If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you’re in luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
We expect that the phone manufacturers will drag their feet just as some of them have over charger ports, but the greater ease of maintenance, as well
as extra longevity for phones, can only be a good thing.
https://hackaday.com/2023/06/17/get-back-your-replaceable-batteries-thanks-to-the-eu/
Am 18.06.23 um 21:53 schrieb badgolferman:
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you’re in
luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering
batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
We expect that the phone manufacturers will drag their feet just as some of >> them have over charger ports, but the greater ease of maintenance, as well >> as extra longevity for phones, can only be a good thing.
https://hackaday.com/2023/06/17/get-back-your-replaceable-batteries-thanks-to-the-eu/
The only downside: It only takes effect as of 2027.
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you’re in luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
We expect that the phone manufacturers will drag their feet just as some of them have over charger ports, but the greater ease of maintenance, as well
as extra longevity for phones, can only be a good thing.
https://hackaday.com/2023/06/17/get-back-your-replaceable-batteries-thanks-to-the-eu/
On 2023-06-18 13:21, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Am 18.06.23 um 21:53 schrieb badgolferman:
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you’re in
luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering
batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
We expect that the phone manufacturers will drag their feet just as some of >>> them have over charger ports, but the greater ease of maintenance, as well >>> as extra longevity for phones, can only be a good thing.
https://hackaday.com/2023/06/17/get-back-your-replaceable-batteries-thanks-to-the-eu/
The only downside: It only takes effect as of 2027.
And it will make devices a little bulkier...
...and heavier...
...and harder to seal against moisture, dust and dirt.
On 2023-06-18 12:53, badgolferman wrote:
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you’re in
luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering
batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
We expect that the phone manufacturers will drag their feet just as some of >> them have over charger ports, but the greater ease of maintenance, as well >> as extra longevity for phones, can only be a good thing.
https://hackaday.com/2023/06/17/get-back-your-replaceable-batteries-thanks-to-the-eu/
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want?
On 2023-06-18 13:21, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Am 18.06.23 um 21:53 schrieb badgolferman:
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you’re in
luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering
batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
We expect that the phone manufacturers will drag their feet just as some of >>> them have over charger ports, but the greater ease of maintenance, as well >>> as extra longevity for phones, can only be a good thing.
https://hackaday.com/2023/06/17/get-back-your-replaceable-batteries-thanks-to-the-eu/
The only downside: It only takes effect as of 2027.
And it will make devices a little bulkier...
...and heavier...
...and harder to seal against moisture, dust and dirt.
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you�re in luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want?
The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what
they wanted.
Am 18.06.23 um 22:50 schrieb Alan:
On 2023-06-18 13:21, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Am 18.06.23 um 21:53 schrieb badgolferman:
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you’re in
luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering >>>> batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
We expect that the phone manufacturers will drag their feet just as some of
them have over charger ports, but the greater ease of maintenance, as well >>>> as extra longevity for phones, can only be a good thing.
https://hackaday.com/2023/06/17/get-back-your-replaceable-batteries-thanks-to-the-eu/
The only downside: It only takes effect as of 2027.
And it will make devices a little bulkier...
...and heavier...
...and harder to seal against moisture, dust and dirt.
As Swiss watches prove for decades: Total bullshit again.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 13:21, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Am 18.06.23 um 21:53 schrieb badgolferman:
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you’re in
luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering >>>> batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
We expect that the phone manufacturers will drag their feet just as some of
them have over charger ports, but the greater ease of maintenance, as well >>>> as extra longevity for phones, can only be a good thing.
https://hackaday.com/2023/06/17/get-back-your-replaceable-batteries-thanks-to-the-eu/
The only downside: It only takes effect as of 2027.
And it will make devices a little bulkier...
...and heavier...
...and harder to seal against moisture, dust and dirt.
Did you Mr. Google to come up with that answer?
Am 18.06.23 um 22:40 schrieb Alan:
On 2023-06-18 12:53, badgolferman wrote:
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you’re in
luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering
batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
We expect that the phone manufacturers will drag their feet just as some of >>> them have over charger ports, but the greater ease of maintenance, as well >>> as extra longevity for phones, can only be a good thing.
https://hackaday.com/2023/06/17/get-back-your-replaceable-batteries-thanks-to-the-eu/
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want?
The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what
they wanted.
You are Troll of the worst kind.
Am 18.06.23 um 22:50 schrieb Alan:
On 2023-06-18 13:21, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Am 18.06.23 um 21:53 schrieb badgolferman:
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you’re in
luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering >>>> batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
We expect that the phone manufacturers will drag their feet just as some of
them have over charger ports, but the greater ease of maintenance, as well >>>> as extra longevity for phones, can only be a good thing.
https://hackaday.com/2023/06/17/get-back-your-replaceable-batteries-thanks-to-the-eu/
The only downside: It only takes effect as of 2027.
And it will make devices a little bulkier...
...and heavier...
...and harder to seal against moisture, dust and dirt.
As Swiss watches prove for decades: Total bullshit again.
Businesses THRIVE on offering consumers what they want.
Removable batteries are an option...
<https://www.gsmarena.com/search.php3?nYearMin=2021&idBatRemovable=1>
...but most people don't choose them.
Which is why phone manufacturers don't make many models with them.
nospam <[email protected]d> wrote:
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want?
The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better
batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what >>> they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want, which are devices
that are thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time,
including phones, laptops, bluetooth headsets & speakers, smoke
detectors, cameras and much more.
not offering consumers what they want would be a very stupid business
decision.
It’s Apple which tells consumers what they are going to get. I’ve never seen a poll asking Apple consumers what they want in their next phone.
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want?
The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better
batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what
they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want, which are devices
that are thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time,
including phones, laptops, bluetooth headsets & speakers, smoke
detectors, cameras and much more.
not offering consumers what they want would be a very stupid business decision.
In article <u6nnba$1o690$[email protected]>, badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote:
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you¹re in >> luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering
batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
iphone batteries are easily replaceable. it just takes a screwdriver
instead of a fingernail, which for something that *might* need to be
replaced once in the device's lifetime (usually not at all), is not in
any way an obstacle. meanwhile, users benefit from something that's
thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time.
It�s Apple which tells consumers what they are going to get.
I�ve never
seen a poll asking Apple consumers what they want in their next phone.
nospam <[email protected]d> wrote:
In article <u6nnba$1o690$[email protected]>, badgolferman
<[email protected]> wrote:
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you¹re in
luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering
batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
iphone batteries are easily replaceable. it just takes a screwdriver
instead of a fingernail, which for something that *might* need to be
replaced once in the device's lifetime (usually not at all), is not in
any way an obstacle. meanwhile, users benefit from something that's
thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time.
It takes way more than a screwdriver to replace a battery. I’ve watched the tutorial on iFixit and there are several connectors and sensors and glue which have to be taken out.
If my memory serves, he only has very old iphones. They may be
simpler and easier to service.
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want?
The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better
batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what
they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want,
Am 18.06.23 um 23:23 schrieb nospam:
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want?
The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better
batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what >>> they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want,
The consumer buys always the cheapest but the society does not accept
that anymore.
In article <u6nnba$1o690$[email protected]>, badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote:
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you¹re in >> luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering
batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
iphone batteries are easily replaceable. it just takes a screwdriver
instead of a fingernail, which for something that *might* need to be
replaced once in the device's lifetime (usually not at all), is not in
any way an obstacle. meanwhile, users benefit from something that's
thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time.
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want?
The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better
batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what
they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want, which are devices
that are thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time,
including phones, laptops, bluetooth headsets & speakers, smoke
detectors, cameras and much more.
not offering consumers what they want would be a very stupid business decision.
On 2023-06-18 17:29, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <[email protected]d> wrote:
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want?
The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better
batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what >>>> they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want, which are devices
that are thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time,
including phones, laptops, bluetooth headsets & speakers, smoke
detectors, cameras and much more.
not offering consumers what they want would be a very stupid business
decision.
It’s Apple which tells consumers what they are going to get. I’ve never >> seen a poll asking Apple consumers what they want in their next phone.
Because you haven't seen one...
...do you really think that Apple DOESN'T to market research?
Fact:
Successful companies succeed by giving people what they want.
In article <u6nnba$1o690$[email protected]>, badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote:
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you¹re in >> luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering
batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
iphone batteries are easily replaceable.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 17:29, badgolferman wrote:
It’s Apple which tells consumers what they are going to get. I’ve never >>> seen a poll asking Apple consumers what they want in their next phone.
Because you haven't seen one...
...do you really think that Apple DOESN'T to market research?
Fact:
Successful companies succeed by giving people what they want.
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same thing.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations.
Am 19.06.23 um 08:37 schrieb Chris:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same >> thing.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's >> good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations.
*SIC*
This is the reason why the European legislators are acting.
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries, you1re in
luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering
batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
iphone batteries are easily replaceable. it just takes a screwdriver instead of a fingernail, which for something that *might* need to be replaced once in the device's lifetime (usually not at all), is not in
any way an obstacle. meanwhile, users benefit from something that's thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time.
That is simply wrong and even a deliberate lie, Troll.
In article <u6o7f3$1ql31$[email protected]>, badgolferman ><[email protected]> wrote:
It takes way more than a screwdriver to replace a battery. I�ve
watched the tutorial on iFixit and there are several connectors
and sensors and glue which have to be taken out.
it depends on which model.
On 2023-06-18 13:21, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Am 18.06.23 um 21:53 schrieb badgolferman:
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone batteries,
you’re in
luck because an EU Parliament vote has approved a set of rules covering
batteries among which will be a requirement for replaceable cells in
portable appliances.
We expect that the phone manufacturers will drag their feet just as
some of
them have over charger ports, but the greater ease of maintenance, as
well
as extra longevity for phones, can only be a good thing.
https://hackaday.com/2023/06/17/get-back-your-replaceable-batteries-thanks-to-the-eu/
The only downside: It only takes effect as of 2027.
And it will make devices a little bulkier...
...and heavier...
...and harder to seal against moisture, dust and dirt.
It takes way more than a screwdriver to replace a battery. I�ve
watched the tutorial on iFixit and there are several connectors
and sensors and glue which have to be taken out.
it depends on which model.
Take a look at this and tell me how simple it is to use a srewdriver to replace a battery.
https://www.ifixit.com/Gu
iPhone batteries DO NOT last for five years and you know it.
Even that
link to iFixit which I posted claims 18-24 months which is much closer
to the truth.
In article <u6oofe$1evdl$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
batteries, you1re in >> luck because an EU Parliament vote has
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone
approved a set of rules covering >> batteries among which will be
a requirement for replaceable cells in >> portable appliances.
screwdriver > instead of a fingernail, which for something that
iphone batteries are easily replaceable. it just takes a
might need to be > replaced once in the device's lifetime (usually
not at all), is not in > any way an obstacle. meanwhile, users
benefit from something that's > thinner, lighter, more reliable
and with longer run time.
That is simply wrong and even a deliberate lie, Troll.
it's exactly correct. the battery is rated for 5 years at 80%
capacity, which is still excellent. most people don't keep a phone
for 5 years and will not need to replace the battery at all. in the
event the battery wears out sooner, or the user has more than average
needs, it can be replaced, which would only need to be done once
before the user trades in their phone for a newer and more capable
model.
In article <[email protected]>,
badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote:
It takes way more than a screwdriver to replace a battery. I�ve
watched the tutorial on iFixit and there are several connectors
and sensors and glue which have to be taken out.
it depends on which model.
Take a look at this and tell me how simple it is to use a
srewdriver to replace a battery.
https://www.ifixit.com/Gu
a few years ago, i met a 10 year old girl who said she replaced iphone >batteries for her parents and their friends for something like $10
each.
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same thing.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations.
nospam wrote:
it's exactly correct. the battery is rated for 5 years at 80%
capacity, which is still excellent. most people don't keep a phone for
5 years and will not need to replace the battery at all. in the event
the battery wears out sooner, or the user has more than average needs,
it can be replaced, which would only need to be done once before the
user trades in their phone for a newer and more capable model.
iPhone batteries DO NOT last for five years
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 17:29, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <[email protected]d> wrote:
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want?
The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better >>>>> batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what >>>>> they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want, which are devices >>>> that are thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time,
including phones, laptops, bluetooth headsets & speakers, smoke
detectors, cameras and much more.
not offering consumers what they want would be a very stupid business
decision.
It’s Apple which tells consumers what they are going to get. I’ve never >>> seen a poll asking Apple consumers what they want in their next phone.
Because you haven't seen one...
...do you really think that Apple DOESN'T to market research?
Fact:
Successful companies succeed by giving people what they want.
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same thing.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations.
iPhone batteries DO NOT last for five years and you know it.
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same >> thing.
Whereas governments never extract money from people. I willingly give
money to companies. Not the same thing AT ALL as governments TAKING my money.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's >> good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations.
Whereas governments always know what is best for everyone and never exploit people.
You are a fool if you believe that. Or a socialist. Probably both. Which explains a lot.
Consumers in a free society have every right to decide what they want to spend their money on. It is no one else’s business.
Yeah man, I really want governments telling me what to buy. Telling companies which connectors and batteries their products should have. That
is NOT “leadership”. It is a sign of a government that is WAY out-of-control.
badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote:
iPhone batteries DO NOT last for five years and you know it.
It all depends on usage. Age has very little to do with it.
I have an iPhone 8 plus that is going on 6 years old. Granted, I don’t use it much these days, but the battery on it is still at 99%. It will EASILY last another 5 years at this rate.
My current iPhone 12 Pro Max is going on 3 years old. That battery is at 98%. It will EASILY last 5 more years.
No, I don’t stare at my phone all day long. I have iPads and laptops for home use.
If you don’t abuse them, batteries will last 10 years. Easily. I have an ancient Dell DJ MP3 player, with a 15GB spinning hard drive. I used to use that a LOT. It is almost 20 years old. It still works and still holds a charge.
In article <[email protected]>,
badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote:
iPhone batteries DO NOT last for five years and you know it.
as i said, they're *rated* for 5 years at 80%. that's a rating, not a
Am 19.06.23 um 10:28 schrieb Joerg Lorenz:
Am 19.06.23 um 08:37 schrieb Chris:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same >>> thing.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's >>> good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations.
*SIC*
This is the reason why the European legislators are acting.
Most people call that leadership btw.
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same thing.
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same >> thing.
Whereas governments never extract money from people. I willingly give
money to companies. Not the same thing AT ALL as governments TAKING my money.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's >> good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations.
Whereas governments always know what is best for everyone and never exploit people.
You are a fool if you believe that. Or a socialist. Probably both. Which explains a lot.
Consumers in a free society have every right to decide what they want to spend their money on. It is no one else’s business.
Yeah man, I really want governments telling me what to buy. Telling companies which connectors and batteries their products should have. That
is NOT “leadership”. It is a sign of a government that is WAY out-of-control.
On 2023-06-19 02:37, Chris wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same >> thing.
Successful companies also have to earn repeat sales - you don't do that
by not giving good value for the money.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 23:37, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 17:29, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <[email protected]d> wrote:
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want?
The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better >>>>>>> batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what
they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want, which are devices >>>>>> that are thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time, >>>>>> including phones, laptops, bluetooth headsets & speakers, smoke
detectors, cameras and much more.
not offering consumers what they want would be a very stupid business >>>>>> decision.
It’s Apple which tells consumers what they are going to get. I’ve never
seen a poll asking Apple consumers what they want in their next phone. >>>>>
Because you haven't seen one...
...do you really think that Apple DOESN'T to market research?
Fact:
Successful companies succeed by giving people what they want.
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same >>> thing.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's >>> good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations. >>>
Ah... ...people are children who need to be told what's good for them.
Got it!
Love it how you guys like to reframe things as a strawman argument.
Consumer protections are a thing even in the US; no-one, other than you, is calling people children.
On 2023-06-18 23:37, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 17:29, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <[email protected]d> wrote:
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want?
The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better >>>>>> batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what >>>>>> they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want, which are devices >>>>> that are thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time,
including phones, laptops, bluetooth headsets & speakers, smoke
detectors, cameras and much more.
not offering consumers what they want would be a very stupid business >>>>> decision.
It’s Apple which tells consumers what they are going to get. I’ve never
seen a poll asking Apple consumers what they want in their next phone. >>>>
Because you haven't seen one...
...do you really think that Apple DOESN'T to market research?
Fact:
Successful companies succeed by giving people what they want.
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same >> thing.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's >> good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations.
Ah... ...people are children who need to be told what's good for them.
Got it!
Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same >>> thing.
Whereas governments never extract money from people. I willingly give
money to companies. Not the same thing AT ALL as governments TAKING my
money.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's >>> good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations.
Whereas governments always know what is best for everyone and never exploit >> people.
You are a fool if you believe that. Or a socialist. Probably both. Which >> explains a lot.
Consumers in a free society have every right to decide what they want to
spend their money on. It is no one else’s business.
Yeah man, I really want governments telling me what to buy. Telling
companies which connectors and batteries their products should have. That >> is NOT “leadership”. It is a sign of a government that is WAY
out-of-control.
Someone's feeling a little triggered...
Consumer protections are a thing even in the US; no-one, other than you, is calling people children.
On 2023-06-19 18:05, Chris wrote:
Consumer protections are a thing even in the US; no-one, other than
you, is
calling people children.
Batteries are already replaceable in almost all portable phones. Not as trivially as, eg, a flashlight, but then you only need to replace them
every 4 or 5 years (longer in my experience) so there is no need to compromise the rest of the product for that very occasional need for a battery change.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 02:37, Chris wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same >>> thing.
Successful companies also have to earn repeat sales - you don't do that
by not giving good value for the money.
And yet many, many companies are well known to provide bad service and yet still exist. Big companies serve their shareholders not customers.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 02:37, Chris wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same >>> thing.
Successful companies also have to earn repeat sales - you don't do that
by not giving good value for the money.
And yet many, many companies are well known to provide bad service and yet still exist. Big companies serve their shareholders not customers.
On 2023-06-19 15:22, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-19 18:05, Chris wrote:
Consumer protections are a thing even in the US; no-one,
other than you, is
calling people children.
Batteries are already replaceable in almost all portable
phones. Not as trivially as, eg, a flashlight, but then you
only need to replace them every 4 or 5 years (longer in my
experience) so there is no need to compromise the rest of the
product for that very occasional need for a battery change.
This is a huge point:
We're making batteries replaceable...
...when they need to be replaced MAYBE after 4 years of ownership?
Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-19 15:22, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-19 18:05, Chris wrote:
Consumer protections are a thing even in the US; no-one, other than
you, is
calling people children.
Batteries are already replaceable in almost all portable phones.Â
Not as trivially as, eg, a flashlight, but then you only need to
replace them every 4 or 5 years (longer in my experience) so there is
no need to compromise the rest of the product for that very
occasional need for a battery change.
This is a huge point:
We're making batteries replaceable...
...when they need to be replaced MAYBE after 4 years of ownership?
Replaceable batteries are NOT needed, and NOBODY wants them.
Batteries are already replaceable in almost all portable phones.� Not as trivially as, eg, a flashlight, but then you only need to replace them every 4 or 5 years (longer in my experience) so there is no need to compromise the rest of the product for that very occasional need for a battery change.
This is a huge point:
We're making batteries replaceable...
...when they need to be replaced MAYBE after 4 years of ownership?
iPhone batteries DO NOT last for five years and you know it. Even that
link to iFixit which I posted claims 18-24 months which is much closer
to the truth.
In article <[email protected]>,
badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote:
iPhone batteries DO NOT last for five years and you know it.
as i said, they're *rated* for 5 years at 80%. that's a rating, not a
nospam wrote:
In article <u6oofe$1evdl$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
batteries, you1re in >> luck because an EU Parliament vote has
If you hanker for the days of replaceable mobile phone
approved a set of rules covering >> batteries among which will be
a requirement for replaceable cells in >> portable appliances.
screwdriver > instead of a fingernail, which for something that
iphone batteries are easily replaceable. it just takes a
might need to be > replaced once in the device's lifetime (usually
not at all), is not in > any way an obstacle. meanwhile, users
benefit from something that's > thinner, lighter, more reliable
and with longer run time.
That is simply wrong and even a deliberate lie, Troll.
it's exactly correct. the battery is rated for 5 years at 80%
capacity, which is still excellent. most people don't keep a phone
for 5 years and will not need to replace the battery at all. in the
event the battery wears out sooner, or the user has more than average
needs, it can be replaced, which would only need to be done once
before the user trades in their phone for a newer and more capable
model.
iPhone batteries DO NOT last for five years and you know it. Even that
link to iFixit which I posted claims 18-24 months which is much closer
to the truth.
On 2023-06-19 17:48, Chris wrote:
Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
Whereas governments never extract money from people. I willingly give
money to companies. Not the same thing AT ALL as governments TAKING my
money.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what'sWhereas governments always know what is best for everyone and never exploit >>> people.
good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations. >>>
You are a fool if you believe that. Or a socialist. Probably both. Which >>> explains a lot.
Consumers in a free society have every right to decide what they want to >>> spend their money on. It is no one else’s business.
Yeah man, I really want governments telling me what to buy. Telling
companies which connectors and batteries their products should have. That >>> is NOT “leadership”. It is a sign of a government that is WAY
out-of-control.
Someone's feeling a little triggered...
People should react when governments go too far in regulation. There is
a balance between too little and too much - and the EU proposed rules
are too much - just as the USB-C rule.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 17:48, Chris wrote:
Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
Whereas governments never extract money from people. I willingly give >>>> money to companies. Not the same thing AT ALL as governments TAKING my >>>> money.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what'sWhereas governments always know what is best for everyone and never exploit
good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations. >>>>
people.
You are a fool if you believe that. Or a socialist. Probably both. Which
explains a lot.
Consumers in a free society have every right to decide what they want to >>>> spend their money on. It is no one else’s business.
Yeah man, I really want governments telling me what to buy. Telling
companies which connectors and batteries their products should have. That >>>> is NOT “leadership”. It is a sign of a government that is WAY
out-of-control.
Someone's feeling a little triggered...
People should react when governments go too far in regulation. There is
a balance between too little and too much - and the EU proposed rules
are too much - just as the USB-C rule.
It's funny you consider USB-C cables regulation as government overstepping when there's so much wrong with US government where they're not doing
enough. That's also an outrage
It all comes down to perspective.
Yeah man, I really want governments telling me what to buy. Telling companies which connectors and batteries their products should have. That
is NOT “leadership”. It is a sign of a government that is WAY out-of-control.
People should react when governments go too far in regulation. There is
a balance between too little and too much - and the EU proposed rules
are too much - just as the USB-C rule.
On 6/19/2023 8:58 AM, Bob Campbell wrote:
Yeah man, I really want governments telling me what to buy. Telling
companies which connectors and batteries their products should have. That >> is NOT “leadership”. It is a sign of a government that is WAY
out-of-control.
Agree completely. The EU is a bunch of globalist leftists with way too
much power.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 02:37, Chris wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same >>> thing.
Successful companies also have to earn repeat sales - you don't do that
by not giving good value for the money.
And yet many, many companies are well known to provide bad service and yet still exist. Big companies serve their shareholders not customers.
On 2023-06-19 23:39, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 17:48, Chris wrote:
Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
Whereas governments never extract money from people. I willingly give >>>>> money to companies. Not the same thing AT ALL as governments TAKING my >>>>> money.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what'sWhereas governments always know what is best for everyone and never exploit
good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations. >>>>>
people.
You are a fool if you believe that. Or a socialist. Probably both. Which
explains a lot.
Consumers in a free society have every right to decide what they want to >>>>> spend their money on. It is no one else’s business.
Yeah man, I really want governments telling me what to buy. Telling >>>>> companies which connectors and batteries their products should have. That
is NOT “leadership”. It is a sign of a government that is WAY
out-of-control.
Someone's feeling a little triggered...
People should react when governments go too far in regulation. There is >>> a balance between too little and too much - and the EU proposed rules
are too much - just as the USB-C rule.
It's funny you consider USB-C cables regulation as government overstepping >> when there's so much wrong with US government where they're not doing
enough. That's also an outrage
It all comes down to perspective.
And your perspective is that people have to be mandated to make the
choices you think are correct.
On 2023-06-19 15:05, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 23:37, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 17:29, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <[email protected]d> wrote:
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want?
The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better >>>>>>>> batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what
they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want, which are devices >>>>>>> that are thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time, >>>>>>> including phones, laptops, bluetooth headsets & speakers, smoke
detectors, cameras and much more.
not offering consumers what they want would be a very stupid business >>>>>>> decision.
It’s Apple which tells consumers what they are going to get. I’ve never
seen a poll asking Apple consumers what they want in their next phone. >>>>>>
Because you haven't seen one...
...do you really think that Apple DOESN'T to market research?
Fact:
Successful companies succeed by giving people what they want.
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's
good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations. >>>>
Ah... ...people are children who need to be told what's good for them.
Got it!
Love it how you guys like to reframe things as a strawman argument.
Consumer protections are a thing even in the US; no-one, other than you, is >> calling people children.
"consumers often don't know what's good for them"
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
People should react when governments go too far in regulation. There is
a balance between too little and too much - and the EU proposed rules
are too much - just as the USB-C rule.
It's funny you consider USB-C cables regulation as government overstepping when there's so much wrong with US government where they're not doing
enough. That's also an outrage
It all comes down to perspective.
Am 19.06.23 um 23:48 schrieb Chris:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 02:37, Chris wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
Successful companies also have to earn repeat sales - you don't do that
by not giving good value for the money.
And yet many, many companies are well known to provide bad service and yet >> still exist. Big companies serve their shareholders not customers.
Which is particularly true for large US-corporations which do not care
about their responsibility for the society and let alone their clients.
governments to do as they've been mandated to do. That's the point of democracy. If we don't like it they get voted out. Simple.
Am 19.06.23 um 19:56 schrieb sticks:
On 6/19/2023 8:58 AM, Bob Campbell wrote:
Yeah man, I really want governments telling me what to buy. Telling
companies which connectors and batteries their products should have. That >>> is NOT “leadership”. It is a sign of a government that is WAY
out-of-control.
Agree completely. The EU is a bunch of globalist leftists with way too
much power.
That is none of your business and you do not understand the underlying fundamentals.
And you should know that. And you have no say in this
matter anyway.
And your excitement is absolutely futile.
You will just
benefit by buying better electronic equipment and better protection of
the environment.
The EU is more democratic and has more legitimacy than any other
gouverment of a region or country of this size, namely the US and China.
Am 20.06.23 um 00:18 schrieb Alan Browne:
People should react when governments go too far in regulation. There is
a balance between too little and too much - and the EU proposed rules
are too much - just as the USB-C rule.
The thing is that on the Continent nobody cares about your opinion or
any unqualified opinion from the US/UK. You do not pay taxes here and
you have no right to vote or elect anybody.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 15:05, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 23:37, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 17:29, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <[email protected]d> wrote:
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want? >>>>>>>>>The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better >>>>>>>>> batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what
they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want, which are devices
that are thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time, >>>>>>>> including phones, laptops, bluetooth headsets & speakers, smoke >>>>>>>> detectors, cameras and much more.
not offering consumers what they want would be a very stupid business >>>>>>>> decision.
It’s Apple which tells consumers what they are going to get. I’ve never
seen a poll asking Apple consumers what they want in their next phone. >>>>>>>
Because you haven't seen one...
...do you really think that Apple DOESN'T to market research?
Fact:
Successful companies succeed by giving people what they want.
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's
good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations. >>>>>
Ah... ...people are children who need to be told what's good for them. >>>>
Got it!
Love it how you guys like to reframe things as a strawman argument.
Consumer protections are a thing even in the US; no-one, other than you, is >>> calling people children.
"consumers often don't know what's good for them"
And?
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 23:39, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 17:48, Chris wrote:
Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
Whereas governments never extract money from people. I willingly give >>>>>> money to companies. Not the same thing AT ALL as governments TAKING my >>>>>> money.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's
good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations.
Whereas governments always know what is best for everyone and never exploit
people.
You are a fool if you believe that. Or a socialist. Probably both. Which
explains a lot.
Consumers in a free society have every right to decide what they want to >>>>>> spend their money on. It is no one else’s business.
Yeah man, I really want governments telling me what to buy. Telling >>>>>> companies which connectors and batteries their products should have. That
is NOT “leadership”. It is a sign of a government that is WAY >>>>>> out-of-control.
Someone's feeling a little triggered...
People should react when governments go too far in regulation. There is >>>> a balance between too little and too much - and the EU proposed rules
are too much - just as the USB-C rule.
It's funny you consider USB-C cables regulation as government overstepping >>> when there's so much wrong with US government where they're not doing
enough. That's also an outrage
It all comes down to perspective.
And your perspective is that people have to be mandated to make the
choices you think are correct.
Again, that's *not* the point I'm making.
Firstly, it's companies that are being regulated not people. Secondly, it's not my choice to decide what's correct or otherwise. I mostly trust governments to do as they've been mandated to do. That's the point of democracy. If we don't like it they get voted out. Simple.
On 6/20/2023 4:35 AM, George wrote:
Am 20.06.23 um 00:18 schrieb Alan Browne:
People should react when governments go too far in regulation. There is >>> a balance between too little and too much - and the EU proposed rules
are too much - just as the USB-C rule.
The thing is that on the Continent nobody cares about your opinion or
any unqualified opinion from the US/UK. You do not pay taxes here and
you have no right to vote or elect anybody.
And yet if it weren't for the ERP, what we call the Marshall Plan, the continent would have either frozen or starved to death. Or how
Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin divided up and protected your land,
after fighting for it with our young men, at Yalta to force some peace?
How soon we forget. George now thinks nobody else gets to have an
opinion.
Am 19.06.23 um 19:56 schrieb sticks:
On 6/19/2023 8:58 AM, Bob Campbell wrote:
Yeah man, I really want governments telling me what to buy. Telling
companies which connectors and batteries their products should have. That >>> is NOT “leadership”. It is a sign of a government that is WAY
out-of-control.
Agree completely. The EU is a bunch of globalist leftists with way too
much power.
That is none of your business and you do not understand the underlying fundamentals. And you should know that. And you have no say in this
matter anyway. And your excitement is absolutely futile. You will just benefit by buying better electronic equipment and better protection of
the environment.
Where by "better" you mean:
Slightly heavier...
...slightly bulkier...
...less resistant to moisture ingress...
...and more expensive.
Got it.
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb sticks:
On 6/20/2023 4:35 AM, George wrote:
Am 20.06.23 um 00:18 schrieb Alan Browne:
People should react when governments go too far in regulation. There is >>>> a balance between too little and too much - and the EU proposed rules
are too much - just as the USB-C rule.
The thing is that on the Continent nobody cares about your opinion or
any unqualified opinion from the US/UK. You do not pay taxes here and
you have no right to vote or elect anybody.
And yet if it weren't for the ERP, what we call the Marshall Plan, the
continent would have either frozen or starved to death. Or how
Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin divided up and protected your land,
after fighting for it with our young men, at Yalta to force some peace?
How soon we forget. George now thinks nobody else gets to have an
opinion.
And this has what to do with replaceable batteries which the EU requests
as of 2027 beyond the fact that the white Americans executed the biggest genocide of all times by eliminating and terrorizing all indigenous
tribes in North America and still commit these crimes? Still stealing
their land and their identity.
Do you understand now how stupid your arguments are? *You* have nothing
to say in this matter and you, anonymous Troll, have no moral right to lecture here or anywhere else.
stories of people being scammed or losing money or being taken
for a ride by companies.
On 2023-06-19 17:48, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 02:37, Chris wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
Successful companies also have to earn repeat sales - you don't do that
by not giving good value for the money.
And yet many, many companies are well known to provide bad service and yet >> still exist. Big companies serve their shareholders not customers.
Bleak attitude. Companies that treat their clients poorly disappear
when the competition does better.
On 2023-06-20 03:11, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 23:39, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 17:48, Chris wrote:
Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
Whereas governments never extract money from people. I willingly give >>>>>>> money to companies. Not the same thing AT ALL as governments TAKING my >>>>>>> money.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's
good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations.
Whereas governments always know what is best for everyone and never exploit
people.
You are a fool if you believe that. Or a socialist. Probably both. Which
explains a lot.
Consumers in a free society have every right to decide what they want to
spend their money on. It is no one else’s business.
Yeah man, I really want governments telling me what to buy. Telling >>>>>>> companies which connectors and batteries their products should have. That
is NOT “leadership”. It is a sign of a government that is WAY >>>>>>> out-of-control.
Someone's feeling a little triggered...
People should react when governments go too far in regulation. There is >>>>> a balance between too little and too much - and the EU proposed rules >>>>> are too much - just as the USB-C rule.
It's funny you consider USB-C cables regulation as government overstepping >>>> when there's so much wrong with US government where they're not doing
enough. That's also an outrage
It all comes down to perspective.
And your perspective is that people have to be mandated to make the
choices you think are correct.
Again, that's *not* the point I'm making.
Firstly, it's companies that are being regulated not people. Secondly, it's >> not my choice to decide what's correct or otherwise. I mostly trust
governments to do as they've been mandated to do. That's the point of
democracy. If we don't like it they get voted out. Simple.
Ummmm...no.
Companies may be the ones who have to build what the regulations say,
but the EFFECT is to control consumer choice.
So you DON'T thing this is a good idea?
On 2023-06-20 03:08, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 15:05, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 23:37, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 17:29, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <[email protected]d> wrote:
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want? >>>>>>>>>>The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better >>>>>>>>>> batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what
they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want, which are devices
that are thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time, >>>>>>>>> including phones, laptops, bluetooth headsets & speakers, smoke >>>>>>>>> detectors, cameras and much more.
not offering consumers what they want would be a very stupid business >>>>>>>>> decision.
It’s Apple which tells consumers what they are going to get. I’ve never
seen a poll asking Apple consumers what they want in their next phone. >>>>>>>>
Because you haven't seen one...
...do you really think that Apple DOESN'T to market research?
Fact:
Successful companies succeed by giving people what they want.
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's
good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations. >>>>>>
Ah... ...people are children who need to be told what's good for them. >>>>>
Got it!
Love it how you guys like to reframe things as a strawman argument.
Consumer protections are a thing even in the US; no-one, other than you, is
calling people children.
"consumers often don't know what's good for them"
And?
You really can't see it, can you?
Listen to any consumer podcast, radio programme or TV show and every time they have stories of people being scammed or losing money or being taken
for a ride by companies.
There's a reason why the biggest companies are in the US; they're allowed
to exploit people whether it's their employees or customers or clients.
Yes regulation stifles competition to a degree and that's a good thing.
Rampant capitalism is harmful on many levels.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 17:48, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 02:37, Chris wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
Successful companies also have to earn repeat sales - you don't do that >>>> by not giving good value for the money.
And yet many, many companies are well known to provide bad service and yet >>> still exist. Big companies serve their shareholders not customers.
Bleak attitude. Companies that treat their clients poorly disappear
when the competition does better.
Really? How come microsoft are still here?
So the EU is mandating removable batteries to come in in 4 years...
...when battery technology will undoubtedly be even better than today...
...where smartphones MIGHT need one battery replacement for their entire useful life...
...and you think that's a sensible use of government power?
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb sticks:
On 6/20/2023 4:35 AM, George wrote:
Am 20.06.23 um 00:18 schrieb Alan Browne:
People should react when governments go too far in regulation. There is >>>> a balance between too little and too much - and the EU proposed rules
are too much - just as the USB-C rule.
The thing is that on the Continent nobody cares about your opinion or
any unqualified opinion from the US/UK. You do not pay taxes here and
you have no right to vote or elect anybody.
And yet if it weren't for the ERP, what we call the Marshall Plan, the
continent would have either frozen or starved to death. Or how
Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin divided up and protected your land,
after fighting for it with our young men, at Yalta to force some peace?
How soon we forget. George now thinks nobody else gets to have an
opinion.
And this has what to do with replaceable batteries which the EU requests
as of 2027
beyond the fact that the white Americans executed the biggest
genocide of all times by eliminating and terrorizing all indigenous
tribes in North America and still commit these crimes? Still stealing
their land and their identity.
Do you understand now how stupid your arguments are? *You* have nothing
to say in this matter and you, anonymous Troll, have no moral right to lecture here or anywhere else.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-20 03:08, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 15:05, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 23:37, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 17:29, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <[email protected]d> wrote:
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want? >>>>>>>>>>>The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better
batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what
they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want, which are devices
that are thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time, >>>>>>>>>> including phones, laptops, bluetooth headsets & speakers, smoke >>>>>>>>>> detectors, cameras and much more.
not offering consumers what they want would be a very stupid business
decision.
It’s Apple which tells consumers what they are going to get. I’ve never
seen a poll asking Apple consumers what they want in their next phone.
Because you haven't seen one...
...do you really think that Apple DOESN'T to market research?
Fact:
Successful companies succeed by giving people what they want.
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's
good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations.
Ah... ...people are children who need to be told what's good for them. >>>>>>
Got it!
Love it how you guys like to reframe things as a strawman argument.
Consumer protections are a thing even in the US; no-one, other than you, is
calling people children.
"consumers often don't know what's good for them"
And?
You really can't see it, can you?
I can see that you're adding 2+2 and getting 17.
Listen to any consumer podcast, radio programme or TV show and every time they have stories of people being scammed or losing money or being taken
for a ride by companies. We have laws and regulations to help people which
is normal and natural.
You're wanting to reduce it down to "calling people children".
On 2023-06-20 12:38, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-20 03:08, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 15:05, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 23:37, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-18 17:29, badgolferman wrote:Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
nospam <[email protected]d> wrote:
In article <u6nrmr$1eipn$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
What is wrong with letting consumers decide what they want? >>>>>>>>>>>>The society wants a closed recycling system for batteries and better
batteries. The industry was not smart enough to offer the consumers what
they wanted.
the industry offers consumers exactly what they want, which are devices
that are thinner, lighter, more reliable and with longer run time, >>>>>>>>>>> including phones, laptops, bluetooth headsets & speakers, smoke >>>>>>>>>>> detectors, cameras and much more.
not offering consumers what they want would be a very stupid business
decision.
It’s Apple which tells consumers what they are going to get. I’ve never
seen a poll asking Apple consumers what they want in their next phone.
Because you haven't seen one...
...do you really think that Apple DOESN'T to market research? >>>>>>>>>
Fact:
Successful companies succeed by giving people what they want. >>>>>>>>
thing.
This is why regulation is so important as consumers often don't know what's
good for them and are often exploited/manipulated by large corporations.
Ah... ...people are children who need to be told what's good for them. >>>>>>>
Got it!
Love it how you guys like to reframe things as a strawman argument. >>>>>>
Consumer protections are a thing even in the US; no-one, other than you, is
calling people children.
"consumers often don't know what's good for them"
And?
You really can't see it, can you?
I can see that you're adding 2+2 and getting 17.
Listen to any consumer podcast, radio programme or TV show and every time
they have stories of people being scammed or losing money or being taken
for a ride by companies. We have laws and regulations to help people which >> is normal and natural.
You're wanting to reduce it down to "calling people children".
How is offering people non-easily-user-replaceable batteries, "scamming" anyone?
On 2023-06-20 15:49, Chris wrote:
Yes regulation stifles competition to a degree and that's a good thing.
Stifling competition is never a good idea.
Rampant capitalism is harmful on many levels.
Why there are regulations. Problem is governments putting in too many regulations.
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
Listen to any consumer podcast, radio programme or TV show and every time
they have stories of people being scammed or losing money or being taken
for a ride by companies.
Which are always local home repair/appliance repair/auto repair companies, etc. NOT billion dollar, world famous, multinational consumer products companies.
No one is being “scammed or losing money or being taken for a ride” when buying a name-brand product of any kind. No one is saying that Samsung refridgerators are a scam. No one is losing money from buying Apple headphones. No one is being taken for a ride from buying a G.E. toaster oven.
There are plenty of choices on the market. You buy whatever you like and
can afford. You can also return the product to where you bought it within
30 days and get your money back.
On 2023-06-20 15:57, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 17:48, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 02:37, Chris wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
Successful companies also have to earn repeat sales - you don't do that >>>>> by not giving good value for the money.
And yet many, many companies are well known to provide bad service and yet >>>> still exist. Big companies serve their shareholders not customers.
Bleak attitude. Companies that treat their clients poorly disappear
when the competition does better.
Really? How come microsoft are still here?
How specifically does MS treat their clients poorly?
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-20 15:57, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 17:48, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 02:37, Chris wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
Successful companies also have to earn repeat sales - you don't do that >>>>>> by not giving good value for the money.
And yet many, many companies are well known to provide bad service and yet
still exist. Big companies serve their shareholders not customers.
Bleak attitude. Companies that treat their clients poorly disappear
when the competition does better.
Really? How come microsoft are still here?
How specifically does MS treat their clients poorly?
Have you been alive in the last 20 years? MS only survives because it is a pseudo-monopoly and there's effectively no choice. In recent years it's improved its products and service, but that's after decades of market manipulation etc.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-20 15:49, Chris wrote:
Yes regulation stifles competition to a degree and that's a good thing.
Stifling competition is never a good idea.
I disagree.
Rampant capitalism is harmful on many levels.
Why there are regulations. Problem is governments putting in too many
regulations.
I guess that's where we'll have to disagree.
On 2023-06-21 03:02, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-20 15:49, Chris wrote:
Yes regulation stifles competition to a degree and that's a good thing. >>>Stifling competition is never a good idea.
I disagree.
W/o foundation.
Rampant capitalism is harmful on many levels.
Why there are regulations. Problem is governments putting in too many
regulations.
I guess that's where we'll have to disagree.
Operate a business and get back to me.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-21 03:02, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-20 15:49, Chris wrote:
Yes regulation stifles competition to a degree and that's a good thing. >>>>Stifling competition is never a good idea.
I disagree.
W/o foundation.
Rampant capitalism is harmful on many levels.
Why there are regulations. Problem is governments putting in too many >>>> regulations.
I guess that's where we'll have to disagree.
Operate a business and get back to me.
Thousands of new businesses are started every year. There's no issue.
On 2023-06-21 17:30, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-21 03:02, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-20 15:49, Chris wrote:
Yes regulation stifles competition to a degree and that's a good thing. >>>>>Stifling competition is never a good idea.
I disagree.
W/o foundation.
Crickets noted.
Rampant capitalism is harmful on many levels.
Why there are regulations. Problem is governments putting in too many >>>>> regulations.
I guess that's where we'll have to disagree.
Operate a business and get back to me.
Thousands of new businesses are started every year. There's no issue.
Whoosh. Every new regulation is a cost borne by the company and passed
on to customers.
They are also huge distractions to the company that is
striving to take their product or business somewhere - but then have to attend to the new rule. Often compliance is expensive and time
consuming. And too often the new rule doesn't really address a real
problem at all.
So any rule or regulation that is pushed too far is a tax on everyone -
the business and its customers.
As to businesses started every year, rules and regulations that go too
far raise the barrier to entry of new businesses and this stifles
competition and innovation. That is: anti-consumer.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 17:48, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 02:37, Chris wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
Successful companies also have to earn repeat sales - you don't do that >>>> by not giving good value for the money.
And yet many, many companies are well known to provide bad service and yet >>> still exist. Big companies serve their shareholders not customers.
Bleak attitude. Companies that treat their clients poorly disappear
when the competition does better.
Really? How come microsoft are still here?
Have you been alive in the last 20 years? MS only survives because it is a pseudo-monopoly and there's effectively no choice. In recent years it's improved its products and service, but that's after decades of market manipulation etc.
On 2023-06-21 07:53, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-20 15:57, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 17:48, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 02:37, Chris wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
Successful companies also have to earn repeat sales - you don't do that >>>>>>> by not giving good value for the money.
And yet many, many companies are well known to provide bad service and yet
still exist. Big companies serve their shareholders not customers.
Bleak attitude. Companies that treat their clients poorly disappear >>>>> when the competition does better.
Really? How come microsoft are still here?
How specifically does MS treat their clients poorly?
Have you been alive in the last 20 years? MS only survives because it is a >> pseudo-monopoly and there's effectively no choice. In recent years it's
improved its products and service, but that's after decades of market
manipulation etc.
I've used MS products since the 80's beginning with MS-DOS and various
s/w they provided for the nascent PC.
While they certainly didn't have the most robust OS in the world, they
did (eventually) come out with a very good office suite. We switched
(as a large co.) from Lotus-1-2-3 and WordPerfect to MS Office sometime
in the mid 90's.
They are (warts and all) very good products.
Certainly Excel beats the
crap out of Apple's milquetoast Numbers.
Powerpoint is better than Keynote (IMO) but I haven't used Keynote
enough in the last 5 years or so to see if it's gotten better (I doubt
it - this is just not Apple's wheelhouse).
Other MS products that are very good: Outlook (very powerful features
beyond what most people use), Exchange, etc. and so on.
Do I like MS? Not so much - though the departure of Balmer certainly
makes the corporate look much better. Satya Nadella has taken
leadership and organization up a huge notch.
But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-21 07:53, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-20 15:57, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-19 17:48, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:Bleak attitude. Companies that treat their clients poorly disappear >>>>>> when the competition does better.
On 2023-06-19 02:37, Chris wrote:
Successful companies are good at extracting money from people. Not the same
thing.
Successful companies also have to earn repeat sales - you don't do that
by not giving good value for the money.
And yet many, many companies are well known to provide bad service and yet
still exist. Big companies serve their shareholders not customers. >>>>>>
Really? How come microsoft are still here?
How specifically does MS treat their clients poorly?
Have you been alive in the last 20 years? MS only survives because it is a >>> pseudo-monopoly and there's effectively no choice. In recent years it's
improved its products and service, but that's after decades of market
manipulation etc.
I've used MS products since the 80's beginning with MS-DOS and various
s/w they provided for the nascent PC.
While they certainly didn't have the most robust OS in the world, they
did (eventually) come out with a very good office suite. We switched
(as a large co.) from Lotus-1-2-3 and WordPerfect to MS Office sometime
in the mid 90's.
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, Ami Pro, Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad.
They are (warts and all) very good products.
Not in the 90s, but in the last 10 years or so, yes they are very good. I used to try to struggle with openoffice, but it's so far behind the curve now.
Certainly Excel beats the
crap out of Apple's milquetoast Numbers.
Powerpoint is better than Keynote (IMO) but I haven't used Keynote
enough in the last 5 years or so to see if it's gotten better (I doubt
it - this is just not Apple's wheelhouse).
Other MS products that are very good: Outlook (very powerful features
beyond what most people use), Exchange, etc. and so on.
New outlook is not great, certainly on the mac.
Do I like MS? Not so much - though the departure of Balmer certainly
makes the corporate look much better. Satya Nadella has taken
leadership and organization up a huge notch.
Agree.
But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, it simply disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-21 17:30, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-21 03:02, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-20 15:49, Chris wrote:
Yes regulation stifles competition to a degree and that's a good thing. >>>>>>Stifling competition is never a good idea.
I disagree.
W/o foundation.
Crickets noted.
Response unnecessary.
Rampant capitalism is harmful on many levels.
Why there are regulations. Problem is governments putting in too many >>>>>> regulations.
I guess that's where we'll have to disagree.
Operate a business and get back to me.
Thousands of new businesses are started every year. There's no issue.
Whoosh. Every new regulation is a cost borne by the company and passed
on to customers.
Every regulation is there to protect someone/something.
Monetary cost is not the most important issue.
They are also huge distractions to the company that is
striving to take their product or business somewhere - but then have to
attend to the new rule. Often compliance is expensive and time
consuming. And too often the new rule doesn't really address a real
problem at all.
Are you really arguing that companies should self-regulate? Yeah, that's
gone *really*well historically. smh.
So any rule or regulation that is pushed too far is a tax on everyone -
the business and its customers.
As to businesses started every year, rules and regulations that go too
far raise the barrier to entry of new businesses and this stifles
competition and innovation. That is: anti-consumer.
Lol. What a joke! Regulations are now "anti-consumer". Whatever you're on it's strong stuff!
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, Ami Pro,
Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad.
OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was
sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 on my indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small entourage (2
or 3 people).
But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I
certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, it simply >> disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?
I have used their "forum" (whatever) to get answers to issues with Mac
Office s/w. Indeed there were many of us telling them to make a UI
change in Excel and they buckled under and fixed it (IIRC some
unnecessary and annoying animation when doing something in a spreadsheet).
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to fix them.
I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the
business.
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes. https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, Ami Pro, >>> Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad.
OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was
sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 on my
indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small entourage (2
or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular person in those days.
But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I
certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, it simply >>> disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to fix them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on poorly designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the
business.
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes. https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, Ami Pro, >>> Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad.
OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was
sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 on my
indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small entourage (2
or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular person in those days.
But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I
certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, it simply >>> disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to fix them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on poorly designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the
business.
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes. https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I have used their "forum" (whatever) to get answers to issues with Mac
Office s/w. Indeed there were many of us telling them to make a UI
change in Excel and they buckled under and fixed it (IIRC some
unnecessary and annoying animation when doing something in a spreadsheet). >>
On 2023-06-23 00:59, Chris wrote:
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to fix
them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on
poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the
business.
I'm always skeptical when someone claims there are "loads" of issues...
...but doesn't actually cite any single one.
On 2023-06-23 12:14, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 00:59, Chris wrote:
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to fix >>> them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on
poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the
business.
I'm always skeptical when someone claims there are "loads" of issues...
...but doesn't actually cite any single one.
Microsoft do all the citing you need on their "fixes and workarounds"
report online.
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, Ami Pro, >>>> Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad.
OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was
sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 on my
indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small entourage (2 >>> or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular
person in those days.
You do you.
But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I
certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, it simply
disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to fix
them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on poorly >> designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the
business.
I recall in the Borland Pascal and C compilers that there was a "quirks" pragma so that MS bugs that had been worked around in source code would
still work...
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
In my current co. spreadsheets are (to me) not complex. To my
accountant and bookkeeper they are mind boggling deep and complex. (Yet
- when they need info, I produce it out of the spreadsheets in a few
seconds. And when they learn a new trick that I show them, they adopt it.)
In my former co. (where I was an employee) the spreadsheets on a project
bid were deep, wide and very complex. Engineering spreadsheets could
get out of hand pretty quickly as well.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of 20,000 genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting".
...if his "issues" are the same as the one in the Register article
(which I ended up reading)...
...it boils down to idiocy.
Their alleged "issue" was that Excel will autoformat something like
"dec1" into a DATE (displayed as "Dec-1")...
It's not alleged. It's real and human gene naming consortium has been
forced to rename genes because of a "feature".
...except that you can completely override that feature.
False. It would be nice to have a toggle in the settings, however.
On 2023-06-23 09:20, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-23 12:14, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 00:59, Chris wrote:
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to fix >>>> them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on
poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the
business.
I'm always skeptical when someone claims there are "loads" of issues...
...but doesn't actually cite any single one.
Microsoft do all the citing you need on their "fixes and workarounds"
report online.
Well...
...if his "issues" are the same as the one in the Register article
(which I ended up reading)...
...it boils down to idiocy.
Their alleged "issue" was that Excel will autoformat something like
"dec1" into a DATE (displayed as "Dec-1")...
...except that you can completely override that feature.
In article <u756fn$3rei2$[email protected]>, Chris <[email protected]>
wrote:
...if his "issues" are the same as the one in the Register article
(which I ended up reading)...
...it boils down to idiocy.
Their alleged "issue" was that Excel will autoformat something like
"dec1" into a DATE (displayed as "Dec-1")...
It's not alleged. It's real and human gene naming consortium has been
forced to rename genes because of a "feature".
that 'feature' benefits just about everyone who uses excel, which is
why it's there.
...except that you can completely override that feature.
False. It would be nice to have a toggle in the settings, however.
as nice as it may be, there is insufficient demand.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, Ami Pro, >>>>> Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad.
OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was
sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 on my >>>> indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small entourage (2 >>>> or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular
person in those days.
You do you.
But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I >>>>> certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, it simply
disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to fix >>> them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on poorly >>> designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the
business.
I recall in the Borland Pascal and C compilers that there was a "quirks"
pragma so that MS bugs that had been worked around in source code would
still work...
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of 20,000 genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting".
On 2023-06-23 14:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of
20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as
it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting".
Edge case for something Excel was not aimed at. Many more people need
dates recognized than there are gene researchers...
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 09:20, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-23 12:14, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 00:59, Chris wrote:
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to fix >>>>> them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on
poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the
business.
I'm always skeptical when someone claims there are "loads" of issues... >>>>
...but doesn't actually cite any single one.
Microsoft do all the citing you need on their "fixes and workarounds"
report online.
Well...
...if his "issues" are the same as the one in the Register article
(which I ended up reading)...
...it boils down to idiocy.
Their alleged "issue" was that Excel will autoformat something like
"dec1" into a DATE (displayed as "Dec-1")...
It's not alleged. It's real and human gene naming consortium has been
forced to rename genes because of a "feature".
...except that you can completely override that feature.
False. It would be nice to have a toggle in the settings, however.
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3,
Ami Pro,
Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad.
OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was >>>>> sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3
on my
indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small
entourage (2
or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular >>>> person in those days.
You do you.
But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I >>>>>> certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it,
it simply
disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to
fix
them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on
poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the
business.
I recall in the Borland Pascal and C compilers that there was a "quirks" >>> pragma so that MS bugs that had been worked around in source code would
still work...
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of
20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as
it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time to
see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem entirely:
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/office/import-or-export-text-txt-or-csv-files-5250ac4c-663c-47ce-937b-339e391393ba>
On 6/23/2023 10:52 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was >>>>>> sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 >>>>>> on my
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, >>>>>>> Ami Pro,
Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad. >>>>>>
indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small
entourage (2
or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular >>>>> person in those days.
You do you.
But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I >>>>>>> certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, >>>>>>> it simply
disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to >>>>> fix
them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on
poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the
business.
I recall in the Borland Pascal and C compilers that there was a "quirks" >>>> pragma so that MS bugs that had been worked around in source code would >>>> still work...
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of
20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and >>> because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as
it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time to
see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem entirely:
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/office/import-or-export-text-txt-or-csv-files-5250ac4c-663c-47ce-937b-339e391393ba>
As an excel user, having switched everything from Lotus incidentally, I
found this claim almost nonsensical when I first read it.
How could a
scientist with enough intelligence to be working on genetic research not
know how to do this, or at least try to figure it out.
It is not a
difficult problem and for anyone who uses the software quite easily
done. I figured it must be a hoax of sorts, but since it really is irrelevant to any useful discussion here decided to let it ride. It's
one of those "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true" things.
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, Ami Pro,
Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad.
OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was >>>>> sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 on my >>>>> indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small entourage (2 >>>>> or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular >>>> person in those days.
You do you.
But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I >>>>>> certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, it simply
disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to fix >>>> them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on poorly >>>> designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the
business.
I recall in the Borland Pascal and C compilers that there was a "quirks" >>> pragma so that MS bugs that had been worked around in source code would
still work...
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of 20,000 >> genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as it's >> a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time to
see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem entirely:
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/office/import-or-export-text-txt-or-csv-files-5250ac4c-663c-47ce-937b-339e391393ba>
On 2023-06-23 14:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of 20,000 >> genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as it's >> a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting".
Edge case for something Excel was not aimed at. Many more people need
dates recognized than there are gene researchers...
If it's important enough in the genetics research world, I'd bet there
is a professor somewhere with the pull to get high level access at MS
and make the case to have an option to disable this.
Have you tried it in LibreOffice?
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was >>>>>> sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 on my >>>>>> indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, Ami Pro,
Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad. >>>>>>
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small entourage (2 >>>>>> or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular >>>>> person in those days.
You do you.
But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I >>>>>>> certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, it simply
disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to fix >>>>> them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the
business.
I recall in the Borland Pascal and C compilers that there was a "quirks" >>>> pragma so that MS bugs that had been worked around in source code would >>>> still work...
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of 20,000 >>> genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and >>> because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as it's >>> a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time to
see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem entirely:
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/office/import-or-export-text-txt-or-csv-files-5250ac4c-663c-47ce-937b-339e391393ba>
Lol. Almost everyone simply double-clicks CSV file which excel has made itself the default application for. The wizard does not warn you that "General" allows excel to modify individual cells. Which is dumb.
Please point to where it says that any string that looks like dates in any cell it's transparently and irreversibly altered.
sticks <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/23/2023 10:52 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time to
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was >>>>>>> sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 >>>>>>> on my
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, >>>>>>>> Ami Pro,
Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad. >>>>>>>
indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small
entourage (2
or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular >>>>>> person in those days.
You do you.
But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I >>>>>>>> certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, >>>>>>>> it simply
disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to >>>>>> fix
them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on >>>>>> poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the >>>>>> business.
I recall in the Borland Pascal and C compilers that there was a "quirks" >>>>> pragma so that MS bugs that had been worked around in source code would >>>>> still work...
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to >>>> excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of
20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and >>>> because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any >>>> future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as
it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting". >>>
see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem entirely: >>>
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/office/import-or-export-text-txt-or-csv-files-5250ac4c-663c-47ce-937b-339e391393ba>
As an excel user, having switched everything from Lotus incidentally, I
found this claim almost nonsensical when I first read it.
What's nonsensical is to have data of different types within the same
column. Only excel thinks that's sensible.
How could a
scientist with enough intelligence to be working on genetic research not
know how to do this, or at least try to figure it out.
Because they don't see it. It is modifying the data *quietly*. If excel did
a pop-up saying "I've spotted a few dates do you want to convert them?"
that would be better UX.
When you've got a table with 20,000 rows and 20-30 columns you're not going to check every single cell.
It is not a
difficult problem and for anyone who uses the software quite easily
done. I figured it must be a hoax of sorts, but since it really is
irrelevant to any useful discussion here decided to let it ride. It's
one of those "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true" things.
Nope it's very true. I've had to inform many colleagues and PhD students
that excel does this. I tell them to never use excel for genetic analysis except as a quick view and never save changes.
There are several published articles on this including in Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02211-4 https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-016-1044-7 https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-5-80
On 2023-06-23 16:06, nospam wrote:
In article <u756fn$3rei2$[email protected]>, Chris <[email protected]>
wrote:
...if his "issues" are the same as the one in the Register article
(which I ended up reading)...
...it boils down to idiocy.
Their alleged "issue" was that Excel will autoformat something like
"dec1" into a DATE (displayed as "Dec-1")...
It's not alleged. It's real and human gene naming consortium has been
forced to rename genes because of a "feature".
that 'feature' benefits just about everyone who uses excel, which is
why it's there.
...except that you can completely override that feature.
False. It would be nice to have a toggle in the settings, however.
as nice as it may be, there is insufficient demand.
It's not necessary, either.
'Note: When Excel opens a .csv file, it uses the current default data
format settings to interpret how to import each column of data. If you
want more flexibility in converting columns to different data formats,
you can use the Import Text Wizard. For example, the format of a data
column in the .csv file may be MDY, but Excel's default data format is
YMD, or you want to convert a column of numbers that contains leading
zeros to text so you can preserve the leading zeros. To force Excel to
run the Import Text Wizard, you can change the file name extension from
.csv to .txt before you open it, or you can import a text file by
connecting to it (for more information, see the following section).'
It is literally built in to Excel to handle the EXACT situation that the article claims was such a showstopper.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 14:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of 20,000 >>> genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and >>> because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as it's >>> a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting".
Edge case for something Excel was not aimed at. Many more people need
dates recognized than there are gene researchers...
If it's important enough in the genetics research world, I'd bet there
is a professor somewhere with the pull to get high level access at MS
and make the case to have an option to disable this.
You have a very skewed view of the influence of University professors.
Have you tried it in LibreOffice?
LO is the same
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 16:06, nospam wrote:
In article <u756fn$3rei2$[email protected]>, Chris <[email protected]>
wrote:
...if his "issues" are the same as the one in the Register article
(which I ended up reading)...
...it boils down to idiocy.
Their alleged "issue" was that Excel will autoformat something like
"dec1" into a DATE (displayed as "Dec-1")...
It's not alleged. It's real and human gene naming consortium has been
forced to rename genes because of a "feature".
that 'feature' benefits just about everyone who uses excel, which is
why it's there.
...except that you can completely override that feature.
False. It would be nice to have a toggle in the settings, however.
as nice as it may be, there is insufficient demand.
It's not necessary, either.
'Note: When Excel opens a .csv file, it uses the current default data
format settings to interpret how to import each column of data. If you
want more flexibility in converting columns to different data formats,
you can use the Import Text Wizard. For example, the format of a data
column in the .csv file may be MDY, but Excel's default data format is
YMD, or you want to convert a column of numbers that contains leading
zeros to text so you can preserve the leading zeros. To force Excel to
run the Import Text Wizard, you can change the file name extension from
.csv to .txt before you open it, or you can import a text file by
connecting to it (for more information, see the following section).'
It is literally built in to Excel to handle the EXACT situation that the
article claims was such a showstopper.
Of course there's always things you *can* do, but the reality is different. People, even highly educated ones, don't do what's best they do what's easiest. Excel helps them do that, but also has serious side effects.
I will never accept that it is correct for a column of data in a table
should have mixed types of data. A database would throw an error and excel shouldn't do it.
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
sticks <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/23/2023 10:52 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time to >>>> see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem entirely: >>>>
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was >>>>>>>> sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 >>>>>>>> on my
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, >>>>>>>>> Ami Pro,
Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad. >>>>>>>>
indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small
entourage (2
or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular >>>>>>> person in those days.
You do you.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I >>>>>>>>> certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, >>>>>>>>> it simply
disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds. >>>>>>>>
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to >>>>>>> fix
them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on >>>>>>> poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the >>>>>>> business.
I recall in the Borland Pascal and C compilers that there was a "quirks" >>>>>> pragma so that MS bugs that had been worked around in source code would >>>>>> still work...
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have >>>>>>> negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to >>>>> excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of >>>>> 20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and >>>>> because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any >>>>> future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as >>>>> it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the >>>>> analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting". >>>>
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/office/import-or-export-text-txt-or-csv-files-5250ac4c-663c-47ce-937b-339e391393ba>
As an excel user, having switched everything from Lotus incidentally, I
found this claim almost nonsensical when I first read it.
What's nonsensical is to have data of different types within the same
column. Only excel thinks that's sensible.
You really have not fucking clue.
How could a
scientist with enough intelligence to be working on genetic research not >>> know how to do this, or at least try to figure it out.
Because they don't see it. It is modifying the data *quietly*. If excel did >> a pop-up saying "I've spotted a few dates do you want to convert them?"
that would be better UX.
When you've got a table with 20,000 rows and 20-30 columns you're not going >> to check every single cell.
You don't need to "check every single cell".
If your data is properly ordered, you KNOW what is in each column.
It is not a
difficult problem and for anyone who uses the software quite easily
done. I figured it must be a hoax of sorts, but since it really is
irrelevant to any useful discussion here decided to let it ride. It's
one of those "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true" things.
Nope it's very true. I've had to inform many colleagues and PhD students
that excel does this. I tell them to never use excel for genetic analysis
except as a quick view and never save changes.
Because you're an ignoramus.
There are several published articles on this including in Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02211-4
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-016-1044-7 >> https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-5-80 >>
Shared ignorance is still ignorance.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
sticks <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/23/2023 10:52 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time to >>>>> see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem entirely: >>>>>
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was >>>>>>>>> sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 >>>>>>>>> on my
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, >>>>>>>>>> Ami Pro,
Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad. >>>>>>>>>
indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small >>>>>>>>> entourage (2
or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular
person in those days.
You do you.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I
certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, >>>>>>>>>> it simply
disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds. >>>>>>>>>
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to >>>>>>>> fix
them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on >>>>>>>> poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the >>>>>>>> business.
I recall in the Borland Pascal and C compilers that there was a "quirks"
pragma so that MS bugs that had been worked around in source code would >>>>>>> still work...
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have >>>>>>>> negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to >>>>>> excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of >>>>>> 20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any >>>>>> future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as >>>>>> it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the >>>>>> analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting". >>>>>
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/office/import-or-export-text-txt-or-csv-files-5250ac4c-663c-47ce-937b-339e391393ba>
As an excel user, having switched everything from Lotus incidentally, I >>>> found this claim almost nonsensical when I first read it.
What's nonsensical is to have data of different types within the same
column. Only excel thinks that's sensible.
You really have not fucking clue.
How could a
scientist with enough intelligence to be working on genetic research not >>>> know how to do this, or at least try to figure it out.
Because they don't see it. It is modifying the data *quietly*. If excel did >>> a pop-up saying "I've spotted a few dates do you want to convert them?"
that would be better UX.
When you've got a table with 20,000 rows and 20-30 columns you're not going >>> to check every single cell.
You don't need to "check every single cell".
If your data is properly ordered, you KNOW what is in each column.
It is not a
difficult problem and for anyone who uses the software quite easily
done. I figured it must be a hoax of sorts, but since it really is
irrelevant to any useful discussion here decided to let it ride. It's >>>> one of those "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true" things.
Nope it's very true. I've had to inform many colleagues and PhD students >>> that excel does this. I tell them to never use excel for genetic analysis >>> except as a quick view and never save changes.
Because you're an ignoramus.
Ad hominem. You have no argument, clearly.
Have you tried it in LibreOffice?
LO is the same
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time to
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was >>>>>>> sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 on my >>>>>>> indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, Ami Pro,
Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad. >>>>>>>
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small entourage (2
or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular >>>>>> person in those days.
You do you.
But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I >>>>>>>> certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, it simply
disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to fix >>>>>> them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the >>>>>> business.
I recall in the Borland Pascal and C compilers that there was a "quirks" >>>>> pragma so that MS bugs that had been worked around in source code would >>>>> still work...
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have
negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to >>>> excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of 20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and >>>> because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any >>>> future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as it's >>>> a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting". >>>
see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem entirely: >>>
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/office/import-or-export-text-txt-or-csv-files-5250ac4c-663c-47ce-937b-339e391393ba>
Lol. Almost everyone simply double-clicks CSV file which excel has made
itself the default application for. The wizard does not warn you that
"General" allows excel to modify individual cells. Which is dumb.
The fact that "everyone" does something doesn't mean that there aren't
better ways.
Please point to where it says that any string that looks like dates in any >> cell it's transparently and irreversibly altered.
I don't need to.
Anyone who needs to avoid the default "double-click on a csv file" behaviour... ...can.
If they have a modicum of intelligence.
Which apparently lets you out.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time to >>>> see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem entirely: >>>>
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was >>>>>>>> sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 on my
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, Ami Pro,
Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad. >>>>>>>>
indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small entourage (2
or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular >>>>>>> person in those days.
You do you.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I >>>>>>>>> certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, it simply
disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds. >>>>>>>>
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to fix
them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the >>>>>>> business.
I recall in the Borland Pascal and C compilers that there was a "quirks" >>>>>> pragma so that MS bugs that had been worked around in source code would >>>>>> still work...
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have >>>>>>> negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to >>>>> excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of 20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and >>>>> because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any >>>>> future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the >>>>> analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting". >>>>
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/office/import-or-export-text-txt-or-csv-files-5250ac4c-663c-47ce-937b-339e391393ba>
Lol. Almost everyone simply double-clicks CSV file which excel has made
itself the default application for. The wizard does not warn you that
"General" allows excel to modify individual cells. Which is dumb.
The fact that "everyone" does something doesn't mean that there aren't
better ways.
Please point to where it says that any string that looks like dates in any >>> cell it's transparently and irreversibly altered.
I don't need to.
Anyone who needs to avoid the default "double-click on a csv file"
behaviour... ...can.
If they have a modicum of intelligence.
Which apparently lets you out.
FFS! I know how to avoid it, because I highlighted it. I've known about it for decades.
It's well known spreadsheets are dangerous tools in the wrong hands, but of course you're perfect so everyone else is an idiot. Breathtaking arrogance, but I'd expect nothing else on here.
On 2023-06-24 03:57, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
sticks <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/23/2023 10:52 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was >>>>>>>>>> sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 >>>>>>>>>> on my
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, >>>>>>>>>>> Ami Pro,
Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad. >>>>>>>>>>
indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small >>>>>>>>>> entourage (2
or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular
person in those days.
You do you.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly".
Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I
certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, >>>>>>>>>>> it simply
disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds. >>>>>>>>>>
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to >>>>>>>>> fix
them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on >>>>>>>>> poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the >>>>>>>>> business.
I recall in the Borland Pascal and C compilers that there was a "quirks"
pragma so that MS bugs that had been worked around in source code would
still work...
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have >>>>>>>>> negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to >>>>>>> excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of >>>>>>> 20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any >>>>>>> future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as >>>>>>> it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the >>>>>>> analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time to >>>>>> see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem entirely:
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/office/import-or-export-text-txt-or-csv-files-5250ac4c-663c-47ce-937b-339e391393ba>
As an excel user, having switched everything from Lotus incidentally, I >>>>> found this claim almost nonsensical when I first read it.
What's nonsensical is to have data of different types within the same
column. Only excel thinks that's sensible.
You really have not fucking clue.
How could a
scientist with enough intelligence to be working on genetic research not >>>>> know how to do this, or at least try to figure it out.
Because they don't see it. It is modifying the data *quietly*. If excel did
a pop-up saying "I've spotted a few dates do you want to convert them?" >>>> that would be better UX.
When you've got a table with 20,000 rows and 20-30 columns you're not going
to check every single cell.
You don't need to "check every single cell".
If your data is properly ordered, you KNOW what is in each column.
What?
No reply?
Shocking.
It is not a
difficult problem and for anyone who uses the software quite easily
done. I figured it must be a hoax of sorts, but since it really is
irrelevant to any useful discussion here decided to let it ride. It's >>>>> one of those "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true" things.
Nope it's very true. I've had to inform many colleagues and PhD students >>>> that excel does this. I tell them to never use excel for genetic analysis >>>> except as a quick view and never save changes.
Because you're an ignoramus.
Ad hominem. You have no argument, clearly.
I already made the argument, you ignoramus.
You told your colleagues WRONG...
...because you are an ignoramus.
But the real fault that lies at your feet, is that you appear to LIKE
being ignorant.
Excel is not a database, you incredible ignoramus.
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of
20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as
it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time to
see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem entirely:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-24 03:57, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
sticks <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/23/2023 10:52 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-23 03:59, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-22 14:06, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:OUAT: I was sitting in Schiphol KLM business lounge - Bill Gates was
Lotus really missed out on the opportunity in those days. 1-2-3, >>>>>>>>>>>> Ami Pro,
Approach we're all better then office. Ppt was generally very bad. >>>>>>>>>>>
sitting about 10 feet from me. I was doing expenses ... in 1-2-3 >>>>>>>>>>> on my
indestructible Toshiba laptop. mid 90's.
I should have said hello. I'm not shy. But he had a small >>>>>>>>>>> entourage (2
or 3 people).
Fun fact. I would have given him a very hard stare. BG wasn't a popular
person in those days.
You do you.
No. OTOH - What's there to "fix"?But I don't believe they treat their clients "poorly". >>>>>>>>>>>>Have you had anything fixed by them or a useful response from them? I
certainly haven't.
If there's an issue my work's IT can't deal and they escalate it, >>>>>>>>>>>> it simply
disappears into the void. You just learn to have workarounds. >>>>>>>>>>>
There are loads of known issues and bugs in Excel, but MS refuses to >>>>>>>>>> fix
them. I suspect it's because so many businesses are so dependent on >>>>>>>>>> poorly
designed spreadsheets that any bug fixes would seriously affect the >>>>>>>>>> business.
I recall in the Borland Pascal and C compilers that there was a "quirks"
pragma so that MS bugs that had been worked around in source code would
still work...
Excel has made biological research harder and arguably could have >>>>>>>>>> negatively affected research into certain genes.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/06/excel_gene_names/
I didn't open the link - I'll stipulate ...
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of >>>>>>>> 20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as >>>>>>>> it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the >>>>>>>> analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time to >>>>>>> see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem entirely:
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/office/import-or-export-text-txt-or-csv-files-5250ac4c-663c-47ce-937b-339e391393ba>
As an excel user, having switched everything from Lotus incidentally, I >>>>>> found this claim almost nonsensical when I first read it.
What's nonsensical is to have data of different types within the same >>>>> column. Only excel thinks that's sensible.
You really have not fucking clue.
How could a
scientist with enough intelligence to be working on genetic research not >>>>>> know how to do this, or at least try to figure it out.
Because they don't see it. It is modifying the data *quietly*. If excel did
a pop-up saying "I've spotted a few dates do you want to convert them?" >>>>> that would be better UX.
When you've got a table with 20,000 rows and 20-30 columns you're not going
to check every single cell.
You don't need to "check every single cell".
If your data is properly ordered, you KNOW what is in each column.
What?
No reply?
Shocking.
I, and other researchers, know full well what's in the column. Strings of gene names. Excel in its wisdom thinks it knows better.
Where in the description "General" does it say "and I'll change data irreversibly in cell A15342 willy nilly because I think I know better"? Where?!
It is not aNope it's very true. I've had to inform many colleagues and PhD students >>>>> that excel does this. I tell them to never use excel for genetic analysis >>>>> except as a quick view and never save changes.
difficult problem and for anyone who uses the software quite easily >>>>>> done. I figured it must be a hoax of sorts, but since it really is >>>>>> irrelevant to any useful discussion here decided to let it ride. It's >>>>>> one of those "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true" things. >>>>>
Because you're an ignoramus.
Ad hominem. You have no argument, clearly.
I already made the argument, you ignoramus.
You told your colleagues WRONG...
...because you are an ignoramus.
But the real fault that lies at your feet, is that you appear to LIKE
being ignorant.
It's funny that you're attacking me when I know exactly what the problem
is. Hence why I raised it and has been the subject of several articles.
I also know that large swathes of those in academic research don't know.
Your blaming me and attacking my intelligence - lol - doesn't change the fact. Your butthurt is not my problem.
I already made the argument, you ignoramus.
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
Lol. Almost everyone simply double-clicks CSV file which excel has made
itself the default application for. The wizard does not warn you that
"General" allows excel to modify individual cells. Which is dumb.
The fact that "everyone" does something doesn't mean that there aren't
better ways.
Please point to where it says that any string that looks like dates in
any
cell it's transparently and irreversibly altered.
I don't need to.
Anyone who needs to avoid the default "double-click on a csv file" behaviour... ...can.
If they have a modicum of intelligence.
Which apparently lets you out.
But I'll now attack your integrity.
In article <u76hil$37gt$[email protected]>, Chris <[email protected]>
wrote:
Have you tried it in LibreOffice?
LO is the same
libre office is open source. modify it to do what you want.
or learn how to use excel.
In article <u76hil$37gt$[email protected]>, Chris <[email protected]>
wrote:
Have you tried it in LibreOffice?
LO is the same
libre office is open source. modify it to do what you want.
or learn how to use excel.
On 2023-06-24 06:34, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
Lol. Almost everyone simply double-clicks CSV file which excel has made
itself the default application for. The wizard does not warn you that
"General" allows excel to modify individual cells. Which is dumb.
Personally .csv for me goes to Google Earth as I log tracks ...
The fact that "everyone" does something doesn't mean that there aren't
better ways.
Please point to where it says that any string that looks like dates in
any
cell it's transparently and irreversibly altered.
enter Dec-12 in a cell. It converts to a date.
Then re-format the cell as text. It converts to the integer offset for
that date.
(Excel for Mac 16.54 (2019)).
In Preferences I can't find anything to defeat this.
One can of course pre-fix with a ' to preserve it in text form.
And (strangely) will still work for date operations.
(eg: in another cell: =A5+1 will give the next day (if the
text date is in A5).
nospam <[email protected]d> wrote:
In article <u76hil$37gt$[email protected]>, Chris <[email protected]>
wrote:
Have you tried it in LibreOffice?
LO is the same
libre office is open source. modify it to do what you want.
What's the point no-one uses it and it's a dead end.
or learn how to use excel.
or even better use the right tool for the right job. Excel isn't it for genetic data.
But I'll now attack your integrity.
On 2023-06-24 06:34, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
Lol. Almost everyone simply double-clicks CSV file which excel has made
itself the default application for. The wizard does not warn you that
"General" allows excel to modify individual cells. Which is dumb.
Personally .csv for me goes to Google Earth as I log tracks ...
The fact that "everyone" does something doesn't mean that there aren't
better ways.
Please point to where it says that any string that looks like dates
in any
cell it's transparently and irreversibly altered.
enter Dec-12 in a cell. It converts to a date.
Then re-format the cell as text. It converts to the integer offset for
that date.
(Excel for Mac 16.54 (2019)).
In Preferences I can't find anything to defeat this.
One can of course pre-fix with a ' to preserve it in text form.
And (strangely) will still work for date operations.
(eg: in another cell: =A5+1 will give the next day (if the
text date is in A5).
I don't need to.
Anyone who needs to avoid the default "double-click on a csv file"
behaviour... ...can.
If they have a modicum of intelligence.
Which apparently lets you out.
Stop being a dick.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-24 06:34, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
Lol. Almost everyone simply double-clicks CSV file which excel has made >>>> itself the default application for. The wizard does not warn you that
"General" allows excel to modify individual cells. Which is dumb.
Personally .csv for me goes to Google Earth as I log tracks ...
The fact that "everyone" does something doesn't mean that there aren't
better ways.
Please point to where it says that any string that looks like dates in >>>> any
cell it's transparently and irreversibly altered.
enter Dec-12 in a cell. It converts to a date.
Then re-format the cell as text. It converts to the integer offset for
that date.
(Excel for Mac 16.54 (2019)).
In Preferences I can't find anything to defeat this.
Thanks for confirming.
One can of course pre-fix with a ' to preserve it in text form.
And (strangely) will still work for date operations.
(eg: in another cell: =A5+1 will give the next day (if the
text date is in A5).
Only possible when entering data manually. Not helpful with data table generated by other software.
On 2023-06-24 06:56, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-24 06:34, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
Lol. Almost everyone simply double-clicks CSV file which excel has made >>>> itself the default application for. The wizard does not warn you that
"General" allows excel to modify individual cells. Which is dumb.
Personally .csv for me goes to Google Earth as I log tracks ...
The fact that "everyone" does something doesn't mean that there
aren't better ways.
Please point to where it says that any string that looks like dates
in any
cell it's transparently and irreversibly altered.
enter Dec-12 in a cell. It converts to a date.
Then re-format the cell as text. It converts to the integer offset
for that date.
(Excel for Mac 16.54 (2019)).
In Preferences I can't find anything to defeat this.
One can of course pre-fix with a ' to preserve it in text form.
And (strangely) will still work for date operations.
(eg: in another cell: =A5+1 will give the next day (if the
text date is in A5).
I don't need to.
Anyone who needs to avoid the default "double-click on a csv file"
behaviour... ...can.
If they have a modicum of intelligence.
Which apparently lets you out.
Stop being a dick.
Calling out ignorance makes one a dick now?
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-24 06:34, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
Lol. Almost everyone simply double-clicks CSV file which excel has made >>>> itself the default application for. The wizard does not warn you that
"General" allows excel to modify individual cells. Which is dumb.
Personally .csv for me goes to Google Earth as I log tracks ...
The fact that "everyone" does something doesn't mean that there aren't
better ways.
Please point to where it says that any string that looks like dates in >>>> any
cell it's transparently and irreversibly altered.
enter Dec-12 in a cell. It converts to a date.
Then re-format the cell as text. It converts to the integer offset for
that date.
(Excel for Mac 16.54 (2019)).
In Preferences I can't find anything to defeat this.
Thanks for confirming.
One can of course pre-fix with a ' to preserve it in text form.
And (strangely) will still work for date operations.
(eg: in another cell: =A5+1 will give the next day (if the
text date is in A5).
Only possible when entering data manually. Not helpful with data table generated by other software.
On 2023-06-24 12:25, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-24 06:56, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-24 06:34, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
Lol. Almost everyone simply double-clicks CSV file which excel has
made
itself the default application for. The wizard does not warn you that >>>>> "General" allows excel to modify individual cells. Which is dumb.
Personally .csv for me goes to Google Earth as I log tracks ...
The fact that "everyone" does something doesn't mean that there
aren't better ways.
Please point to where it says that any string that looks like dates
in any
cell it's transparently and irreversibly altered.
enter Dec-12 in a cell. It converts to a date.
Then re-format the cell as text. It converts to the integer offset
for that date.
(Excel for Mac 16.54 (2019)).
In Preferences I can't find anything to defeat this.
One can of course pre-fix with a ' to preserve it in text form.
And (strangely) will still work for date operations.
(eg: in another cell: =A5+1 will give the next day (if the
text date is in A5).
I don't need to.
Anyone who needs to avoid the default "double-click on a csv file"
behaviour... ...can.
If they have a modicum of intelligence.
Which apparently lets you out.
Stop being a dick.
Calling out ignorance makes one a dick now?
The manner of it certainly does.
On 2023-06-24 11:45, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-24 06:34, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-24 02:32, Chris wrote:
Lol. Almost everyone simply double-clicks CSV file which excel has
made
itself the default application for. The wizard does not warn you that >>>>> "General" allows excel to modify individual cells. Which is dumb.
Personally .csv for me goes to Google Earth as I log tracks ...
The fact that "everyone" does something doesn't mean that there aren't >>>> better ways.
Please point to where it says that any string that looks like dates in >>>>> any
cell it's transparently and irreversibly altered.
enter Dec-12 in a cell. It converts to a date.
Then re-format the cell as text. It converts to the integer offset for >>> that date.
(Excel for Mac 16.54 (2019)).
In Preferences I can't find anything to defeat this.
Thanks for confirming.
One can of course pre-fix with a ' to preserve it in text form.
And (strangely) will still work for date operations.
(eg: in another cell: =A5+1 will give the next day (if the
text date is in A5).
Only possible when entering data manually. Not helpful with data table
generated by other software.
Not at all. You can probably write a simple script or program to do it.
Have you tried it in LibreOffice?
LO is the same
libre office is open source. modify it to do what you want.
What's the point no-one uses it and it's a dead end.
or learn how to use excel.
or even better use the right tool for the right job. Excel isn't it for genetic data.
In article <u7732j$573v$[email protected]>, Chris <[email protected]>
wrote:
Have you tried it in LibreOffice?
LO is the same
libre office is open source. modify it to do what you want.
What's the point no-one uses it and it's a dead end.
maybe so, but you can add or remove whatever functionality you want.
On 2023-06-23 23:52, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of
20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to dates
and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem as
it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as "interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time
to see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem
entirely:
Just created a .csv with the labels mentioned above, imported to excel
with no conversion. I should have tested this earlier.
Perhaps, Chris, you could post an actual gene file that "expresses"[1]
the error for testing?
[1] See what I did there?
nospam wrote:
In article <u7732j$573v$[email protected]>, Chris <[email protected]>
wrote:
Have you tried it in LibreOffice?
LO is the same
libre office is open source. modify it to do what you want.
What's the point no-one uses it and it's a dead end.
maybe so, but you can add or remove whatever functionality you want.
I can't even get it to run on my iPhone. Will things improve
when we get replaceable batteries?
On 24/06/2023 14:45, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-23 23:52, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to >>>> excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of
20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to
dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any >>>> future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem
as it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as
"interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time
to see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem
entirely:
Just created a .csv with the labels mentioned above, imported to excel
with no conversion. I should have tested this earlier.
Perhaps, Chris, you could post an actual gene file that "expresses"[1]
the error for testing?
I've cropped a bit of a typical file, found here that has been annotated
with the GeneIDs:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE95077
I've posted it on here:
https://pastebin.com/UU4xhqwD
Save as a .tsv and then double-click - at least here on my mac - that
opens in Excel with no wizard, no nothing and no warning that data had
been changed. Only only warning as is about "feature loss" if you stick
to using csv formatted (sic) files.
I challenge anyone to count how many errors have been introduced in
under 1 minute. You're not allowed to use Search because the insiduous
nature of this is that a priori a naive user wouldn't know that genes
have been affected in this way. The usual use-case is to eye-ball the data.
This is insiduous because the next step is often to "Save As" an .xlsx
file so any changes made go unnoticed.
[1] See what I did there?
I did ;)
Yes, everything will be sunshine and lollipops when we get “replacable” batteries. For the 5% of people who actually need to replace them.
On 2023-06-25 11:02, Bob Campbell wrote:
Yes, everything will be sunshine and lollipops when we get “replacable” >> batteries. For the 5% of people who actually need to replace them.
That many?
On 24/06/2023 14:45, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-23 23:52, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to >>>> excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of
20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to
dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any >>>> future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem
as it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as
"interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time
to see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem
entirely:
Just created a .csv with the labels mentioned above, imported to excel
with no conversion. I should have tested this earlier.
Perhaps, Chris, you could post an actual gene file that "expresses"[1]
the error for testing?
I've cropped a bit of a typical file, found here that has been annotated
with the GeneIDs:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE95077
I've posted it on here:
https://pastebin.com/UU4xhqwD
Save as a .tsv and then double-click - at least here on my mac - that
opens in Excel with no wizard, no nothing and no warning that data had
been changed. Only only warning as is about "feature loss" if you stick
to using csv formatted (sic) files.
I challenge anyone to count how many errors have been introduced in
under 1 minute. You're not allowed to use Search because the insiduous
nature of this is that a priori a naive user wouldn't know that genes
have been affected in this way. The usual use-case is to eye-ball the data.
This is insiduous because the next step is often to "Save As" an .xlsx
file so any changes made go unnoticed.
On 2023-06-25 03:07, Chris wrote:
On 24/06/2023 14:45, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-23 23:52, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like
dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file
of 20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to
dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now
any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem
as it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the >>>>> analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as
"interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time
to see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem
entirely:
Just created a .csv with the labels mentioned above, imported to
excel with no conversion. I should have tested this earlier.
Perhaps, Chris, you could post an actual gene file that
"expresses"[1] the error for testing?
I've cropped a bit of a typical file, found here that has been
annotated with the GeneIDs:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE95077
I've posted it on here:
https://pastebin.com/UU4xhqwD
Save as a .tsv and then double-click - at least here on my mac - that
opens in Excel with no wizard, no nothing and no warning that data had
been changed. Only only warning as is about "feature loss" if you
stick to using csv formatted (sic) files.
I challenge anyone to count how many errors have been introduced in
under 1 minute. You're not allowed to use Search because the insiduous
nature of this is that a priori a naive user wouldn't know that genes
have been affected in this way. The usual use-case is to eye-ball the
data.
This is insiduous because the next step is often to "Save As" an .xlsx
file so any changes made go unnoticed.
I just downloaded the file; it saved as "GSE95077 Test.txt"
I opened Excel, chose "Open..." from the file menu and selected it.
The Text Import Wizard opened, automatically selected "Tab" for the delimiter, and after hitting "Next" it asked me what format I wanted to
use for importing each column. I changed them all from "General" to
"Text" (except the "ENTREZID", which were obviously numbers) and it
opened perfectly.
The whole process added perhaps one minute to opening the file.
On 2023-06-25 12:54, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-25 03:07, Chris wrote:
On 24/06/2023 14:45, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-23 23:52, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like
dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file
of 20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to
dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving.
Now any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem >>>>>> as it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the >>>>>> analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as
"interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the
time to see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the
problem entirely:
Just created a .csv with the labels mentioned above, imported to
excel with no conversion. I should have tested this earlier.
Perhaps, Chris, you could post an actual gene file that
"expresses"[1] the error for testing?
I've cropped a bit of a typical file, found here that has been
annotated with the GeneIDs:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE95077
I've posted it on here:
https://pastebin.com/UU4xhqwD
Save as a .tsv and then double-click - at least here on my mac - that
opens in Excel with no wizard, no nothing and no warning that data
had been changed. Only only warning as is about "feature loss" if you
stick to using csv formatted (sic) files.
I challenge anyone to count how many errors have been introduced in
under 1 minute. You're not allowed to use Search because the
insiduous nature of this is that a priori a naive user wouldn't know
that genes have been affected in this way. The usual use-case is to
eye-ball the data.
This is insiduous because the next step is often to "Save As" an
.xlsx file so any changes made go unnoticed.
I just downloaded the file; it saved as "GSE95077 Test.txt"
I opened Excel, chose "Open..." from the file menu and selected it.
The Text Import Wizard opened, automatically selected "Tab" for the
delimiter, and after hitting "Next" it asked me what format I wanted
to use for importing each column. I changed them all from "General" to
"Text" (except the "ENTREZID", which were obviously numbers) and it
opened perfectly.
The whole process added perhaps one minute to opening the file.
So in the end, Excel is inconsistent.
I often open files via Finder. Either the extension indicates the app
or use the drop down (right click) "Open with".
In this case I don't get the option to import as you describe ("Text Wizard.".
If I open from the Excel "Open" menu then I do.
So, in effect it is a bug because of the inconsistency.
On 2023-06-25 13:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-25 12:54, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-25 03:07, Chris wrote:
On 24/06/2023 14:45, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-23 23:52, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like
dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file >>>>>>> of 20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to
dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving.
Now any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a
problem as it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of >>>>>>> the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as
"interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the
time to see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the
problem entirely:
Just created a .csv with the labels mentioned above, imported to
excel with no conversion. I should have tested this earlier.
Perhaps, Chris, you could post an actual gene file that
"expresses"[1] the error for testing?
I've cropped a bit of a typical file, found here that has been
annotated with the GeneIDs:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE95077
I've posted it on here:
https://pastebin.com/UU4xhqwD
Save as a .tsv and then double-click - at least here on my mac -
that opens in Excel with no wizard, no nothing and no warning that
data had been changed. Only only warning as is about "feature loss"
if you stick to using csv formatted (sic) files.
I challenge anyone to count how many errors have been introduced in
under 1 minute. You're not allowed to use Search because the
insiduous nature of this is that a priori a naive user wouldn't know
that genes have been affected in this way. The usual use-case is to
eye-ball the data.
This is insiduous because the next step is often to "Save As" an
.xlsx file so any changes made go unnoticed.
I just downloaded the file; it saved as "GSE95077 Test.txt"
I opened Excel, chose "Open..." from the file menu and selected it.
The Text Import Wizard opened, automatically selected "Tab" for the
delimiter, and after hitting "Next" it asked me what format I wanted
to use for importing each column. I changed them all from "General"
to "Text" (except the "ENTREZID", which were obviously numbers) and
it opened perfectly.
The whole process added perhaps one minute to opening the file.
So in the end, Excel is inconsistent.
No. It is completely consistent.
I often open files via Finder. Either the extension indicates the app
or use the drop down (right click) "Open with".
And why should that behaviour not be different?
In this case I don't get the option to import as you describe ("Text
Wizard.".
If I open from the Excel "Open" menu then I do.
So, in effect it is a bug because of the inconsistency.
Nope. Because there is no reason the two behaviours SHOULD be the same.
It isn't a bug because you think they should have done it differently.
On 2023-06-25 16:29, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-25 13:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-25 12:54, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-25 03:07, Chris wrote:
On 24/06/2023 14:45, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-23 23:52, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like >>>>>>>> dates to
excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV
file of 20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to >>>>>>>> dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. >>>>>>>> Now any
future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a
problem as it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out >>>>>>>> of the
analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as
"interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the
time to see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the
problem entirely:
Just created a .csv with the labels mentioned above, imported to
excel with no conversion. I should have tested this earlier.
Perhaps, Chris, you could post an actual gene file that
"expresses"[1] the error for testing?
I've cropped a bit of a typical file, found here that has been
annotated with the GeneIDs:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE95077
I've posted it on here:
https://pastebin.com/UU4xhqwD
Save as a .tsv and then double-click - at least here on my mac -
that opens in Excel with no wizard, no nothing and no warning that
data had been changed. Only only warning as is about "feature loss"
if you stick to using csv formatted (sic) files.
I challenge anyone to count how many errors have been introduced in
under 1 minute. You're not allowed to use Search because the
insiduous nature of this is that a priori a naive user wouldn't
know that genes have been affected in this way. The usual use-case
is to eye-ball the data.
This is insiduous because the next step is often to "Save As" an
.xlsx file so any changes made go unnoticed.
I just downloaded the file; it saved as "GSE95077 Test.txt"
I opened Excel, chose "Open..." from the file menu and selected it.
The Text Import Wizard opened, automatically selected "Tab" for the
delimiter, and after hitting "Next" it asked me what format I wanted
to use for importing each column. I changed them all from "General"
to "Text" (except the "ENTREZID", which were obviously numbers) and
it opened perfectly.
The whole process added perhaps one minute to opening the file.
So in the end, Excel is inconsistent.
No. It is completely consistent.
I often open files via Finder. Either the extension indicates the
app or use the drop down (right click) "Open with".
And why should that behaviour not be different?
Consistency. Users should not have to remember that if you open one particular way it behaves x and open the same file another way it
behaves y.
In this case I don't get the option to import as you describe ("Text
Wizard.".
If I open from the Excel "Open" menu then I do.
So, in effect it is a bug because of the inconsistency.
Nope. Because there is no reason the two behaviours SHOULD be the same.
Above.
It isn't a bug because you think they should have done it differently.
At best it's inconsistent. At worst it's a bug.
On 2023-06-25 17:08, Alan Browne wrote:
At best it's inconsistent. At worst it's a bug.
It's definitely not a bug, because it is intended behaviour.
And inconsistency is wrong because you are achieving the operation with
very different approaches.
On 2023-06-25 20:36, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-25 17:08, Alan Browne wrote:
At best it's inconsistent. At worst it's a bug.
It's definitely not a bug, because it is intended behaviour.
"So, we're agreed in this design review that if the user opens a text
file one way, we go straight to it, no warnings, no attempt to get the
user to make choices.
But, if the user opens it /this/ way, then the user will get some formatting guidance."
"Well, that's just bad UI design. Inconsistent. Frankly it's a bug -
both ways should follow the exact same opening sequence. Less code,
easier to test, less prone to fail.:
"Shut the fuck up."
-MS product design manager.
And inconsistency is wrong because you are achieving the operation
with very different approaches.
Not at all. Consistency is a useful thing. And MS is not the
Consistent co.
On 2023-06-25 06:07, Chris wrote:
On 24/06/2023 14:45, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-23 23:52, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to >>>>> excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of >>>>> 20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to
dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any >>>>> future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem
as it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the >>>>> analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as
"interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time
to see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem
entirely:
Just created a .csv with the labels mentioned above, imported to excel
with no conversion. I should have tested this earlier.
Perhaps, Chris, you could post an actual gene file that "expresses"[1]
the error for testing?
I've cropped a bit of a typical file, found here that has been annotated
with the GeneIDs:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE95077
I've posted it on here:
https://pastebin.com/UU4xhqwD
Save as a .tsv and then double-click - at least here on my mac - that
opens in Excel with no wizard, no nothing and no warning that data had
been changed. Only only warning as is about "feature loss" if you stick
to using csv formatted (sic) files.
I copied and saved via Text - formatted to plain text.
Auto opened in Apple Numbers, actually. So used "Open With"
Found MARCH2 on line 1855 did convert to a date.
(Excel for Mac, 2019).
I challenge anyone to count how many errors have been introduced in
under 1 minute. You're not allowed to use Search because the insiduous
nature of this is that a priori a naive user wouldn't know that genes
have been affected in this way. The usual use-case is to eye-ball the data.
Found 1. I quit!
This is insiduous because the next step is often to "Save As" an .xlsx
file so any changes made go unnoticed.
[1] See what I did there?
I did ;)
Heehee.
On 2023-06-25 18:04, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-25 20:36, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-25 17:08, Alan Browne wrote:
At best it's inconsistent. At worst it's a bug.
It's definitely not a bug, because it is intended behaviour.
"So, we're agreed in this design review that if the user opens a text
file one way, we go straight to it, no warnings, no attempt to get the
user to make choices.
But, if the user opens it /this/ way, then the user will get some
formatting guidance."
"Well, that's just bad UI design. Inconsistent. Frankly it's a bug -
both ways should follow the exact same opening sequence. Less code,
easier to test, less prone to fail.:
"Shut the fuck up."
-MS product design manager.
Not actual quotes, so cute... ...but just so much bullshit.
And inconsistency is wrong because you are achieving the operation
with very different approaches.
Not at all. Consistency is a useful thing. And MS is not the
Consistent co.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
-Ralph Waldo Emerson.
The simple fact of the matter is the functionality that isn't useful to everyone SHOULD be place in a way that makes it less immediate.
But moreover, the fact for this subthread is that the so-called "issue"
that geneticists were having has an utterly simply way to avoid.
On 2023-06-26 00:41, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-25 18:04, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-25 20:36, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-25 17:08, Alan Browne wrote:
At best it's inconsistent. At worst it's a bug.
It's definitely not a bug, because it is intended behaviour.
"So, we're agreed in this design review that if the user opens a text
file one way, we go straight to it, no warnings, no attempt to get
the user to make choices.
But, if the user opens it /this/ way, then the user will get some
formatting guidance."
"Well, that's just bad UI design. Inconsistent. Frankly it's a bug
- both ways should follow the exact same opening sequence. Less
code, easier to test, less prone to fail.:
"Shut the fuck up."
-MS product design manager.
Not actual quotes, so cute... ...but just so much bullshit.
There's little other explanation for such a blatantly bad design.
although the closing could have been more like any of these:
"That will take time. Forget it."
-MS product design manager.
"It's already in the release process. We'll address it next time.
-MS product design manager - many years and releases ago.
"There's a guy in account, the one with Asperger's, who likes it this
way - and he's a nephew of ......... . So it stays."
-MS product design manager.
And inconsistency is wrong because you are achieving the operation
with very different approaches.
Not at all. Consistency is a useful thing. And MS is not the
Consistent co.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
-Ralph Waldo Emerson.
The simple fact of the matter is the functionality that isn't useful
to everyone SHOULD be place in a way that makes it less immediate.
"Everyone" doesn't open the files the same way as "everyone" every time.
But moreover, the fact for this subthread is that the so-called
"issue" that geneticists were having has an utterly simply way to avoid.
Yeah, a workaround that should have been eliminated years ago in order
to make the UI uniform and consistent.
On 2023-06-26 14:09, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-26 00:41, Alan wrote:
But moreover, the fact for this subthread is that the so-called
"issue" that geneticists were having has an utterly simply way to avoid.
Yeah, a workaround that should have been eliminated years ago in order
to make the UI uniform and consistent.
So your answer would be to force everyone to use the Text Import Wizard
every time they open a CSV?
On 2023-06-26 00:41, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-25 18:04, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-25 20:36, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-25 17:08, Alan Browne wrote:
At best it's inconsistent. At worst it's a bug.
It's definitely not a bug, because it is intended behaviour.
"So, we're agreed in this design review that if the user opens a text
file one way, we go straight to it, no warnings, no attempt to get the
user to make choices.
But, if the user opens it /this/ way, then the user will get some
formatting guidance."
"Well, that's just bad UI design. Inconsistent. Frankly it's a bug - >>> both ways should follow the exact same opening sequence. Less code,
easier to test, less prone to fail.:
"Shut the fuck up."
-MS product design manager.
Not actual quotes, so cute... ...but just so much bullshit.
There's little other explanation for such a blatantly bad design.
although the closing could have been more like any of these:
"That will take time. Forget it."
-MS product design manager.
"It's already in the release process. We'll address it next time.
-MS product design manager - many years and releases ago.
"There's a guy in account, the one with Asperger's, who likes it this
way - and he's a nephew of ......... . So it stays."
-MS product design manager.
And inconsistency is wrong because you are achieving the operation
with very different approaches.
Not at all. Consistency is a useful thing. And MS is not the
Consistent co.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
-Ralph Waldo Emerson.
The simple fact of the matter is the functionality that isn't useful to
everyone SHOULD be place in a way that makes it less immediate.
"Everyone" doesn't open the files the same way as "everyone" every time.
But moreover, the fact for this subthread is that the so-called "issue"
that geneticists were having has an utterly simply way to avoid.
Yeah, a workaround that should have been eliminated years ago in order
to make the UI uniform and consistent.
Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-06-25 06:07, Chris wrote:
On 24/06/2023 14:45, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-23 23:52, Alan wrote:
On 2023-06-23 11:19, Chris wrote:
It's far simpler than that. There many gene IDs that look like dates to >>>>>> excel e.g. oct-9, march15, dec-1. When opening a results CSV file of >>>>>> 20,000
genes excel automatically (and quietly) converts those genes to
dates and
because the data are large the user doesn't notice when saving. Now any >>>>>> future analysis will contain unknown gene names. This is a problem >>>>>> as it's
a systematic bias and it's always the same genes that drop out of the >>>>>> analysis reducing the chances of them being identified as
"interesting".
Which would be a problem precisely ONCE for anyone who took the time >>>>> to see why the error happened and learned how to avoid the problem
entirely:
Just created a .csv with the labels mentioned above, imported to excel >>>> with no conversion. I should have tested this earlier.
Perhaps, Chris, you could post an actual gene file that "expresses"[1] >>>> the error for testing?
I've cropped a bit of a typical file, found here that has been annotated >>> with the GeneIDs:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE95077
I've posted it on here:
https://pastebin.com/UU4xhqwD
Save as a .tsv and then double-click - at least here on my mac - that
opens in Excel with no wizard, no nothing and no warning that data had
been changed. Only only warning as is about "feature loss" if you stick
to using csv formatted (sic) files.
I copied and saved via Text - formatted to plain text.
Auto opened in Apple Numbers, actually. So used "Open With"
Yeah, I changed the default app.
Found MARCH2 on line 1855 did convert to a date.
Did you get any warnings or hints that the data might be altered?
(Excel for Mac, 2019).
I challenge anyone to count how many errors have been introduced inFound 1. I quit!
under 1 minute. You're not allowed to use Search because the insiduous
nature of this is that a priori a naive user wouldn't know that genes
have been affected in this way. The usual use-case is to eye-ball the data. >>
It's a start. How long did it take to find that one?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:29:18 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,994 |