21:26   a better way of appealing this and that a proper human appeal, even after the first human reviewer

00:21:32   said this is still suspicious, that somehow there should be some second level where somebody could

00:21:39   look at this and look at all this guy's other photos and say that this, and maybe even take

00:21:45   the time to call the guy's doctor, right? And if you're this mark, the subject of the story,

00:21:50   and say my child's pediatrician is Dr. So-and-so's office, here's the phone number, which I think is

00:21:57   the stuff the police went through, right? That at some level, if Google had somebody who could spend,

00:22:02   I don't know, half an hour looking into it, they'd say, oh yeah, this was a mistake,

00:22:07   we're very sorry, everything's back to normal. But maybe they can't effectively because the scale

00:22:15   of how many photos they're looking at is too much. I mean, hopefully the scale of

00:22:23   people where the AI system says this is suspicious, the first human reviewer says,

00:22:28   yes, this seems bad. Hopefully that number isn't so low and that when that happens, and it is legit

00:22:38   CSAM, right? It is the system working to identify abuse material. The person who's responsible for

00:22:46   it feels bad that they got caught, or scared knowing that, oh my God, this is going to be

00:22:51   investigated, I'm in trouble. That the last thing they would do is behave like an innocent person

00:22:56   and be like, I want to keep talking to you about this, I would like to speak to a supervisor. I

00:23:00   don't know. But these services are so huge and have so many users, billions, right, for Google

00:23:09   photos. I mean, got to be close to a billion. And if the accuracy rate is 99.999 or add another nine,

00:23:18   make it six nines, that sliver that's less than 100% with a billion users could be frighteningly

00:23:26   high, right? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's just the whole thing also just draws my thinking to what

00:23:34   innocent thing are you doing that technology and the way our society is set up could, it's like the

00:23:41   plot for a movie almost, right? It's like, well, what innocent thing you would never think is going

00:23:47   to cause you to like go down this terror hole of like police and, I mean, just hearing about this

00:23:55   guy, the experience at all. I mean, in the fact that it was like, you and I know this, many people

00:24:03   listening know this is when you're caring for your kid and dealing with doctors that like,

00:24:07   all of the intentions here were just about like taking care of his kid. And this is what happens.

00:24:14   Right. And it really was at the advice of the doctors that take, try to take some pictures

00:24:18   of this and let me take a closer look. I don't know. Having read this story, and I even wrote

00:24:23   this on Daring Fireball that they spoke to somebody who was an expert and said, I wouldn't

00:24:29   take naked pictures of my children, but if I did, I wouldn't upload them to the cloud or something

00:24:34   like that was her advice. And like I pointed out, like, that's not feasible advice for most people

00:24:40   because most people have their camera is going to be their phone and their phone is almost certainly

00:24:45   in the last decade set to automatically upload the pictures they take to the cloud, right? Which is

00:24:51   what you want overall, like for almost everybody listening, every single photo you take is something

00:24:58   that you want uploaded to the cloud so that if you lose your phone, you don't lose it. Even you

00:25:03   don't even lose the photos you took today. The more I think about this, I still completely

00:25:08   empathize with this guy and I think it was wrong. What happened? It seems like surprising and

00:25:12   shocking if Google is still entrenched in like not restoring his account, et cetera. But I'm thinking

00:25:21   about it personally. I think there is something that I'm not to say like I couldn't fall into

00:25:27   another trap of like being wrongly accused of something, but I probably would stop short of

00:25:35   taking such a picture. Maybe just because I'm a little more, I don't know, like wouldn't want to

00:25:39   do that with my own body. So something about it that just so happens, I don't think I would

00:25:50   fall into this trap. I would probably make an appointment, go into in-person visit.

00:25:55   That's a good point. I hadn't thought about that, but if it were me and I had a rash down there and

00:26:01   my doctor said, "Can you take a picture of it?" Again, it comes back to our personal empathy with

00:26:08   professionals. I think that I could have a somewhat comfortable conversation with my doctor and say,

00:26:14   "You know what? I'm actually not comfortable with that. Is there something else, some other thing

00:26:19   that we can do?" Yeah. There's something about it that just, it does sort of like trigger a

00:26:24   "don't do that" kind of feeling. I might, see, now my mind's racing. I might be willing, as weird as

00:26:32   it would be, but it would be weird, let's face it, it would be weird to go into your doctor and have

00:26:37   your doctor look at them. Yeah. But if it's COVID or you're far away or whatever, I might be willing

00:26:46   to do it through a telehealth web. Something ephemeral, right? The idea that you're not

00:26:55   creating an artifact even if you are, but there's something about creating the artifact that feels

00:27:00   a little weird. Right. I think probably most people listening have had telehealth consultations

00:27:07   during the last two years. I had my annual wellness check, as they call it now, back in 2020

00:27:14   over this webcam type thing that wasn't, you know, one of the name brand things like Zoom. It was

00:27:20   some kind of web-based portal my doctor has, which there's always, you know, possibilities of bugs,

00:27:26   right? But I sort of more or less implicitly trust that while there might be bugs, just like any

00:27:32   system has bugs, it's designed to be ephemeral. And that if I show my doctor my genitals on the

00:27:39   webcam, that there's not going to be local copies, you know, and me knowing more about technology,

00:27:44   knowing that it's going through a web browser, I feel pretty good that when you have a video

00:27:49   web conference, there's no local cache of the files, I think. I don't know that it's all

00:27:54   streamed. It doesn't seem like it. I never hear anybody talking about clean my Mac, adding a

00:28:00   feature to clean up web chat, video files. So I guess I would do it that way. But then you run

00:28:07   in, this is where my mind goes, you run into the technical problem that your webcam probably is

00:28:11   the worst camera you have, right? And it's, if you're trying to show your son's rash,

00:28:16   I don't know, maybe it doesn't show up, right? And some of the most common problems critics

00:28:20   looking at webcam footage have is getting skin color right and stuff like that, which is exactly

00:28:25   what the doctor's looking for. And it might even auto-correct to that's red, but you know,

00:28:30   that's auto-correct to sort of make it more natural skin color or something like that. I

00:28:34   don't know. It's all complicated, but it made me think back to the whole thing. And I wrote about

00:28:40   this briefly on Daring Fireball, but it made me think back to the whole controversy last year with

00:28:46   Apple's plans for CSAM fingerprinting, which is different than this AI model where the fingerprinting

00:28:53   plan, Google does that too, but it's two entirely different systems. The fingerprinting idea

00:28:59   is that there's an organization, the National Center for Missing and Endangered Children,

00:29:05   and NCMEC, I think is the way that the people in the know pronounce it. NCMEC, and it's called

00:29:13   NCMEC. And the US government has authorized them through law that I guess they do, I think that

00:29:20   might even be where they get all their funding, like the CDC. And their entire mission is to help

00:29:26   missing and endangered children of all forms. And part of their legal responsibility is that

00:29:31   they are legally authorized to hold a database of known CSAM material. And that nobody else,

00:29:41   material that is illegal for anybody else to hold. It is just, they can't share this database of

00:29:48   images with Apple and Google and Facebook because it's illegal. It's illegal for them to share it.

00:29:54   They're a super well-respected organization, but what they've done with a system that was

00:29:58   originally, I think, designed by Microsoft and everybody credits as being very successful

00:30:03   is creating hashes of all these images. And a hash is just like a 40-character string.

00:30:10   I don't know how big theirs are, but let's just say it's 40 characters. It's

00:30:13   like a couple of trillion to one odds of two of them being the same. And what they can distribute

00:30:21   to companies like Apple and Google and Microsoft and anybody else they trust is the database of the

00:30:26   fingerprints. And it's pretty much just, if you think about it, even if you're not comfortable

00:30:31   with the math or the algorithms behind hashing functions, it really is sort of the equivalent of

00:30:40   an actual fingerprint. Like if you got my left index finger's fingerprint and you had the

00:30:46   fingerprint, that fingerprint doesn't give you any information about me, right? You don't know how

00:30:53   old I am. You don't know if I'm a man or a woman. You certainly can't deconstruct what I look like

00:31:00   from a fingerprint. It's like that's what the hashes are. But if there's an image on a user's

00:31:05   cloud photos and you take the fingerprint of that image and that fingerprint is in the database,

00:31:12   there's a very, very high chance that it's a match just by looking at the fingerprints in the

00:31:17   same way that my fingerprint left at a crime scene matching the fingerprint that police just taken me.

00:31:22   It's very high chance that I committed the bank robbery. Certainly a contributing evidence.

00:31:27   That's looking for known CSAM. What affected this guy in the New York Times story is a system Google

00:31:33   has and other companies seemingly have like Facebook and others to try to identify new

00:31:40   CSAM, unknown CSAM. And the only way I think this has got to be true. I mean, there's absolutely,

00:31:47   it's common sense. There's no way that could be done through any other way than machine learning.

00:31:53   There's no way that every single new photo uploaded to Google Photos or Facebook or whatever

00:32:00   could be human reviewed first. And number two, you wouldn't want that, right? You don't want,

00:32:03   you wouldn't want every photo everybody takes to be looked at by employees of Google or contractors

00:32:09   or whatever, right? But it's an entirely different thing. What really strikes me is Apple's proposed

00:32:16   system last year was only about fingerprinting and not using any machine learning in the way

00:32:22   that machine learning can, you can now search iCloud photos and your photos app on your,

00:32:27   your Apple device and search for dogs and all sorts of pictures you've taken of dogs show up

00:32:33   because of machine learning. And it can identify your children and you can, this feature has been

00:32:40   an Apple thing for a while. Google has the same thing where it's like, oh, that's a face. And I

00:32:44   don't know who this is. Do you want to assign a name to this? And yeah, I can type in that's Jonas

00:32:49   and the machine. Now I can type for Jonas in my photos. And I don't know if it has every photo

00:32:56   of him, correct? It probably has some errors, but also thousands of photos of my son show up.

00:33:03   That's not what Apple was trying, was proposing or even saying or hinting. They were no hint that

00:33:08   they were going to try to do that to identify CSAM. They were saying, we're only going to do

00:33:14   fingerprinting and against this known database of, of material from the NC Mac and that they

00:33:20   signed, we've worked with them to design the system. But what was so controversial about it

00:33:25   was that Apple was proposing to do the fingerprinting on your device before the photo

00:33:31   gets sent to iCloud. And it really freaked people out. I think rightly so, right? I said this on

00:33:39   dithering too. It sounds weird that my own device would be checking my photos for fingerprinting

00:33:44   against this database. But while Apple being Apple didn't say why, my looking at their proposed plan,

00:33:53   my thinking still is to this day, a year later that they designed that proposal with the idea

00:34:01   in mind that eventually iCloud photos will be end to end encrypted so that they could, at some point

00:34:08   they couldn't do it on the server. And what Google did would be impossible to do on the server if

00:34:15   Google photos were end to end encrypted, right? Because the end to end encrypted means that the

00:34:20   company in the middle has no way, no secret key to unlock the stuff. It is cryptographically secure.

00:34:27   And even all the computing might of Google, maybe the institution on the planet with the most

00:34:33   aggregate computing power, can't feasibly decrypt even one photo if it was end to end encrypted.

00:34:41   That proved super, super, super controversial. Google's system, the one that flagged this fellow

00:34:47   and who knows, at least two people in this report, who knows how many other people that we don't know

00:34:52   about, has been in place for years and it was really with no controversy whatsoever. And here's

00:34:59   somebody, here's a guy who's at least his digital life was ruined and his personal life got extremely

00:35:06   scary and worrisome with a police investigation for this for a while. And I'm just curious what

00:35:12   your thoughts are on that. Should something like Google photos and iCloud photos be end to end

00:35:17   encrypted and therefore keep these companies from doing what Google's doing? Yeah, I mean,

00:35:23   my gut reaction to all of that is probably not surprising as I'm all in on the Apple like privacy

00:35:30   stance and all that stuff. And I guess I kind of fall on the side that just because technology

00:35:36   could buy essentially invading our privacy just because it could prevent terrible things from

00:35:44   happening doesn't mean that it's necessarily worth the trade off. So I guess I tend to lean towards,

00:35:51   yeah, encrypt everything. I think that what you said about there not being any blowback about

00:35:55   the Google thing, there's something proprietary, something about the proprietary ness of like your

00:36:01   phone being yours. And like Google servers being Google's. It's like the difference between like

00:36:06   it's like the difference between like a guests like a restaurant or a club you go to like,

00:36:14   padding you down, not a restaurant, but like a club, let's say you go to a club and they

00:36:17   pat you down like make sure you don't have a, I don't know, a weapon or something. Yeah,

00:36:21   yeah. No, I think we've all been to places like that. I mean, they have it now. I think it's a

00:36:26   rule. I don't know if other sports do it, but I'm more familiar with baseball where you have to,

00:36:29   you have to go through an airport style magnetometer to get into Yankee Stadium now.

00:36:34   I mean, right. Whereas like if there was some technology that allowed major league baseball to,

00:36:43   I don't know, scan your house for weapons while you're watching a game at home,

00:36:47   people would be like, that's a much different thing. It's obviously not a great comparison

00:36:51   because it's not, it's just the idea though that you kind of have like control over your own stuff

00:36:57   in your own space. I think people are naturally inclined to think it's a violation to have a

00:37:04   company exert its sort of authority over you in your own space. Right. And I don't know,

00:37:13   all this stuff, even with just what's described, what Google is described as doing,

00:37:17   it makes me feel more comfortable not being an avid Google customer. And, but at the same time,

00:37:25   I feel like I could get, just because it's never happened to me with Apple. I don't know

00:37:29   that means I'm necessarily any better off being all in on Apple stuff. I don't know for sure if

00:37:34   there hasn't been any follow up from Google after the New York Times article, but how could this guy

00:37:39   still not have his account restored? And it just feels so dense. You know what, it feels like the

00:37:46   denseness of Apple's App Store review sometimes, right? Luckily the App Store review denseness when

00:37:52   it happens isn't about whether you have access to all of your contacts and calendar dates and emails

00:37:59   and all that. But it could be an app you've spent a year of your life or your company's time working.

00:38:07   I mean, the stakes are really high. It seems like Apple has done better on that, but we've had

00:38:12   stories over the years of the App Store where developers have had bad interactions, rejections

00:38:17   from the App Store that the review system did not work. It seemed everybody reading the story,

00:38:22   once it gets publicized, seems to agree Apple screwed this up. But if it hadn't been publicized,

00:38:28   it literally could flush an entire year or more of the developer's time down the drain. I mean,

00:38:34   it's high stakes. And some of those instances had a very comparable sort of like black box,

00:38:43   can't tell why they won't reinstate it. So that rings similar to this. And it's like,

00:38:49   at least what I saw in the article is just, well, they just said no and no explanation why.

00:38:55   But it seems like there's definitely seems like there's something wrong with when the police say

00:39:00   like there's no crime committed. Like there's something wrong if your system at that point

00:39:04   doesn't allow you to backtrack. Yeah, it seems clear that Google failed in some regard there.

00:39:09   It seems like the exoneration from the police should be enough. And the fact that there's no

00:39:14   mechanism and again, I understand that the scale of Google and their photos that are being uploaded

00:39:22   every day is so enormous. And there's a scaling issue with customer service, where the business

00:39:30   model of these massive, what do we call them? Again, FAANG.

00:39:36   Jared: G, FAANG. Kind of arbitrary. I mean, Netflix doesn't really belong in that.

00:39:41   Pete: I kind of feel like they just make it sound better because it's FAANG. Facebook, Apple, Amazon,

00:39:50   Netflix, and Google.

00:39:52   Jared Where's Microsoft? Microsoft should be in there.

00:39:55   Pete Right. But FAAM.

00:39:57   Microsoft should definitely be in there and Netflix as much as I love them should not.

00:40:03   Jared No, they shouldn't.

00:40:03   Pete But the scale of those companies,

00:40:05   and I guess now that Facebook's meta in some people's style books, I don't know,

00:40:10   ruins the whole thing, but I've gotten emails since I've written a story and it seems like

00:40:15   readers out there still say FAANG. I get it that the scale of these companies with a model of

00:40:21   getting free users and scaling to literally the scope of the planet, right? Like one of the

00:40:28   problems facing Facebook growth-wise is that they're at a point where they have so many

00:40:34   billion users that they've run out of people, right? It's not that everybody on the planet uses

00:40:39   Facebook, but everybody who feasibly could and wants to is. And Google's at that scale too.

00:40:46   That it's, how do you provide customer support where you can get a reasonable person who will

00:40:52   actually listen to the story and will say, "Okay, I'll contact the police and have the police get

00:40:57   me this report," because you obviously can't just trust a report that's sent by the user.

00:41:00   I get it that scaling might be incompatible with the scope of these services, right? And that

00:41:06   before computers and the internet, there was just no way to have that level of users, right? And

00:41:15   what are the organizations that came closest in the pre-computing era? I guess the IRS,

00:41:20   in the United States, the IRS and the phone company, right? Like AT&T before the breakup.

00:41:26   Every house in America that had a phone had AT&T long distance. AT&T pre-breakup was not

00:41:34   well known for their customer service. The IRS is not well known for their customer service.

00:41:39   Although I will say personally, over the years when I've done things like filing extensions,

00:41:43   I know because you and I have commiserated on it, being like a self-proprietor who likes to

00:41:49   do their own stuff. I've had interactions with the IRS and it's actually worked out pretty well.

00:41:55   I actually think IRS, and I know that that's part of this new bill that the Democrats and Biden just

00:42:00   passed to actually fund the IRS better. But even as underfunded as they've been, when I've needed

00:42:05   customer service, it's been pretty good, but their reputation certainly isn't the best, right?

00:42:09   I don't know. I guess part of the difference, Ben brought this up on dithering, but that these

00:42:14   companies are sort of like quasi-governmental groups. And as bad as the reputation of like

00:42:21   the post office or the IRS, I don't know about other countries. Do other countries have better

00:42:26   and more favorable views of their countrywide tax collection agency? My view, even as someone who's

00:42:35   pretty left-leaning in the US and happily pays my taxes and feels like it's a privilege as a citizen,

00:42:41   the US culturally, our creation myth was all about not wanting to pay taxes that we didn't authorize,

00:42:48   right? I mean, being anti-tax is pretty central to the American culture. But at the very least,

00:42:56   you can, if it truly is a government agency in a democracy, you can demand some level of

00:43:01   accountability, right? And you can say like, there's your congressional representative

00:43:06   can get together and a majority of them can say, we're going to require the IRS to issue a report

00:43:12   every year with how many people got audited, which they do, right? They issue reports like that,

00:43:17   and they issue estimates of how much people who underpay on their taxes collectively,

00:43:23   how much money is underreported, and what would that be by our best estimate?

00:43:27   We don't get those numbers out of Google or Facebook or Apple or Microsoft on these issues

00:43:32   of how many people are flagged and how many people complain when they get flagged that it was wrong.

00:43:38   And it seems like somehow we should. I mean, and obviously the government can pass laws to make

00:43:42   these companies do it. And I kind of feel like that's, I'm generally anti-regulation, but I

00:43:47   actually feel like in this case, it's it, this is a case where carefully crafted regulation could be

00:43:54   good for everybody involved, including the companies. Cause then rather than worrying that

00:43:59   if nobody else is saying how many people, 150 Google photos users, I'm making this number up,

00:44:04   were reported for this wire system and our human review said, yeah, they should have their account

00:44:10   closed and be reported. And 150 of them last year came back and objected and said, no, this is

00:44:17   wrong. You've got it wrong. You should look again. Nobody wants to be the first to say that, right?

00:44:21   Because who wants it out there? Then all of a sudden that's the tech news story of the day that

00:44:25   last year, one of these companies flagged close to 200 people, or maybe it's a thousand people.

00:44:30   We don't know. Right. But whatever it is, it, whatever the number is 48 people, 2000 people more,

00:44:36   I mean, obviously the more publicity it's going to get, nobody wants to be the first to do it,

00:44:40   but if the law said everybody had to do it, I guess the only way you'd look bad is if your

00:44:45   system was flagging, if it's a 48 from one of the companies and 75 from another company and 2,500

00:44:53   from another company. Well then yeah, but then that company has a problem, right?

00:44:57   The other thing that stuck out to me, I wanted to say this before we move on to other less,

00:45:01   well, I don't know if you think talking about system settings and Ventura is a cheerful subject,

00:45:06   but it's cheerful in comparison. The other thing that I thought of today, thinking of before you

00:45:11   and I recorded, I was out running errands and I should do it more often because boy, I get a lot

00:45:17   of good ideas when I go for a walk, but it just popped into my head that one of the things I

00:45:21   forgot about Apple system, I was only thinking about the finger fingerprinting and comparison

00:45:27   against the known database of fingerprints and the, that the objections were all about it being

00:45:33   on the device side and adhere when it's all on the server, everybody just is sort of, it's like

00:45:40   the slow boiling frog. Everybody's just accepted that whatever these companies do with machine

00:45:44   learning on the servers, well, that's their business. It's not my device. And I only thought

00:45:48   about that part, but the other part that popped into my head was that part of Apple's proposal

00:45:53   was, I think the number was 30 that even if there's a fingerprint match of a photo, you were going to,

00:46:00   if they put the system into place and a photo going from your iPhone to your iCloud photos

00:46:07   account was fingerprint matched and matched a fingerprint in the Nic Mac database.

00:46:13   You had to get to like, I think the number was 30 before the account would be flagged and then

00:46:20   have those 30 images human reviewed, take a look that nothing funny is going on. This person hasn't

00:46:27   been somehow attacked by somebody who's figured out how to create hash collisions with the Nic

00:46:33   Mac database fingerprints. Whereas seemingly from this New York Times report, I don't think it

00:46:37   quite said how many photos, but it certainly wasn't 30. It was like a handful of photos that he took.

00:46:43   Maybe they only sent the doctor like two photos, but he took 10 photos, but they all would have

00:46:48   been the same, right? Or close enough that this guy's story of, here's my explanation for what

00:46:54   happened, would jibe with the fact that the dozen photos he took were all from the same angle and

00:47:00   the same lighting of the same age kid. And on the same, in the same like 10 minute

00:47:07   time period, because they have the timestamps on there too. There is something too, I think what

00:47:13   you're getting at is whatever Apple was proposing had built into it a kind of defense against false

00:47:21   alerts. And even the most modest default to like, I think it's pretty safe to assume that if you've

00:47:34   got a real problem on your hands, it's not going to be like one set of photos in a 10 minute span

00:47:39   one day out of a person's life. Yeah, because what came back to me was I wrote about this pretty

00:47:45   extensively last year when Apple had the plan. And part of that was, I think I was on at least two

00:47:50   press briefings over WebEx about it. It was the Apple had one that they initially planned.

00:47:57   And it was like a presentation explaining what they were doing. It was the presentation was

00:48:03   more or less a rehash of the PDF they published. But then the nice part about a press briefing like

00:48:08   that is then it was open to questions. And we in the media who were invited could ask questions

00:48:13   of Apple's head of security, Ivan, I always forget how to pronounce his last name.

00:48:17   Kirstich maybe?

00:48:18   Yeah, Kirstich, Ivan Kirstich, who's been their head of security for a long time and truly has,

00:48:23   really, if you think about the weight of the world on his shoulders among all the unsung executives

00:48:29   at Apple, boy, there's somebody whose job is heavy.

00:48:31   Just a real just I think it's Yvonne just to get the people who are screaming at their

00:48:36   podcast right now to settle down. But I might be wrong, but I think it's Yvonne. Yeah.

00:48:42   I think you're right, too, now that I think about it. But of course,

00:48:45   I mispronounce everybody's name. Yeah, no offense, Yvonne. But no, but a very cogent explanation.

00:48:51   It wasn't sugarcoating it. And it really but one of the things that was brought up about that

00:48:56   30 limit, and I forget, maybe it's 20. And maybe they adjusted it. But they even said,

00:49:01   they emphasize that if that number proves to be too high or too low, we can always change that

00:49:08   number. If it ends up that there's proof and evidence that criminal CSAM distributors are

00:49:16   getting away with it because they're doing it in batches of 20 or whatever, and then creating new

00:49:21   accounts that they could lower the number. And if it turns out, and they emphasized it,

00:49:26   their math was like, I don't know, like a trillion to one that somebody could just wrongly be flagged

00:49:33   for 30 fingerprints, just a truly astronomically high number. But maybe not super astronomically

00:49:40   high. It was something where it was like, if there's a billion iCloud users, I remember doing

00:49:45   the math, there's like a one in 1000 chance. So I think it was a trillion was the number,

00:49:51   but there's like a one in 1000 chance that someone's going to be flagged, which seems wrong.

00:49:56   But the thing that I believe it was Yvonne, but Apple definitely emphasized was that by having a

00:50:01   threshold that's this high, that the system is not intended, and no system could reasonably be

00:50:06   designed to catch every single thing you can't, there is no feasible way to design a system where

00:50:15   somebody who distributes one CSAM image is going to be caught without risking too many false matches,

00:50:26   right? That the balance between doing it right and catching people who should be caught,

00:50:31   but acknowledging you're not going to catch everybody, that they felt very comfortable

00:50:35   with that number. And they emphasize, this is the part I wanted that popped into my head,

00:50:38   that Nick Mac completely signed off on that. And Nick Mac had representatives singing Apple's

00:50:45   proposals praises that this is great. And part of the reason was that the people who have a problem

00:50:52   with child pornography, it's a compulsion. It is a truly, it's profoundly compulsive behavior. And

00:51:01   that the number of images that such people collect is astonishing. Just appalling. And therefore,

00:51:10   some of the people on the media might be thinking, or out there just thinking, "Why wait for 30?

00:51:15   Geez, why not get them after 10 or something like that?" The people who are out there who tend to get

00:51:21   caught have more of this than it's not even close to 30. It's sick how many numbers they have.

00:51:26   So it does make me wonder how this guy at Google got flagged after what couldn't have been more

00:51:31   than like a dozen photos. That seems like a second failing. Yeah, and not only that,

00:51:37   but it would be a more clear cause for flagging if it was the fingerprints thing, because

00:51:46   there wouldn't be any doubt about whether it was an AI issue or not. So it feels to me anyway like

00:51:53   the AI thing, while it would find novel material, that it wouldn't be as reliably vetted.

00:52:01   Right. Yeah. And that sort of is what I'm thinking. And everybody can find this.

00:52:07   The AI stuff is getting so good, but it's always going to have holes, right? At some point,

00:52:12   it's going to flag a dog as a cat and a cat as a dog in a way that a human would laugh and say,

00:52:19   "That's crazy. That's so obviously a dog, not a cat." I can't even see why this AI system would

00:52:24   think that dog is a cat. I don't know. I don't know. The other thing, I'm with you, I think,

00:52:29   that I'm on the side of more end-to-end encryption. To take the tradeoff of with end-to-end encryption,

00:52:38   perhaps some stuff that would have been caught without it by a system like Google's

00:52:44   will no longer be caught, but for the benefit of that with value and privacy,

00:52:49   some things are going to happen within the realm of one's individual privacy.

00:52:57   Yeah. I basically take the stance that the technology existing to make law enforcement

00:53:03   easier in some ways doesn't mean that's the right way to do it. And when people put up

00:53:10   these arguments like, "Well, shouldn't the police have access to everybody's phone?" I say, "No,

00:53:17   make the police work harder. Make the police find another way to get the bad guys in a way that

00:53:25   doesn't involve having access to my phone." Right. And it's a recurring theme of human

00:53:32   psychology that I often come back to. I've talked about it with Facebook and the app

00:53:37   tracking transparency and ad privacy in general, that these companies like Facebook in particular,

00:53:46   who clearly is the big public objector to app tracking transparency and is the one whose stock

00:53:51   has taken the biggest hit. And so I think it's very fair to hold Facebook up as the primary actor

00:53:57   here. But even the secondary argument of that so many small businesses have grown and flourished

00:54:05   by targeting ads through Facebook and Instagram that wouldn't be possible to be targeted so

00:54:12   accurately without widespread tracking. Yeah.

00:54:17   That once somebody has something like that, they truly feel entitled to have it forever. That by

00:54:26   closing this loophole, you're taking something away from them. Even if that thing is something

00:54:32   that was never really theirs to own, right? The privacy of people who say, who click

00:54:38   or tap the "Ask App Not to Track" instead of the "Allow Tracking" button, they're the ones who own

00:54:46   their personal privacy and should be able to declare whether they're being tracked or not.

00:54:50   And the fact that these companies had that tracking without anybody's tacit agreement,

00:54:56   even if it was something like you said earlier, like seven pages down in a terms of service

00:55:02   agreement that you just sort of scroll. I mean, everybody, that's like the biggest,

00:55:06   one of the biggest jokes in all of computing. I mean, it's gone, but it goes back to the shrink

00:55:09   wrap days where there was like a license on the box software you bought that says, as soon as you

00:55:15   cut open this box, you've agreed to these terms. Right? I mean, in the early days of the web,

00:55:21   people used to publish like funny things from terms of service agreements on box software,

00:55:25   like how ridiculous it was. And you've legally bound yourself to these terms that nobody reads

00:55:30   just by opening the box. But that entitlement, like once you've got it, you feel entitled.

00:55:35   Like with law enforcement and coming back to phones, like go back to the early days of the

00:55:42   telephone, right? When the telephone went from something that was in the news that

00:55:47   Alexander Graham Bell had invented. And now in addition to the telegraph, there was only capable

00:55:52   of sending Morse code. You could actually hear the voice of your loved ones from across town,

00:55:57   across the state, across the country, even for obvious reasons was rapidly adopted by anybody

00:56:02   who could afford it. And now everybody's got phones and everybody loved using them for

00:56:06   generations, right? Like actual landline phones. But imagine if your law enforcement, how awesome

00:56:12   it was that then all you had to do is get like a warrant for, you suspect Daniel Jalkitz and

00:56:18   John Gruber are committing a crime and you get this warrant and then you just connect a pair

00:56:23   of headphones with a piece of copper to the phone line outside my house. And you can listen. You can

00:56:28   just listen to our phone calls, right? Like everybody's seen it. It's a trope, right? In

00:56:34   movies, whether they're set in the forties or fifties or until very recently, when it's no

00:56:41   longer credible to think that people are using landline phones, but until just the last 10,

00:56:46   15 years, everybody knows it. But what a benefit to law enforcement. I don't think it was a mistake

00:56:51   that it was legally permitted for the police with a search warrant to be able to tap somebody's phones

00:56:58   if they had a warrant that provided sufficient evidence that a crime might be committed.

00:57:05   But then once they had it and they had it for so long, right? Like you and I were born in an era

00:57:11   where that was already assumed to be something the police could have. It was just part of the

00:57:15   world around us that the police, if you're suspected of committing a crime, your phone

00:57:19   might be tapped and they can hear you as clear as the person you're calling. Once that was taken

00:57:25   away, that whole argument about the people who like Apple, who are making these phones should

00:57:30   provide a backdoor for the good guys, was sort of predicated on like, "Hey, you're taking away

00:57:36   something that's been an important part of our criminal process for decades."

00:57:40   Jared: Yeah. And it's funny you saying like, you don't think it was wrong for them to do that. I

00:57:47   basically agree, but then I wonder like, in an alternative history where audio encryption

00:57:54   was invented before the telephone and like, every telephone call in history was encrypted end to end,

00:58:03   no, I wouldn't argue to give the police a decryptor. You know what I mean?

00:58:10   Pete: Right, right.

00:58:11   Jared; So, it's sort of, I think we're, you and I are both like, very privacy oriented,

00:58:17   but even us, we are sort of having our views on this a little colored by the circumstances of

00:58:23   history. Like we think, yeah, it was fine when they did wiretaps, because they always did. But

00:58:29   I think maybe it wasn't fine. I mean, maybe it's not really fine. It's just circumstantially what

00:58:35   they were able to do. And like, I think that might be the test. If the technology existed to prioritize

00:58:44   telephone users' privacy over the needs and wants of law enforcement, would we have allowed that?

00:58:52   And we wouldn't, I mean, a lot of people wouldn't. And I think I'd like to think that I would,

00:58:58   back in whatever, the 50s, when the telephones happened, 40s, 30s.

00:59:03   Pete; I don't know when it got widespread, but…

00:59:05   Jared; Yeah, I don't really know, but I have to believe, like in the same way, I don't think

00:59:09   people really expect anybody to open their mail. There's certain expectations about,

00:59:18   again, it's like, well, you don't expect it, but you also accept that the police might have a

00:59:23   warrant and permission to do something like that. But I don't know, it's definitely, I empathize

00:59:29   with the whole profession of law enforcement is definitely challenged by the empowerment of

00:59:36   personal privacy that we have. But if you value privacy at all, and you value the ability to

00:59:42   ensure your own privacy, it's like even back with wiretaps, nobody was saying, "Criminals, you have

00:59:49   to make a phone call if you're going to conspire with somebody. You're not allowed to go down to

00:59:52   the river and meet with somebody behind a bush because police need to have the access to your

00:59:58   conversation." It's always been kind of like a question of, try to catch the bad guys making

01:00:04   mistakes with technology that we can control, that law enforcement can control. But there's always

01:00:09   been a way for people to ensure or almost 99.999% ensure their privacy if they wanted to. And it's

01:00:18   just gotten a lot easier now. Yeah, let's take another break here. And before we move on, I want

01:00:23   to tell you about Memberful. You can monetize your passion with memberships. Memberful allows creators

01:00:32   on the internet to build a sustainable recurring revenue. It is the easiest way to sell memberships

01:00:39   to your audience. And it is used by some of the biggest creators on the whole web. And they have

01:00:44   everything you need to run a membership program, including custom branding, gift subscriptions,

01:00:49   Apple Pay, free trials, private podcasts, just for your paying members, and tons more. And they

01:00:56   seamlessly integrate with the tools you already use, things like WordPress, all sorts of stuff

01:01:00   like that. You have full control and ownership of your audience, your brand, and your membership.

01:01:06   Your members may not even know that they're going through Memberful. They're very much in the

01:01:09   background. Your brand is yours. If you ever do decide to leave, you can take your entire

01:01:14   membership base with you. You're not locked in to Memberful. You don't have to ask all of your

01:01:20   members to unsubscribe and resubscribe to a new system. You can take them all with you. And they

01:01:25   do it that way because it's the right way to do it. And it makes people think, "Well, that makes

01:01:29   it more likely I'd sign up." And that's how confident they are that you're going to stay

01:01:32   with Memberful once you sign up. They have a world-class support team that is ready to help

01:01:36   you simplify your memberships and grow your revenue. They know what works. They know what

01:01:41   helps grow a membership. And they're willing to help you because they only make money when you

01:01:47   make money. And they're only happy when you're happy. And you're only happy when your audience

01:01:52   and your members are happy with what they're getting and what they're paying. And they really

01:01:56   will. They'll help you every step of the way. You can get started for free with no credit card

01:02:02   required upfront. Go to memberful.com/talkshow today. Once again, no credit card required

01:02:11   upfront. Go to memberful.com/talkshow today. I've lost track of how many Memberfuls I'm subscribed

01:02:18   to. I know I subscribed to Jason Snell's Six Colors. I subscribed to Relay FM, like the system-wide

01:02:25   thing at Relay where they make a bunch of great podcasts. I don't know, dozens of others. I almost

01:02:30   don't even want to look it up because I might rethink my monthly budget of my subscriptions.

01:02:36   But that's how many people, individual creators on the web, I support personally through Memberful.

01:02:41   It's really, it's a great experience as a customer. Moving on, one of the reasons I wanted

01:02:45   to have you on the show, Daniel. I talked about it on my last episode with my esteemed friend,

01:02:50   Mr. John Moltz. And then I wrote about it on Daring Fireball fairly briefly, at least by my

01:02:56   standards last week, of the current state of the all-new rewritten system settings in macOS 13

01:03:06   Ventura. I always say macOS the number and then the name because the names, I cannot keep the

01:03:13   name straight in hindsight. I think our old friend Wolf Wrench pointed this out back in the big cat

01:03:19   days. So we're going back 15 years, but like back when it would be like macOS 10.4 Lion.

01:03:27   - Puma, no, Tiger, 10.4 Tiger. - Oh yeah, because that was the first really good one. That was the

01:03:32   one where I thought, you know what, this macOS 10 thing is getting good. Yeah, 10.4 was Tiger,

01:03:36   10.5 was Lion, and then Mountain Lion was famous. - 10.5 was, I think, Panther. I'm kind of

01:03:44   embarrassed. - No, because 10.6 was Mountain Lion, which was the one, the new features.

01:03:48   - We're both wrong. We're both wrong. macOS 10.5 Leopard. - Ah, all right.

01:03:53   - And then Snow Leopard. You're getting ahead of yourself. The Lion and Mountain Lion was quite a

01:03:57   bit later. It was like 10.10 or 10. something. - All right, but it was true that 10.5 was

01:04:03   some cat name and 10.6 was a slight of... - Snow Leopard, yeah, Leopard and Snow Leopard.

01:04:09   - Well, anyway, I just proved myself correct that I couldn't keep the cat names.

01:04:13   - I can't either, really. Some of them jump out at me.

01:04:16   - But at least the cat names let me associate... You know how there's people who do memory tricks

01:04:28   will teach you that there's mnemonic tricks where if you imagine your house and that if you're

01:04:34   supposed to remember the words green apple and typewriter, that if you imagine a place in your

01:04:42   house where you've set down the typewriter with a green apple next to it, you can remember. And then

01:04:47   a day later, someone say, "What were you supposed to remember?" And it's like that visual thing for

01:04:52   many people would help them remember. I remember I put a typewriter on my dining room table with

01:04:58   a green apple next to it because you've painted this picture. Whereas if you just tried to

01:05:01   remember the words green apple and typewriter, maybe you'd forget them in a day. The cats gave

01:05:07   me like a picture, right? Like, because I know what a tiger looks like. These California place

01:05:11   names, number one, I didn't grow up in California. But number two, they all look the same to me.

01:05:18   I guess Yosemite doesn't look like Monterey because it's not on the ocean, but it's all

01:05:24   sort of places where you can take absolutely stunning, beautiful desktop wallpaper photos.

01:05:31   It's all a blur to me. - Yeah. Well, they're only picking

01:05:35   the names of places where they can associate with beautiful photos. So they do kind of all blur

01:05:40   together because despite of people always joke, like where's the Mac OS like Folsom?

01:05:45   Folsom has its place, but it's mostly associated with a prison.

01:05:50   - Mac OS 17, the Castro. - Right. Yeah.

01:05:53   - So anyway, Mac OS 13, aka Ventura, has a rewritten system settings app.

01:06:03   Most of the time I talk to, I have so much more to say about it, but what I wrote,

01:06:08   and I think pretty fairly, I think got out what I wanted to say with this, with few words,

01:06:13   but I think not because I was holding back, but because I just wanted to make a 16th point that

01:06:18   this seems to me like something has gone very wrong at Apple because these errors that have

01:06:24   been pointed out, like all these little visual glitches in the fit and finish for lack of a,

01:06:29   I mean, I can't think of a better way to put it. The fit and finish is clearly not there.

01:06:33   The argument that, well, it's still in beta doesn't work for me because we've had betas of Mac OS

01:06:42   versions all the way back to the late nineties before Mac OS 10, 10.0 shipped. What was that?

01:06:49   What was that cat? The first cat was Cheetah? No.

01:06:51   - Did they have a cat name? - I don't know. Maybe 10.1.

01:06:54   - I should know, I guess. I mean, I was there, but.

01:06:56   - Yeah. Well, but we've had betas and there have been-

01:07:00   - Cheetah. Yeah, you're right. Cheetah. Look at that.

01:07:02   - Yeah. 'Cause it was, I remember it was a lie because the biggest problem with it was that it

01:07:06   was also slow. - Right, right, right, right.

01:07:09   - And they picked, they should have picked like Garfield, you know?

01:07:12   - Well, don't trust me on anything 'cause I famously quit Apple after 10.2. I think it was

01:07:18   maybe even right before 10.2 because I thought Mac OS 10 was basically done. So I was like,

01:07:24   "I'm out of here." - It's finished.

01:07:28   - Yeah, we got it. Yep. We nailed it.

01:07:30   - There have been betas. In the old days, they weren't public betas, but there have certainly

01:07:37   been developer betas for the obvious reason that developers are the people who need betas of new

01:07:41   operating systems where old APIs have been deprecated and new APIs have been introduced.

01:07:46   And it's in developers' interest to support new APIs and changes to the system and new features

01:07:52   that Apple wants third-party developers to use before it actually ships. And it's in Apple's

01:07:58   interest to be able to say, "Okay, this operating system we announced at WWDC, it's now, here we

01:08:04   are five months later, it's ready to ship. And let's show you some of the great things developers

01:08:09   have built that are only possible in this new operating system." It remains to this day. I mean,

01:08:16   I guess they do less third-party demos and keynotes, but they still do sometimes,

01:08:20   and they like talking about it. They did a bunch of them with the, remember with the Catalyst

01:08:24   a couple years ago, they had a bunch of developers who'd wanted to show how they'd turned their iOS

01:08:30   apps into Mac apps. And in all those betas in the old days, there were bugs and there'd be,

01:08:37   "Yeah, well, that's obviously a bug." But there wasn't widespread fit and finish problems.

01:08:44   And I think it's fair to say, I mean, and you said you were at Apple then. You've been using

01:08:52   Cocoa for longer than most people. I'm not going to say as long as anybody, but longer than most

01:08:57   people. And one of the big advantages of Cocoa that Apple, I can remember Steve Jobs saying it

01:09:04   over and over again. Honestly, I've seen videos of Steve Jobs talking about the next days when

01:09:10   these frameworks were before they were at Apple, that it makes it easy to make a great looking UI.

01:09:20   And conversely, almost makes it, you have to do extra work to make a bad looking UI or a sloppy

01:09:28   looking UI. There's a great art, and I think I've done it. You do it all the time developing your

01:09:35   software, but there's an art to properly laying out a preferences tab. And it sounds like boring

01:09:43   work, but if you like making apps, it can be very fun. It's like, I'll go back to the IRS.

01:09:49   Like every year they make a new version of the 1040 form and it doesn't seem like fun,

01:09:54   but if you're the right type of graphic designer, that sort of, hey, you have eight and a half by

01:09:59   11 inches. You have to have, here's a checklist of everything that needs to be on here. And here's

01:10:04   the most important stuff. How do you lay this out? And so that the typical taxpayer looking at it

01:10:10   will have the easiest time filling out this form. That's like what a preferences window is, right?

01:10:15   And laying it out is an art and it's not like Interface Builder. You just said, I have seven

01:10:20   check boxes and Interface Builder would just automatically stick them on the screen and do it.

01:10:25   But if you knew what you wanted to look at, you could do it visually and you drag these things

01:10:29   around, and they would snap into place. And the things like I'm talking about that Coco made easy,

01:10:34   that from the pre-Coco days of Mac development that I'm most familiar with, you didn't get,

01:10:41   or you didn't get it as well as they did it where it's like, okay, if you have three check boxes

01:10:46   on top of each other, how far away do they go? Does check box two, how does it go 20 pixels below the

01:10:55   first one? Or is it 22? And it's like, I think the older way, and maybe I'm throwing Code Warrior and

01:11:02   some older things under the bus here. Maybe you'll correct me, but one way you could do it is you'd

01:11:07   look up in the HIG and the HIG would have a thing that if you have multiple check boxes in a dialog

01:11:11   box, they should be 20 pixels apart. If you have an okay and a cancel button at the bottom of an

01:11:18   alert, the okay button should be on the right. The cancel button should be right next to it on

01:11:23   the left. They should be this far from the corner in pixels, this far from the bottom in pixels,

01:11:32   and the two buttons should be exactly 24 pixels apart. And there'd be those, you could look them

01:11:38   up in the HIG and then you could do all your work knowing those numbers. Koko made it so that those

01:11:43   things snapped into place and there'd be like a little visual indication like right here is the

01:11:49   indicator. This is how far away it should be. If you want to nudge it up another couple pixels

01:11:54   with the arrow key, you could do it, right? But you know that you're doing it wrong. You're doing

01:12:01   it against the HIG. So you... Jared: Yeah, and to be precise, not Koko so much,

01:12:06   but interface builder, the app. Right, right. But the whole system, right?

01:12:10   Jared Yeah. But it's funny you ask about that with all like MetroWorks, CodeWarrior,

01:12:16   PowerPlants. I'm thinking also Resorcerer, ResEdit, all the ways we used to design interfaces.

01:12:23   I honestly cannot remember if they did anything to help you place the buttons and the controls.

01:12:32   Pete: I don't think they did. As I recall, and ResEdit's the one I'm the most familiar with,

01:12:37   because while I wasn't, I made little things, you know, it's same thing, same type of things

01:12:42   I do now where I was never a professional Mac developer, but I make little hobbyist-type things

01:12:46   on the side. But you know, I was deeply into, invested in opening up the apps I had from actual

01:12:52   developers and hacking them with ResEdit. Yeah, I don't think that ResEdit had anything like that

01:12:58   to help with alignment. The according to the HIG alignment, you were sort of on your own. There were

01:13:03   ways to show an alert instead of drawing it visually as a, what was it, a DITL resource, DITL?

01:13:11   Jared Yeah.

01:13:11   Pete I mean, of all the stupid freaking things I'm wasting my brain.

01:13:16   Jared I think that's right, yeah.

01:13:16   Pete There was like a DITL resource, dialogue.

01:13:20   Jared Dialogue something list.

01:13:22   Pete Yeah.

01:13:23   Jared Yeah, well, everything that ended with a

01:13:25   TL I think was a something list.

01:13:28   Pete But you know, there was a way to just call a toolbox function and say, just show an alert

01:13:34   with this text with these two buttons, and then that thing would make the alert look like a

01:13:40   standard alert with all the right layout. But if you had like a layout, a visually laid out dialogue

01:13:45   in ResEdit, I don't think there were any kind of layout tools like that.

01:13:49   Jared Yeah.

01:13:49   Pete Well, it was, you know, I do remember

01:13:52   Interface Builder in particular, and it used to be a separate app. It was a big, like, I would show

01:13:58   it off to other people. I remember I worked for like a week as a contractor, did a short job at

01:14:05   Fog Creek in New York. And this was like, maybe 2005. And I remember showing like, Joel Spolsky,

01:14:13   the Interface Builder. And I'm just like, look at this. Now hold on to your hat.

01:14:18   I'm gonna place a button here and it's gonna tell me where to put it. I think you're right

01:14:22   that the old stuff, the Mac classic stuff didn't do that. Because I wouldn't have been so excited

01:14:28   about showing off Interface Builder if it was something that had already been there in the past.

01:14:34   Pete Right. It was groundbreaking. And it allowed,

01:14:37   again, I played around with Interface Builder far more than I did Project Builder, which was that

01:14:45   that was where you actually wrote the code. And they got sort of wrapped into one with the

01:14:50   renaming of Xcode. But Xcode is, I think it's fair to say, I mean, and this is why I'm so glad to

01:14:55   have you here, because I think you correct me if maybe it's not fair to say, is Xcode is really

01:15:00   more like an evolution of Project Builder. It's extended deeply into the future. And it is truly

01:15:07   a real crown jewel in Apple's intellectual property. It's hard to imagine where Apple

01:15:15   would be if Xcode weren't as good and capable as it is, even though every developer I know has a

01:15:20   whole pet list of things they wish Xcode did better. But it's really Project Builder brought

01:15:25   forward. There really is no Interface Builder anymore.

01:15:28   Jared Well, yeah, I mean, they really just

01:15:33   basically componentized Interface Builder so that there's a mode in Xcode when you're editing

01:15:39   zip file, which is the Interface Builder format these days. It basically transforms the app. It's

01:15:46   pretty clever. I mean, the complexity that Xcode tackles is pretty impressive. But I would say

01:15:53   there is as much of an Interface Builder interface as there ever was, but it just doesn't live

01:16:00   independently of Xcode. Yeah.

01:16:02   Pete Turner So here, I'll just imagine, as you might,

01:16:05   if you were making a blog editor app, and that you have an idea, you know, like you sketch it out on

01:16:12   paper, and you think it's going to be a standard document window, there'll be a toolbar at the top,

01:16:18   like a standard Cocoa app, Mac, a Mac OS X app with a toolbar at the top. For now, I'll just

01:16:23   worry about what those toolbar buttons will be later. But there'll be a standard toolbar at the

01:16:28   top. And there'll be at the top of the window, something that looks like mail, where instead of

01:16:34   two CC subject, there'll be these blog fields like title, keywords, tags. And then underneath that,

01:16:46   like a mail app, there'll just be a big text area where you type the text of your post.

01:16:51   Jared Ranerel You're really making me stretch my imagination here. I don't know if I can keep this

01:16:58   all in my mind here. I'm going to slow down a little bit.

01:17:00   Pete Turner But whether you're a one-person developer shop,

01:17:03   or if you have colleagues, and maybe one of the colleagues is purely their role is just as a

01:17:09   designer, the UI designer, and they don't know Objective C from JavaScript. They don't write

01:17:16   code. They're not programmers at all. But they are designers and they do good UI design. You wouldn't

01:17:23   mock it up and show exactly what it looks like in Photoshop, and then render out a ping and give it

01:17:32   to the developer to make. A designer could use Interface Builder to just make it directly. It

01:17:38   used to be called nib files. And now there's zib. Is that how we pronounce it?

01:17:41   Jared Ranerel I think so. Yeah, XIB. It's basically XML-based version of the same thing.

01:17:47   Pete Turner Right. Because the old nib format was like a binary

01:17:50   blob that you, yeah, it was like a "don't look inside or come out."

01:17:53   Jared Ranerel No, and they're still like famously difficult to deal with, like, source control,

01:17:59   collisions and merges and all that. But you stand a chance since it's text-based at the core.

01:18:04   Pete Turner Right. But a designer could just do this all visually and drag out the label for the

01:18:10   title. That's a text label. That's a standard control and select it. And just like, I'll bet

01:18:16   everybody listening to this podcast, whether you've ever done UI design work or used Interface

01:18:22   Builder, you've used apps that work like this, right? Drawing apps of any kind, things that you'd

01:18:28   use to make any kind of drawing, like Photoshop or Illustrator or…

01:18:35   Jared Ranerel Or like presentation software like Keynote or…

01:18:38   Pete Turner Yep, Keynote's a fantastic example,

01:18:41   or what's Microsoft's version of Keynote called?

01:18:43   Jared Ranerel It's funny, we are the funniest Mac-centric people in the world right now.

01:18:48   Pete Turner PowerPoint.

01:18:48   Jared Ranerel PowerPoint. There you go.

01:18:49   Pete Turner I really did draw a blank.

01:18:53   Jared Ranerel I did draw a blank too. I'm like,

01:18:54   "Yeah, I think Microsoft has something that's kind of like an imitation of Keynote."

01:18:59   Pete Turner I've used, like anybody, especially with my

01:19:03   writing, I've used Microsoft Word. And I definitely used and used to really like Excel was always,

01:19:09   to me, the proof that Microsoft could do good Mac software. And really sort of the old versions,

01:19:15   like in the 90s of Microsoft Excel on the Mac were extraordinarily good software. I don't think I've

01:19:22   ever used PowerPoint. I think I've, maybe I've had to open it at some point because I was using

01:19:26   a work machine or something that had it installed and somebody gave me a deck, but I don't think I

01:19:29   ever actually made anything. But yeah, like Keynote's probably the, maybe the most used example

01:19:34   in the audience, but you know, it's the same type of thing. You have standard elements where in

01:19:38   Keynote, if you want to put a title at the top, you draw a text box and you want to insert video

01:19:45   in the middle, and then you select that video after you've dragged it in. And then you can set

01:19:50   properties on it. Like there'll be like a little info palette where you can set a property like,

01:19:55   should this video start playing as soon as this slide is shown? Should it start three seconds

01:20:02   later? Should we wait till you manually advance instead of going to the next slide, the next time

01:20:07   you hit the clicker, it'll, then it'll play the video. And then you have a visual way of specifying

01:20:12   all that. Interface Builder was like that for layout and doing something like, I think you'll

01:20:17   agree, doing something like the Mars Edit standard editing window for a blog post is right down the

01:20:24   middle. Could have been an example of the sort of thing you would, that Interface Builder would make

01:20:29   right. And again, it's not just that you can drag out those text labels and then the editing field

01:20:35   for where the user types the title and types the keywords, but the fact that they could be

01:20:40   positioned the exact right distance from each other, according to the human interface guidelines,

01:20:46   so that they were both worried for the good of the platform adhering to the platform's standard

01:20:53   idioms for how things should be laid out. And then that you as an individual developer could

01:20:59   count on Apple's expertise of trust us. This is the right amount of distance from like a

01:21:04   accessibility and usability perspective. Right? Yeah. It makes it a lot faster. I mean,

01:21:10   I kind of, like you were saying earlier, like there's a certain kind of like satisfaction and

01:21:14   just laying out a UI like that. And for whatever reason, I didn't really become a UI based developer

01:21:21   until after I left Apple, because I used to always work on OS levels stuff in my early career. But

01:21:29   once I started working on apps, I kind of got into that the idea of like, just figuring out how to

01:21:34   make it work. And but the tools helping you with the alignment and you kind of learn some basics

01:21:39   from Apple about like balancing there, there's a standard, since we're talking about preferences,

01:21:44   there's a standard in the cocoa design guidelines. I think it's called like a center weight balance.

01:21:50   You know, if you look at any traditional preferences, like I like to look at Safari,

01:21:55   and you open up Safari's preferences, because they have a lot of different panels in there that

01:21:59   in their own way exemplify. The idea is, if you look at the different panes in Safari,

01:22:06   the labels where the labels line up every pane, more or less, the labels are on the left and the

01:22:13   values are on the right. And where that split happens is different in every panel. And it's

01:22:21   because of this kind of philosophy of center weight. So we want the overall layout of the

01:22:29   preferences is to have the weight of content on the left and right be approximately the same. So

01:22:35   it's not centered, but the stuff that extends out from the left side from the labels is sort of like

01:22:44   counterweighted by the stuff that extends out on the right side. And that is, I mean, it's

01:22:49   interesting to point that out. It's kind of one of the things, it's one of the tools, knowing that's

01:22:53   a guideline is one of the tools that helps you then use tool like the interface builder aspect

01:22:59   of Xcode. But it's also pretty pertinent, I think, to what we're sort of, we're sort of dancing

01:23:03   around. We haven't dived into it. The system settings on Ventura, Ventura, 13 Mac OS, Mac OS,

01:23:10   10, 13 Ventura. No, it's not 10, 13. Jesus. It's just 13, 14. Oh, 13. Yeah. Okay. Well,

01:23:16   we don't trust either of us for anything version-based, but it's funny. I'm looking at

01:23:21   ever since you brought it up. I've I opened it up immediately when you mentioned it. I opened up

01:23:26   system settings cause I'm recording this on Mac OS Ventura. And the first thing, the very first

01:23:33   thing I almost just tried to do it again. I want to resize the window. I want to make it wider.

01:23:38   And it's the very first thing I try to do. And it's infuriating to me that I can't do it because

01:23:44   it's just seems too narrow. And that it's an interesting, it's interesting in light of what

01:23:49   I just said about the whole like center weight thing, because everything about the design of

01:23:56   the new system settings, this whole like iOS style of like, I, in the blog post I wrote

01:24:03   recently about this, I called it the table view style of an interface because that whole

01:24:10   interface of like a round wrecked with rows that you can tap in and it like brings you to a new

01:24:17   view that whole iOS, basically like the best like exemplifies the iOS interface. And that is based

01:24:25   on a class in UI kit called UI table view. And this looking at it right now, I'm looking at the

01:24:32   general tab of system settings. It's very much that it looks like it could have been transplanted

01:24:40   from an iOS device right into my Mac. And it's like the inversion of the center weight thing

01:24:48   I'm talking about, because as opposed to on the Mac or traditionally everything sort of like

01:24:55   the gravity, so to speak, is at the center of the panel, the gravity in an iOS layout like this

01:25:03   is like double gravity at both edges of the screen. Right. And everything about this design is

01:25:12   antagonistic to the idea of how you would design it as a traditional Mac interface.

01:25:19   And I'm not even saying that you might think people listening might think I'm just slamming

01:25:26   on system settings. I'm not even really doing that. I think it actually kind of works in some ways.

01:25:33   But it's a big transition from having this like standard for how almost all settings based

01:25:44   interfaces on the Mac should behave. Like it really begs the question like, how are all of

01:25:49   Apple's own apps going to change how they do their settings? And that, like I said, I want to make a

01:25:55   window wider, which is weird, because one of the main criticisms of this system settings changes,

01:26:02   you know, unlike on the traditional Mac interface, the label being close to the value is useful

01:26:09   because you can associate it with the value more easily. And the wider if Apple let me make this

01:26:15   window wider, it would exacerbate the problem of the iOS style table layout, putting the label

01:26:23   really far at the left and the value really far at the right. I don't know. It's I want to get I want

01:26:28   to say one thing about the system settings before I forget and before in case I don't get a chance

01:26:33   to say it. And you mentioned this like in the historically like Apple doesn't have like glaring

01:26:37   UI issues in betas. And so you argued that they shouldn't be able to use that as a defense for

01:26:44   this. And I'm reminded of that debacle two years ago, maybe with Safari. Remember the Safari tabs?

01:26:51   Oh, I remember it well. And it was only one year ago.

01:26:54   Oh, it's only one year ago.

01:26:56   But we're living in an era.

01:26:58   Right time is an illusion. Yeah.

01:27:00   Where time is an illusion. It has been a very long year.

01:27:04   It has been a long year. Remember that time sunny back when we had Safari tabs? Anyway,

01:27:11   that was an example where the elephant in the room sort of became apparent to everybody

01:27:17   to the extent that they actually pulled back and they decided not to ship that.

01:27:22   Right.

01:27:23   And I have been thinking about the system settings thinking,

01:27:26   I'm conflicted because I think it's horrible. And you mentioned on your blog post, you mentioned

01:27:34   how it was kind of a short blog post you made. You leaned heavily on this tweet thread by Nicky

01:27:42   Tonski. Yeah. And that, I mean, that I think that's part of the reason you were able to make

01:27:50   your post so short was that you could lean on that. It just says so much, all the things that

01:27:56   are wrong with this. All of that said, I don't, I'm conflicted. I think there are some things about

01:28:03   the new system settings that are better. But like I said in the blog post, I wrote that I feel like

01:28:09   they're just, they're trying to change too much at once. And, but here's the problem. The system

01:28:15   settings fixes some real issues in a way that the Safari tabs didn't fix real issues. So I don't

01:28:23   think I would be comfortable with them backing out. Like I think this is the kind of, it's kind

01:28:28   of like a scenario right now where you might imagine Apple saying, Oh, well we were a little,

01:28:32   we jumped the gun a little too quick on the trigger with this. Let's just go back to the

01:28:36   old system preferences, let it cook for another year, but they fixed some things in here that

01:28:44   I don't want to lose now. And so it's like, they've invested in like, there's this whole

01:28:48   thing with login items. Have you noticed this? Like for years we've had like login items only

01:28:56   included the items that the user has specifically chosen to launch at login time. So the problem was

01:29:03   over time, Apple's discouraged developers from using that mechanism and started encouraging

01:29:09   developers to use another mechanism where their stuff runs in the background as like a launch

01:29:14   agent or a launch D man or something. And, but there was no user control over that.

01:29:20   So now I'm looking at my login items and it has well fast scripts. My own app is up at the top.

01:29:27   It's still using the old fashioned mechanism in part because I protest against this,

01:29:34   the fact that they didn't expose the new system via system preferences. But now,

01:29:40   and right below that there's this allow in the background section that gives users access to

01:29:46   enable or disable all of these different apps that are using the newer mechanism.

01:29:50   I think it still shows your old fashioned login items too.

01:29:53   It does. Yeah, they're both there. So now it's great. If this was,

01:29:56   if this was the only thing they changed in system preferences for Ventura, I would be

01:30:03   singing its praises. But here's the problem is I don't think, I don't think I want them to back out

01:30:10   of this and I don't think they have time to fix all the issues. So I think it's just going to be a

01:30:15   slow, I hope it's just going to be a slow fix. Like they'll have to fix this over time, but it's

01:30:22   not great. It's not the fact that things are as they stand. This Nicky Tonski tweet thread really

01:30:30   exemplifies like how bad so many things are. You know, I think what you were getting at though,

01:30:36   with your post that I latched onto was just the idea in general that it seems to be harder for

01:30:42   people to make Swift UI stuff look good or to not have like little defects. And that's, there's a

01:30:49   little irony in that assessment because one of the big selling points of Swift UI, especially I think

01:30:54   for iOS is it empowers you to make things look beautiful, like with very little work and the

01:31:00   whole tutorial and the introduction to Swift UI, which I guess is now like two years old. I think

01:31:06   we saw it introduced right before the WWDC in person before the pandemic 2019. Yeah,

01:31:14   like everything it's aging and it's, but from the beginning it was impressive because it allowed you

01:31:22   to make these beautiful iOS interfaces that in contrast to what you and I are saying about the

01:31:28   problems on the Mac, it actually kind of cinched up and like prevented certain UI defects. So

01:31:34   there's something to, I think some people out there will rightly listen to us saying like

01:31:40   Swift UI has all these rough edges and it makes it hard to make a refined Mac app. And they will

01:31:48   rightly object to the assessment that Swift UI has that problem. There's something to be said for the

01:31:55   idea that if you just declare what your interface should contain, the system can make it look good.

01:32:00   And I think it does do that only at a very limited level and far more impressively on iOS than on the

01:32:09   Mac. All right. You brought up so much there that it was so wonderful. Let's see if I can come back

01:32:15   to everything. All right. Number one, your point about the login items. I love that point. And it

01:32:21   is absolutely one of my favorite new things in Ventura and the new system settings is where it

01:32:28   lives. Now, the old way for people who don't know the old way that's been in Mac OS 10 and probably

01:32:35   was bad thing in next back before then, but you went to the users and groups system preferences

01:32:42   panel, which is by name users and groups. And we've had it for so long. And I know I don't want to go

01:32:51   on a sidetrack about why the iPad doesn't have multiple users yet, but going back to the early

01:32:56   days of Mac OS 10, the ability to have multiple users on one Mac was groundbreaking. And I know

01:33:04   that for people who are younger and have just grown up knowing that's possible on the Mac,

01:33:09   but that a family could have an account for mom, dad, brother, sister, and all have the

01:33:15   four different accounts with all their preferences and their own email. And everybody could use the

01:33:20   same app for email, but only your email was in your account was huge for Mac users. Classic Mac

01:33:29   didn't have anything like that. I mean, there was some kind of ham-fisted attempt at it in a very

01:33:33   late era, but yeah, maybe Mac OS 8 had something, but it doesn't matter what. But anyway,

01:33:38   that's what you think users and groups is. That's where you go to make these user accounts. And most

01:33:44   Macs in use have one user, the owner of the device, right? But you can create more than one.

01:33:51   Even for me with devices that only I use, I always create like a test account with standard

01:33:58   preferences. And I delete it once in a while just so I can get like, "Hey, what does a brand new

01:34:03   user account on Mac OS look like now?" And it's an account with none of my real data in it,

01:34:08   but I can throw it away. That's where you go to manage it, right? And you can create it in users

01:34:12   and groups. And groups, I guess people don't use as much anymore. That used to be more of a thing

01:34:18   that was in the Unix days. But then there's other things in there and they've always been there,

01:34:21   like the login options. Do you have a little thing up at the top in the menu bar that lets you switch

01:34:26   users quickly? But then the other thing is when you select a user, there's two tabs. I'm looking

01:34:33   at an older version of Mac OS, but there's the password tab, which is the one most people use.

01:34:39   But then there's a second tab there, login items. And that's what you were talking about was the

01:34:43   only place that was a list of these. This is the label. These items will open automatically when

01:34:50   you log in. And you can, if you don't know this, maybe it's the tip of the day, you can put any app

01:34:56   you want in there. I don't need to do that because I also have the system-wide setting on where

01:35:01   whenever I restart, I just want everything that I left open the last time to reopen again.

01:35:07   But that's a new, relatively new feature of the Mac OS. And 20 years ago when it was new,

01:35:13   if you always use Mars Edit and you always use BB Edit, every time you log on BB Edit, Mars Edit,

01:35:20   Mail, maybe, and Safari, have those four apps open automatically as soon as I log in. You can just

01:35:27   drag. How do you add an item? Well, there's a plus button where you can choose one or you could just

01:35:31   drag it in. And then if you feel like there was too much stuff happening automatically when you log

01:35:36   in, you'd go there and take them out. But it sort of goes back. The other thing that it sort of goes

01:35:41   back and you brought up working on very early versions of Mac OS X. One way that the system

01:35:46   has evolved tremendously over two decades is that in the early days, everything was sort of an app,

01:35:54   right? Even .prefpane files, like the things that like if a third party developer, like I don't

01:36:00   think Hazel, which is a great app, is a prefpane anymore because they sort of discourage it.

01:36:06   But like when if you were a developer making a third party utility that instead of you'd run from

01:36:12   the applications folder, you wanted to be in system preferences. It was really just a different,

01:36:17   you have different APIs to call to integrate with system preferences and to answer things that as a

01:36:22   pref panel you're expected to answer from system preferences. But it was really just a different

01:36:27   project type in Xcode and a different file extension on the bundle instead of a .app,

01:36:31   you'd compile and build and compile and you'd get a .prefpane. Everything was sort of an app.

01:36:37   And so anything that you might run like circa 2002, 2003, everything that might be in login items was

01:36:46   just an app, even if it was just a faceless thing that didn't have a doc icon that ran in the menu

01:36:51   bar, right? So, but then Apple evolved the system over the years and made things that could run in

01:36:57   the background be very different from an app. And that's where we've run into this problem

01:37:04   in recent years where now you can have software that does things automatically and that if the

01:37:09   user really wants to use it, should be running in the background. But it's exactly the sort of

01:37:16   thing that makes me so passionate. Always going back to the early days of classic Mac, that the

01:37:24   Mac let an enthusiast user who wanted to understand how their computer worked, but without

01:37:31   being technical, that you could learn how it works and you wouldn't be worried that because your

01:37:36   computer was 18 months old that you had all sorts of shit running in the background automatically

01:37:42   and that you don't even know what it is. You don't know how to tell what it is. And even if you know

01:37:47   what it is, cause it's popping up a dialogue box once in a while and you're like, I didn't launch

01:37:51   that. It's clearly launching automatically every time I restart, how do I turn this off? Right?

01:37:57   How do I stop this thing from whatever company installed it from running automatically and being

01:38:04   able to have that list was great. And now that they've modernized it to account for all the

01:38:09   modern ways things can come in the background, it truly exemplifies to me the best of the Mac

01:38:14   spirit. Right? And it's very Mac-like specifically, not Apple specifically,

01:38:20   because iOS and iPadOS and certainly watchOS and tvOS, to go further down the list of where

01:38:28   this would be so bizarre, they don't have the concept of shit running in the background. And

01:38:32   that's the whole sandboxing thing in the app store. Like you can be the most enthusiastic

01:38:38   user of I'm going to try a new app from the app store every day. I'm just going to pick a random

01:38:42   app and install it on my iPhone and do that for three years. You're not going to have any shit

01:38:49   running in the background when you restart your phone fresh, because it just isn't part of the

01:38:53   OS or the concept. And that's too, it's a whole different podcast episode to talk about whether

01:38:58   Apple of all companies should be the one to make a mode for the iPhone or a Mac phone, where there's

01:39:05   an enthusiast version of the iPhone where this unbelievably powerful software could let you run

01:39:10   things in the background. Right? Because I've run all sorts of stuff in the background on my Mac.

01:39:14   And if I could do it on the phone, I would. Right? Like be fantastic if Rogue Amoeba could make

01:39:18   sound source for iOS. But the fact that the Mac does allow you to do that, and yes, they've made

01:39:26   it harder for security reasons and privacy reasons. You know, that it's more of a hassle

01:39:31   than the old days when everything was just an app and anything could be in your login items. But

01:39:35   to bring that back where you can inspect what happens automatically from all third-party

01:39:39   software, fantastic. Huge win. Can't say enough about it.

01:39:44   Jared: It's so good that we can't allow the return to the old system preferences if we lose this.

01:39:52   Pete: Where is the new list in Ventura?

01:39:56   Jared It's under general. So this is also confusing to me. The whole like stack-based iOS

01:40:02   thing. And I totally accept it and agree that the old system preferences were a nightmare as well.

01:40:11   Like this, organizationally, there were lots of like, nested like things you'd have to go

01:40:17   into like advanced and then...

01:40:18   Pete Well, even the login items being in users as groups was sort of counterintuitive. I see

01:40:25   what once you understand it, oh, it's per user, so you can see which login items another user has too.

01:40:30   It makes some sense. And yeah, I'm searching right now in Mac OS 10.15. I'm running an old version

01:40:37   of Mac OS here on this podcast machine. If I search for login, yes, login items shows up,

01:40:42   and I hit return and it takes me there. So search at least works now, or as for years. But yeah.

01:40:47   Jared You know what, this is another little bug though that really bugged me for years. I can't

01:40:51   believe Apple never fixed it. Years and years. If you type too fast in the system preferences,

01:40:56   search. Have you ever?

01:40:58   Pete Yes.

01:40:58   Jared It's so infuriating. It'll like lose a keystroke or something.

01:41:03   Pete Yeah, because it's like doing something like running some sort of query after every keystroke,

01:41:08   but the query can take longer than...

01:41:10   Jared Yeah. So anyway, to give Apple full credit, I'm also very excited that as far as I can tell,

01:41:16   in the system settings in Ventura, that is fixed. Finally!

01:41:20   Pete That bothered me so much. I thought in my more bored times, I thought of like,

01:41:26   figuring out a way to like inject code into system preferences to fix that. But yeah, so in the

01:41:34   Ventura system settings, it's under general. And then there's all this good stuff. It looks a lot

01:41:39   like iOS, I can see like Craig Federighi's argument about it being an improvement to the organization

01:41:46   and being familiar to iOS developers. That all makes sense. General login items, and then it

01:41:52   lists open at login, and then below that allow in background, and it's all fairly well laid out. It's

01:41:59   just totally different from Mac, typical Mac UI. And I don't know some something about this. I

01:42:07   don't think I'm okay with it. But I'll get used to it. It's like, it doesn't seem good. It doesn't

01:42:14   seem right. Some of the things about this change seem great. The fact that they have fixed the

01:42:21   search field and they have login items, and there's something about the overall cohesiveness of the

01:42:28   new system settings that does feel good. And I want to give full credit to Apple for the good

01:42:35   work that has gone into this. But the imposition of a very iOS style UI, I don't know if that's

01:42:45   where we're going. And in general, in the broader sense, if that's where we're going with Swift UI,

01:42:49   I just feel like this is not the right UI for a mouse and desktop monitor computer.

01:42:59   Right. I tried to make that point with Molt's last episode that it's a mouse pointer

01:43:09   and keyboard computer. We used to call them WIMP interface, Windows icons, mouse pointer.

01:43:16   Was that what the P was? I think it was Netflix.

01:43:18   But the Mac with the precise pointer can work with a UI seemingly designed for touch in a way

01:43:28   that the iPhone inherently designed only for touch with nothing more precise than your

01:43:35   fat finger point would not have been good. I don't think it would have been a success,

01:43:39   or it certainly wouldn't be the success that it was if they had made some sort of Mac style

01:43:44   interface for the original iPhone. That the way they rethought everything really was necessary for

01:43:50   the lack of precision in pointing and was also meant for this scrollable interface that responds

01:43:57   to your touch right away. Because one of the things, and I'll emphasize this to anybody out

01:44:01   there listening, you're bringing up Safari, Mac Safari, as an exemplar of a somewhat complex

01:44:08   preferences window that is well laid out because I've been tapping around these tabs in Safari

01:44:16   ever since you brought it up. And I'm noticing this and that, and I'm like, "Boy, that is a nice

01:44:22   touch." Safari's preferences also though, the current ones right now exemplify the fact though

01:44:27   that each of those tabs at the top, general, literally the next one is tabs, autofill,

01:44:33   passwords. The contents of each of those tabs easily and naturally fit in a window without

01:44:40   any scrolling. Although the window does nicely, it is one of those things that seemed like magic

01:44:45   in the early days of Mac OS X. The window automatically resizes because like the autofill

01:44:51   preferences are only four check boxes high, right? It's a very short list of preferences. And so the

01:44:57   whole window contracts to just fit what's necessary. But then when you go to privacy,

01:45:04   it grows a little bit. And then you go to websites and it grows a lot because there's a lot of lists.

01:45:09   But it's really thoughtful. I've always said this. I'd say this again, and it's lost and it's a whole

01:45:14   nother discussion about Safari versus other web browsers on the Mac and WebKit versus these

01:45:20   browsers and what features are in there or whatever. But putting aside the web developers

01:45:25   perspective about differences in WebKit versus Chromium and the problems they might encounter

01:45:30   where Chromium is much faster to adopt new web standards than WebKit and whether that's political

01:45:37   because Apple wants to have people make apps instead of websites, blah, blah, blah.

01:45:41   Just put that aside. If you just look at Safari as a whole corner to corner menu bar down,

01:45:48   it is a wonderful Mac app. You could teach a whole course, not just like a single lecture, but base a

01:45:54   whole course on Mac UI design around Safari and all these details. And the preferences window is

01:45:59   one of them. But the preferences window also is really where the difference between Safari and all

01:46:05   other browsers today on the Mac, at least the ones from the big companies is exemplified because Chrome

01:46:10   and everybody else follows Chrome's lead just makes the preferences content within a web browser.

01:46:17   It's completely un-Mac-like. It's just Chrome in its own universe of interface.

01:46:23   Jared Ranerelle It's a very junk drawer style of, yeah.

01:46:27   Pete L

01:46:27   I think it's an interesting contrast with system preferences as a whole for the whole system,

01:46:32   where in the early days of Mac OS X, when it really was Mac OS X, I think it's fair to say

01:46:39   that every one of those preference panels fit in the model of this one window. And the window,

01:46:46   again, in system preferences grows and shrinks as needed, depending on the panel. But the biggest

01:46:50   one that was necessary was fit within a window that didn't need to scroll, which was important

01:46:56   because the window didn't scroll, right? But then you could put sub views in. And again,

01:47:01   it said this last week, Federighi argued it extremely well on stage with me at my talk show

01:47:07   back at WWDC, that those things have grown significantly over the years. And there's so much

01:47:14   stuff now that is undoubtedly, I would argue, as somebody who loves the old system preferences and

01:47:21   sort of feels like maybe they've rushed this change to system settings one year too soon,

01:47:27   that the team should have been full steep ahead on exactly what we see. But maybe this was a thing

01:47:32   that would have been best announced next year. But I totally, and again, I could sing the praises and

01:47:38   lecture and try to make a lecture or a talk at a conference about the things that are little

01:47:43   details of UI design that have done so well in the classic system preferences. A lot of it is

01:47:48   just horrible at this point because it's trying to do too much, right? You go to security and

01:47:55   privacy alone, just security and privacy alone. It could be an app or several apps unto itself,

01:48:03   and you're down there within privacy. Now there's four tabs at the part general file vault is simple,

01:48:09   right? That's a nice easy tab, but it's already a sub tab in security and privacy. You get to

01:48:15   privacy and here's where you're off in crazy land where you've got location services, contacts,

01:48:22   calendars, reminders, photos, camera, microphone, speed trick. It goes on and on. Full disk access.

01:48:28   And every one of those things, I could name all of them. Every one of those themes seems like a

01:48:34   reasonable thing that Apple should have in the privacy settings for the Mac OS. But boy, that's

01:48:40   a lot to cram into a list inside a tab, inside a prep pane. And then some of those or many of them

01:48:49   themselves, once you select them, have their own view over to the side of the apps that have those

01:48:54   privileges like location services access, right? It is a lot to cram in there. And as a diehard

01:49:02   Mac user who prides myself on paying attention to this stuff, even I forget where the hell the

01:49:08   preference for something something is. So I think it's a win. I haven't forgotten your other very

01:49:12   keen point, your ambivalence about what Apple should do. Specifically, this tabs controversy

01:49:18   with Safari last year, which is, I can't talk about it without naming myself as an actor.

01:49:30   I am. I wrote about it extensively. And honestly, I did not try to trash it. I didn't take any,

01:49:38   but I felt like I had much to say. I felt like I was right. And I said it. And as close as I can

01:49:46   come to say, I'm not saying that I will not say that I, John Gruber, deserve credit for Safari's

01:49:53   tabs being scrapped. But I can say that my public arguments against it were highly influential

01:50:03   within Apple at taking the unusual step of just scrapping what was a featured big change from the

01:50:13   OS that year. And there, especially in the last two weeks since this has come out, I've had people,

01:50:19   reader and listener feedback along the lines of, I've been waiting for you to say more

01:50:24   about system settings. And I hope you do to system settings what you did for Safari tabs last year.

01:50:30   And I, because I feel so much more like you. I don't feel, it's similar in that there are

01:50:38   things that are clearly wrong, that they're clearly intending to ship. But I don't feel as strong,

01:50:44   like I was certain, I was dead certain last year. I didn't know if what I could write would change

01:50:49   things, but it felt like I was right that I should at least publicly put it out when I had time to

01:50:54   give Apple time to consider it and change their mind. I don't feel that way about system settings.

01:51:00   Again, I think you said it very well, that there are so many good things about it, right?

01:51:05   But exactly as it is, it is.

01:51:09   It's sort of, I think that's where it gets at. It's not about system settings. It's about this

01:51:15   underlying, how much do you force the familiarity and conventions of iOS UI design on the Mac in

01:51:24   general? Like who cares system settings, even though I said like, I considered hacking the

01:51:31   app to fix the search field. I don't use system settings as much as Safari. So like the tabs issue

01:51:39   in Safari could have been much more impactful on my day-to-day enjoyment of my Mac, right?

01:51:46   And so system settings, I mean, like also, like we've said, we both agree the old system

01:51:54   preferences is not, it's not like this wonderful, perfect thing.

01:52:00   Or it's not the wonderful, nearly perfect thing at once was. It really was wonderful. And perfect is

01:52:06   a hard word to bite, especially for perfection. And someone like you loves hunting bugs. But it

01:52:12   was pretty close to the best imaginable system settings thing. It was a lot of stuff that was

01:52:18   organized at the time pretty well. It's not that it's aged poorly. It's just that the complexity

01:52:23   of the system and the things that are now considered important. I mean, full disk access,

01:52:27   that's, that's, that would, everything that ran on your system had full disk access, or at least

01:52:33   there were full disk access to your user account. There's so much stuff that just wasn't an issue

01:52:39   then. And it's outgrown it. I don't want to leave the topic, but I do want to take a break here and

01:52:42   thank our third and final sponsor today. And it fits right in with the idea of tools that

01:52:46   make development of software easier. It's our friends at Revenue Cat. In-app subscriptions are

01:52:53   a pain. The code can be hard to write, time consuming to maintain, and full of edge cases.

01:52:59   I have never made an app with in-app subscriptions, but I have many friends who have.

01:53:06   And I can say for a fact that I don't know a single one of them that thinks that right out

01:53:10   of the box in-app subscriptions are easy in any way possible. Revenue Cat makes it simple so that

01:53:18   you as the developer can focus on building features, not in-app purchase infrastructure.

01:53:25   With Revenue Cat, you also get out of the box subscription metrics and charts that you can't

01:53:29   get from App Store Connect. Plus pre-built integrations and web hooks make it easy to

01:53:35   sync customer events and revenue data to every tool in your stack. Here's where you go to find

01:53:43   out more. RevenueCat.com. No special URL. Just learn more at RevenueCat.com and see why thousands

01:53:51   of the world's best apps trust Revenue Cat to power subscriptions on iOS, Android, and the web.

01:53:58   RevenueCat.com. My thanks to them for sponsoring the show. They're also sponsoring Daring Fireball

01:54:04   this week. It's a nice rare twofer that generally I think only happens by coincidence, but it's nice

01:54:11   when it happens. Three sponsors and I am a customer slash patron whatever of all three.

01:54:20   So I guess I'm on the right show. Linode, Revenue Cat, what was the second one?

01:54:25   Memberful. Memberful, right. I use all these products. So hey, good sponsors.

01:54:32   I often tell sponsors it's the ground troops who encourage their company if they work at a larger

01:54:38   company. Maybe you should sponsor Daring Fireball or the talk show. And at a company where there's

01:54:45   a dedicated marketing team, they may not be familiar with me or my work, but it can sometimes

01:54:50   be hard to explain, especially like my sponsorships because they don't work like most web ads at all.

01:54:56   And in fact, as time has gone on, they're less and less like most web ads. And then I haven't

01:55:01   been running any analytics on Daring Fireball for I think a year and a half, something like that.

01:55:07   And that sometimes doesn't seem like not only have they never heard that, but that it doesn't

01:55:15   seem to make any sense to them. But when they ask questions about the audience, I say, "I don't have

01:55:20   analytics and I don't do polls." I never say never, maybe I'll do a reader poll someday.

01:55:26   But my best description of who's a successful sponsor of my site is to look at my archived list

01:55:32   of sponsors and especially the list of repeat sponsors who clearly were happy with the results

01:55:37   that they got. But that in terms of my audience, it's not, is it designers? Is it programmers? Is

01:55:42   it tech people? And I say it's all of the above. And really the best way I can encapsulate it is

01:55:48   people with good taste. Yeah. Yeah. We have a similar problem on core intuition. It's just like,

01:55:54   we don't do any work to try to make ourselves marketable. It's just if you want to reach our

01:56:00   people, whoever they are, then let us know. We'll throw out another shout out to core

01:56:05   intuition at the end. Let me say this before we sign off. I want to talk about, because I

01:56:10   sort of threw Swift UI under the bus in my, more so than I threw the new system settings itself

01:56:18   under the bus. One thing that I think is fair to say is you could pretty much do any interface you

01:56:24   want in AppKit. I think that's part of the appeal and the basic idea. You may have to start

01:56:29   customizing at a certain level, right? And at some level, every good app has something in it that's

01:56:33   custom because if it was really just all built into AppKit, you just got text editor preview,

01:56:39   which they actually preview is more than just standard AppKit, I guess. But you could. So you

01:56:43   could have used AppKit to make an iOS style, iPadOS style redesign of settings. I guess you

01:56:52   could have also definitely, it might've even been easier if the one of the stated goals is to make

01:56:56   it iOS like in its layout and appearance for reasons scrollability being a big one. That's

01:57:04   one of the key points really is that makes this idea better than every thing fitting into views

01:57:10   within sub views in a fixed size window that you could have used UI kit to now with catalysts.

01:57:17   They certainly did a fantastic job. I always bring it up with messages, right? I'm sure

01:57:22   everybody who isn't a nerd has no idea that two years ago or three years ago, I don't know how

01:57:28   many years ago that one was, but that Apple didn't throw out, but more or less redid the Mac messages

01:57:36   app as a catalyst port from the messages app on iPad and iPhone. And it has everything you could

01:57:43   have wanted, including Apple script support, which I really thought like, oh, I don't use Apple

01:57:47   script and messages very often, but when I do, it's really nice to have, and there's no way that's

01:57:52   going to make it because that's not part of UI kit and it's there. They really knocked it out.

01:57:55   I think if they had done a settings redesign that the way that this new Ventura settings

01:58:00   is supposed to look like, if we ignore all of the glitches and layout things,

01:58:04   you can sort of see what it's supposed to look like. If they were using UI kit or app kit,

01:58:09   these glitches would not be there. I really believe that's true. And because they've never

01:58:14   been there before, right? Like when they totally redesigned iOS seven, when it went from the old

01:58:20   likable 3d textured interface to the Scott forestalls gone, Johnny I've in charge of UI now

01:58:28   more consistent across apps, throw out the textures. We don't need buttons that look 3d.

01:58:33   They can just be text labels. Look of iOS seven. There were lots of problems in the iOS seven beta

01:58:40   because it was all new and it was all surprisingly fast. You can look back at the date when they

01:58:45   announced that forestall was being forced out of the company and that the UI design team would now

01:58:51   report to Johnny I've, but that's effectively when the iOS seven look and feel project started.

01:58:56   And here it was in June, like seven months later or eight months, something like that. Not a lot

01:59:02   of time for a project like that. There were lots of things that were glitches, lots of things they

01:59:06   sort of, okay, now that it's in public, remember the male in particular used a very thin weight

01:59:11   of Helvetica for lots of stuff that maybe looked elegant in screenshots, but was actually hard to

01:59:18   read. It was such a thin weight and they just bumped it back up to a regular weight of Helvetica,

01:59:23   but there all the things that were wrong in the beta because so much had happened in a short

01:59:27   period of time. None of them were these egregious, just bizarro things like buttons that are half cut

01:59:34   off. Yeah, it took me a while, even living full time on Ventura. It took me a while to notice

01:59:40   that another like really problematic change in the system is the print panel. I don't know if

01:59:47   you noticed this, I made a tweet about it. Basically the print panel is also completely

01:59:55   transformed into this iOS scrollable table view style. And again, it's a good example where

02:00:03   the print panel has so many problems. It's easy to imagine why somebody was excited to

02:00:09   tackle this and try to make it better. And it is better in some ways, but it's just specifically

02:00:16   when you talk about the cutoff thing, like I don't know why they are affecting, I guess this is Swift

02:00:22   UI, I'm assuming, I don't know for sure. I don't know, but the system settings, I think you maybe

02:00:29   confirmed it or close to confirm that it is Swift UI. Or at least parts of it, right? Yeah. And it's,

02:00:35   I know a lot of this stuff, you can make it mostly Swift UI and call out to app or UI kit when you

02:00:40   need to, or app kit or whatever, you know, that it's not, there is no such thing. And there's no

02:00:46   need to be a religious dogmatic purist that it's all Swift UI no matter what. But Swift UI is

02:00:54   definitely involved. Yeah. So I don't know. It's weird. Cause like I said earlier, in many ways,

02:00:59   at least on iOS, I think Swift UI has sealed up the rough edges so that it's harder to make things

02:01:06   look inadvertently wrong. I don't have enough experience myself using Swift UI to know

02:01:13   what the people who are developing this stuff in Swift UI are running up against the, what makes it

02:01:19   unpredictable in this way. Looking now I'm looking at my Mac at the print panel and there's just a

02:01:25   lot of, well, a computer decided how to lay this out and not a person. And there's something

02:01:32   wonderful about that. Like the web, the basic fact that like multiple paragraphs on a webpage can flow

02:01:41   across a page without any human designing that. It works really well. So there's something to be said

02:01:49   for declarative design where like standards can be applied to make it look right all the time.

02:01:56   And I guess there's just this rough edge between what can be made to look right all the time

02:02:04   and what needs a human eye to finesse it. And some of this Swift UI stuff on the Mac, at least

02:02:11   either it needs better programmatic rules at the Apple end, or it needs to allow more developer

02:02:20   interaction with making it look perfect. I thought you made such a keen point. I really liked it. And

02:02:25   it was really, it was like, I read your post on bitsplitting.org and I just, I thought I got to

02:02:34   have Jalkyd on to talk about this. And you were riffing off my post about this and you have a

02:02:38   screenshot in there, but you brought up the story that I've told a few times. I can, I've talked to

02:02:42   people firsthand. I don't think it's public knowledge, but we do know that the M1 original

02:02:48   Macs, the MacBook Air and the 13 inch MacBook Pro and the Mac mini that were announced when the

02:02:55   first Apple Silicon Macs in November of 2020, that they were form factor identical to the

02:03:02   last generation Intel versions of all three. And that you'd have to look at like the actual serial

02:03:07   numbers to be able or product numbers underneath the little small print to tell whether a MacBook

02:03:13   was a MacBook Air was an Intel one from earlier in 2020 or the late 2020 that was shifted to Apple

02:03:21   Silicon. And that this was a deliberate strategy. This is what I can say from multiple sources at

02:03:28   Apple, but they planned that out years in advance to get the last generation Intel ones to a point

02:03:33   that they'd be good enough to use as the first generation of Apple Silicon for multiple strategic

02:03:40   reasons. They wanted it to be secret from the supply chain so that if anything did go wrong,

02:03:45   that they didn't want Intel to know until as late as possible because it's strategy, right? That's

02:03:51   the way you work with a company that's part partner, part adversary with negotiating.

02:03:56   But then also, and engineering wise, let's get them to a point where we change as little as

02:04:03   possible because transplanting the entire architecture is a big deal. It might sound

02:04:11   like a big deal to the lay person out there listening and trust me, as expert as I am,

02:04:16   I can say it's a big deal. And I think you would agree. And somebody who's even more expert,

02:04:20   like people who actually work on Johnny Suruji's team at Apple at a high level would say, "Oh yeah,

02:04:25   you have no idea. It was incredibly complex." So change as little as possible, right? So that

02:04:31   nothing would go wrong. And I think this, I don't know for a fact, but I think it's part of the

02:04:36   reason that they fixed the keyboards to the new no longer using butterfly switches things, I think

02:04:43   in 2019, that was, maybe it was 2018 at the latest, but you know, it was in the last year or so of

02:04:50   Apple's Intel MacBooks. But let's fix this freaking keyboard now so that we can have it in the wild.

02:04:57   And then when we go to Apple Silicon, the keyboard is off our list of things that we know we have to

02:05:02   look at. And part of it too is that the whole keyboard situation had gone on for years at

02:05:06   that time anyway. But you brought up that they could have done something similar, right? If

02:05:11   you're going to make a big change, try to change as few things as possible. Only change one thing.

02:05:16   Don't even change the display or the webcam or the speakers or the keyboard or the size of the case.

02:05:21   Let's just change from Intel to Apple Silicon. And that's enough change for an entire product generation.

02:05:27   And if we pull it off, that'll be great. And then we'll make new MacBook Airs a year later that have

02:05:32   an all new design from the ground up meant for Apple Silicon, which we just saw a couple months

02:05:37   ago. Couldn't they have done that with Swift UI? And if they're going to switch to Swift UI as a

02:05:42   truly foundational change to how system preferences is made, couldn't they have tried to make it look

02:05:48   exactly like system preferences we know and change just that one thing. And then once you know Swift

02:05:55   UI is capable of building something like that, then you know it's ready to make a new UI with it.

02:06:02   Jared: That's really interesting that you connected that strongly to the system

02:06:07   settings because I, in my own mind, I didn't even think about it in that specific way. I thought

02:06:13   about it in the broader, more general sense of like, Swift UI as a technology, make it

02:06:22   replicate the cocoa, the app kit and the UI kit controls and the behavior of all of them. Exactly.

02:06:31   So, it's a little bit of a different angle what you're extrapolating. But I, yeah, I think

02:06:37   it's, I think I said in the piece, it's like it would have been less exciting, but it would have

02:06:41   been better ultimately if, you know, I do this all the time in my own work. I'm currently working on

02:06:49   Mars Edit, the next major version of Mars Edit, and I'm working on the syntax highlighting and

02:06:54   I am dramatically changing the infrastructure of the syntax highlighting. And the temptation

02:07:01   is there to add new features and to dramatically enhance the way syntax highlighting works.

02:07:08   And my boring ambition is first and foremost to get it to work exactly the same

02:07:14   as the previous version. And I'm not going to hold myself up as somebody who always makes the

02:07:20   right choice technologically or business wise or anything. But as soon as I saw your piece

02:07:26   about Swift UI, it sort of unlocked this feeling I've had about Swift UI over the past few years.

02:07:33   I mean, I started off like everybody else. I think I was just so excited about it. I was like,

02:07:37   this is neat. This looks fun. It looks exciting. It's fun to program. And to your point, you made

02:07:43   a point a few minutes ago about like with AppKit, you could customize any aspect of the UI. I think

02:07:49   you can do the same with Swift UI. I'm not experienced with it myself, but I think if you

02:07:54   want to like rebuild the earth from the ground up with Swift UI, I think you can do that as a

02:08:00   developer. The things people complain about and are rightfully annoyed by are the ways in which

02:08:07   Swift UI offers you the promise of a certain system standard behavior and then doesn't follow

02:08:14   through on it. So you say like, I want a table, I want a list, or I want a text view, or I want to

02:08:20   control with a label and a value, and you get 90% of it maybe, but you don't get 100%.

02:08:28   And I think it is such a major transition that if they had said similarly with the M1, if they had

02:08:38   said, hey, developers, here's the deal, Swift UI is here. The bad news is you're not going to get any

02:08:44   new functionality. The good news is it's going to be like easier to write bulletproof UI code that

02:08:52   works exactly as you expect. An alternate basically one of the one of the like vectors of the change

02:08:57   of Swift UI is that it is essentially a replacement for Interface Builder. Like if you're developing a

02:09:04   Swift UI app, you don't use Interface Builder. So just coming from that point of view and saying,

02:09:10   hey, developers, we're going to give you an all new way to develop UI that is like Interface Builder,

02:09:18   except for you write it all out in code. And I think people would have been excited by that.

02:09:23   I mean, I'm sure there would be debates about which is better, but it would have been like,

02:09:27   oh, okay, well, I can either lay all my radio buttons and checkboxes and labels out in Interface

02:09:34   Builder, or I can specify them with Swift UI in this data driven mechanism, but they still look

02:09:40   the same in the end. But what's the story then for somebody who like the prototypical designer

02:09:46   who doesn't code producing something for production using Swift UI? I don't think it's good. It's a

02:09:54   good question. I don't think it's good. I don't think there is a story for them. I mean, it's…

02:10:00   You can imagine an interface style visual tool that looks visual and allows a visually oriented

02:10:06   designer to do something. And then when you hit save, it's saving Swift UI. I mean, in theory,

02:10:15   but that tool doesn't exist. I think that, again, I have to concede, I don't have a lot of experience

02:10:22   with Swift UI. I played with it around the introduction and every once in a while I get

02:10:27   back into trying it. But I think the interface for working the Swift UI previews in Xcode,

02:10:35   I know they allow a certain amount of editing in the preview that then maps back into the Swift UI

02:10:42   source code. But it's very integrated with the source code in a way that I don't know. I don't

02:10:49   know how much you could like hand Xcode to a designer and say, just mess around with this

02:10:54   in the UI in the preview and we'll take care of it from there. I hope that's something that's high on

02:11:02   Apple's list for the future and we just haven't heard about it yet. And if not, I find that very

02:11:07   sad and disappointing. Like you even said, like when you left Apple and started making apps on

02:11:12   your own that using Interface Builder was something that you found fun, right? It's a way of thinking

02:11:17   about UI that even if you could do it all in code, doing it visually appeals to a part of your brain

02:11:23   and in some ways is faster and easier and easier to know exactly that it's going to be right.

02:11:28   This has been such a great episode and I've actually changed my mind a bit just by talking

02:11:34   to you that I think I've come around to, no, I'm just going to say fully on board, but mostly on

02:11:39   board with Apple forging ahead and shipping this and hopefully fixing as much as they can as

02:11:44   frequently as they can to make it better. And that I guess it was if the bigger impetus was that

02:11:50   they're going to do a big rewrite and they want to use Swift UI for it, it would have been a waste of

02:11:54   time to recreate the old interface if they wanted to do a new interface too. Yeah. You know, like,

02:12:02   I guess the way to do it would have been to do an app kit/UI kit rewrite that implements the new

02:12:10   interface and then start re-implementing it in Swift UI with going forward. But again, I can see

02:12:18   that I don't have to have Craig Federighi back on the show to hear how, well, isn't that a waste of

02:12:24   time too? If the goal, the twofold goal was we want a visual redesign where it's laid out and

02:12:29   looks more like iPadOS and iOS. And internally, developer-wise, we're so committed and think Swift

02:12:35   UI, we're so convinced ourselves that Swift UI is the future that the sooner we switch to it,

02:12:40   the better. The long future that still remains unbelievably ahead of the Mac, right? That wasn't

02:12:46   finished in 2002. So I get it, but it is ambitious. And I know that's one of the things that I keep

02:12:54   coming back to that I wonder how many people listening and reading. This is very ambitious.

02:13:00   And I know it must seem maybe to a layperson that the system settings app is kind of boring,

02:13:05   and it's just a bunch of checkboxes and radio buttons and pop-ups. But doing that well is

02:13:11   intricate work. So it's no surprise to me that since early June, when they first showed this to

02:13:19   us to now nearing the end of August, that there hasn't been that much progress. And there's

02:13:26   definitely been some, right? There's a lot of things that look better than the first developer

02:13:30   build from June. I mean, it's definitely moving in the right direction.

02:13:34   Jared Ranerelle>> Yeah, but at the end of the day, we're going to have this

02:13:37   iOS-style UI. Even if it's perfect, it's going to be a completely different style of UI than

02:13:45   everything else on the Mac. And getting back to what I was saying and what you agreed with, that

02:13:49   Safari's, for instance, Safari's preferences is exemplary in just kind of showing how to make a

02:13:57   Mac preference panel. Pete Lienberg

02:13:59   But that would be a good thing to say, "Let's rewrite the Safari preferences in SwiftUI

02:14:03   and make it exactly the same." Jared Ranerelle>> Exactly. Well, but

02:14:07   that's where I get back to this idea that they're changing too many things at once,

02:14:11   because they're changing not only how things are laid out, but you said system preferences is

02:14:17   boring. It's a bunch of check boxes and radio buttons, but there actually aren't any check

02:14:23   boxes or radio buttons in the new iOS style. I mean, there's some. There's some radio buttons.

02:14:28   But I'm looking right now on my Mac, again, I'm running the Ventura Beta, and I'm looking at Apple

02:14:36   system preferences and then side by side with the Safari preferences. And then in the Finder,

02:14:43   like if there's a second settings on the Mac that is as widespread, is globally known and should be

02:14:53   like a standard look and feel, it would be the Finder settings. And you open up the Finder

02:14:58   settings and they're all classic toolbar based with check boxes. And it's the old AppKit style.

02:15:09   And so I'm just frustrated. It's been a lot of years now that there's been a lot of split

02:15:16   personality in Apple's software. There's been a lot of, "How do you make Mac software? How do

02:15:22   you make?" I mean, it's a little more obvious how to make iOS software, I think, but I'm tired of

02:15:29   years and years go by. And it got especially bad when it was like, to make a Mac app, you can

02:15:37   either make a Mac app or you can make a Swift UI app or you can make a Catalyst app. And they all

02:15:42   look different and they all behave differently. And now even at the system level, we're seeing

02:15:48   the same thing. It's just not cohesive. And for a company that's so design centered as Apple is,

02:15:56   to be looking right now as I am at the system settings app next to Safari settings,

02:16:03   next to Finder settings, and they don't look like they belong on the same system. And I don't know

02:16:10   if that means like Finder and Safari just need to catch up to where Apple's going with system

02:16:17   settings, or if this is all going to work itself out and there'll be some compromised UI that

02:16:25   everything adopts. But right now it's not great. You know, and I'll go back to the iOS 7 comparison

02:16:31   where they redesigned the whole look of the operating system and obviously third party apps

02:16:35   aside, but if you just had a fresh iPhone and a fresh installation of iOS 7, everything was

02:16:41   redesigned for the new look. It wasn't like, "Okay, we've done this new thing. We've got a new look for

02:16:47   iOS 7." And you can see it in Mail, Safari, and Settings. But the calendar and the Notes app still

02:16:55   look like the skeuomorphic leather at the top and ripped paper. And that would have been bizarre.

02:17:02   And I think this is bizarre, but the Mac being the Mac and then being so much broader, it makes

02:17:09   it seem less bizarre. And again, it would be worse. It's clearly with all the problems that still

02:17:14   remain in system settings. The last thing I'm going to do is say they should have done this for

02:17:18   the settings and preferences window in every single app that Apple ships in the system.

02:17:22   But I guess to close out, to just go back to the term "dogfooding," right? And I know that

02:17:27   sounds gross, but there's no better term for it, but that the company making a thing should

02:17:31   use their own shit to do it. Steve Jobs emphasized that all the time about cocoa,

02:17:38   even when the App Store and the software developer kit launched a year after the original iPhone. The

02:17:43   third-party developers get to use the same frameworks and tools and Xcode as Apple itself.

02:17:48   The same things Apple used to make iOS 1.0, anybody else can use to make their software.

02:17:54   And that was the big problem in hindsight with the original watch kit for the Apple Watch,

02:18:00   where third-party developers had an entirely different set of APIs than what Apple used to

02:18:05   make the original watchOS system. And the reason why was simply because the watch hardware was

02:18:13   so underpowered and limiting third-party apps so that they couldn't run in the background and

02:18:17   couldn't even use the CPU. It was necessary for battery life, but I think in hindsight,

02:18:22   what they should have done is just not have third-party apps for the first year like they

02:18:26   did with the iPhone. But the fact that the thing for third-party developers wasn't the thing that

02:18:31   Apple itself internally used to make the things that were great about even the original Apple

02:18:36   Watch, it just sort of proved that dogfooding is an important concept. It really is important for

02:18:41   Apple to be using the things that they're saying that third-party developers should use.

02:18:47   If the idea is that system settings is the first really big project for the Mac,

02:18:53   or we're going to make an important app, I mean, literally that everybody has to use at some point,

02:18:57   and when you do need to use it, it's often for something very important that you don't want to

02:19:02   futz around with. If they can make a great system settings app with SwiftUI, then that's a great

02:19:10   testing ground, and it is a great proof of concept that if as much as possible was written in SwiftUI

02:19:17   and the fit and finish is to Apple's highest standards, even if you disagree, you know,

02:19:23   you don't like the actual style of the iOS style on the Mac, that's a subjective argument.

02:19:29   At least you can say, "Well, if you're going to go that way, this looks perfect. It looks perfect

02:19:35   from the top corner to the bottom corner. Everything does look deliberate, and whether

02:19:40   I like this style or not or think this style is appropriate for the Mac, at least if somebody

02:19:46   does think this is the right way to do it, this is an extremely well-done fit and finish version

02:19:52   of that idea." SwiftUI should be able to do that. If SwiftUI is going to be used in the future to

02:19:58   make everything, as they're saying, that's the future, then at least being able to do system

02:20:03   settings is a fantastic stepping stone along the way. And I guess that's sort of the thinking?

02:20:10   Yeah. Well, I guess there's so much in system settings that it was such a monumental undertaking.

02:20:16   Everything in system settings had to be redesigned to work with this. And I guess it sort of makes me

02:20:21   wonder, if it's so comprehensive, and like you said, it is ambitious, maybe they should have

02:20:28   included all of the other Apple apps in that, and had the Finder settings and the Safari settings

02:20:34   and everything make the same transition at the same time. But it's sort of telling that they

02:20:39   didn't. I don't know. At the same time, it's like really ambitious and an amazing amount of work

02:20:45   just to get system settings going with this. And I can understand how maybe it would have been too

02:20:51   much to try to do everything else at the same time. The standard shouldn't be... There should

02:20:56   be no internal, "Well, but this is a new thing, so if our standards are a little lower on fit

02:21:02   and finish, that's fine." That should never happen, right? And it's like, I say this all the time,

02:21:08   but the fact that I say it all the time means that I do actually say it all the time, which is that

02:21:12   I'm reluctant to play the "If Steve Jobs were still around" card. But I do try to be very

02:21:17   reluctant about playing that card. But if you had to demo this new system settings, as it stands

02:21:24   today in the current beta of Ventura, to Steve Jobs, and he doesn't personally give a shit about

02:21:29   the comp sci reasons that Swift UI and declarative UI is actually a great idea and is the foundation

02:21:38   of this going, all he wants is a great-looking system settings app that he can understand

02:21:43   and that he thinks looks up to his quality. If you demoed this to him today and you had all those

02:21:48   bugs that Nicky Tonski picks out in that Twitter thing, it's impossible to imagine that he wouldn't

02:21:53   erupt. And so there is that sort of my concern behind the scenes is who's that person in Apple

02:22:02   whose standard is so high that you don't have to erupt, I guess. There's all sorts of ways to

02:22:08   enforce a good standard. But that one way or the other, if this is what you're demoing and you see

02:22:15   that this meeting is going to go with the person looking through every single panel and poking at

02:22:21   everything in there, and they're going to see all the bugs you know about in the layout issues,

02:22:26   that you know they're going to say this is completely unacceptable.

02:22:30   Why are you showing this to me? That's how high the standard should be.

02:22:33   Well, Jon, I've been looking passively here at my Mac. I want to leave people on a little upbeat.

02:22:43   All right. That's music to my ears.

02:22:46   So if you want to feel good about system settings, just go into mail.app and look at the mail

02:22:54   preferences. As much as we hailed Safari for having beautiful, exemplary Mac preferences,

02:23:04   something has been wrong with mail preferences forever. For instance, the print settings

02:23:11   are now changed to this new format, but Finder, Safari, etc., are not changed.

02:23:18   I kind of wondered, is mail—I haven't looked at mail in a while—has mail changed? And no,

02:23:24   mail is the same. And it's not good. It's really not good.

02:23:30   I like and use Apple Mail, but I've thought ever since I've been using it that its preferences are—

02:23:38   Its preferences are weirdly bad. And that whole center gravity thing I was talking about earlier,

02:23:44   if you just click through the tabs on mail, there's no consideration of that strategy.

02:23:53   Again, there's a whole tab. There's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven tabs. One of them

02:24:02   is called Fonts and Colors, but a lot of the font settings are over in composing and viewing.

02:24:11   It's a very weird, it's a very strange thing. It's slightly better. At one point, I remember,

02:24:16   at one point they introduced some new feature. I think when they changed to the three-pane layout,

02:24:25   right now, at one point, in distant memory, they had the list of mail messages up top and then the

02:24:33   content below. And they switched to this new layout. And I remember at one point, they just

02:24:38   select all and then write on the preferences and then put a checkbox above it. I don't know.

02:24:46   It's just a mess. I don't understand it. Sorry, mail team. I know you're doing your best work, but

02:24:53   perhaps the biggest contribution you're making right now is to make system settings on

02:24:59   Ventura look inspired. Maybe mail should have been ground zero for the SwiftUI iOS style.

02:25:08   Well, speaking of good work, let me thank you for your good work. I use your software every day,

02:25:14   FastScripts and Mars Edit. You've also got Black Ink, your crossword app. What else do we want to

02:25:20   promote? Oh, that's probably good for my apps. Those are the main things.

02:25:25   People can get those at redsweater.com.

02:25:27   It's commerce, baby. It's now commerce.

02:25:34   Well, it used to be red-sweater for about 20 years. It was red-sweater. And then I finally

02:25:42   managed to acquire red-sweater without the hyphen. And one of my favorite things now is just saying

02:25:48   redsweater.com without having to either say red-sweater when I mean hyphen, or you just

02:25:55   don't want to clarify. You don't want to have to clarify it at all. And so redsweater.com,

02:26:00   the same way you would spell the color and the thing that in America, at least,

02:26:04   we wear to warm up on a brisk fall evening.

02:26:10   Maybe in the same way that Jason Snow has registered six colors with the U,

02:26:16   perhaps you should register redjumper.com.

02:26:19   I should. And I'm going to look at that and it's going to be, yeah, oh, this domain is for sale.

02:26:23   $3,295.

02:26:25   And then when you contact them, you're like, screw it, I'm spending $3,000 on this domain.

02:26:31   And the guy is like, I've been waiting for you.

02:26:33   Well, ultimately, I ended up, it was years and years and years of trying to get redsweater.com.

02:26:41   And ultimately, I will say I paid a good amount of money for it, but it was less than $3,295.

02:26:48   I think I paid $2,000 for it, which is not too bad for a custom domain. But the investment wasn't the

02:26:56   money. It was the years and years of trying to get one person who owned it that whole time to give me

02:27:02   the time of day. And they finally did. And they finally sold it to me. So it's a happy time.

02:27:37   [Laughter]

02:27:44   Although I suppose Gruber Motor Company doesn't work as GMC either.

02:27:48   [Laughter]

02:27:49   Oh, right. No, it certainly does not.

02:27:51   Sort of. Sort of take it. So I'll have to come out with something. It's probably the

02:27:56   Daring Fireball Motor Company.

02:27:58   The Daring Fireball. Everyone wants to drive a car called the Daring Fireball.

02:28:02   Yeah. Now that one's out too. Son of a bitch.

02:28:05   Don't worry about it. We got safety under control.

02:28:09   I will post a link, I promise. I know I always promise this to your post on titled Disciplined

02:28:16   Innovation about this that we've referenced throughout the show at bitsplitting.org,

02:28:22   which is your blog. And we also mentioned Core Intuition, the show that we do with our mutual

02:28:26   good friend, Manton Rees, which is at…

02:28:29   Yes. Coreint.org. C-O-R-E-I-N-T.org.

02:28:35   Right. And if you guys mostly, largely talk about developers stuff.

02:28:39   Yeah. Well, it's funny. We try to frame it like we talk about indie business challenges. We don't

02:28:46   really talk about developing. And that's why I try to emphasize to people because we never talk

02:28:51   about programming really. We just talk about what it's like to be in the Apple ecosystem as an indie

02:28:58   developer. So it can be fun. Just to say, when you're talking about, "Oh, what is your audience?

02:29:06   Are they designers? Are they developers?" We have product managers. Everybody wants to listen to this

02:29:14   show because it's not about development per se. It's about getting by in an Apple world, I guess,

02:29:19   is a good way to summarize it. That is, as a listener, I can say that is an excellent

02:29:23   way to summarize it. Your self-awareness remains astute. I thank you so much, Daniel, for your time.

02:29:30   You are my friend and I appreciate that very much. I will also throw out a thanks to our three

02:29:36   sponsors of this show again. Linode, where you can host your website. Memberful, where you can

02:29:41   monetize your passion with membership. And Revenue Cat, you can make in-app purchases and subscriptions

02:29:49   easy. All of these products are endorsed by your guest again. You gotta love it when that works

02:29:57   out. No cheating. There's no fudging on the schedule, I swear. I didn't even know. No, no.

02:30:02   Well, thank you Daniel. Thank you so much for having me.