FYI: You can put a low-profile mechanical keyboard on top of your MacBook built-in keyboard and it works great.
I use the Keychron K1 Pro with Brown Gateron switches. It's an 80% (ten-key-less / TKL). I needed this one because I use the right shift key a lot and it has a full-size one whereas the 75% is shortened.
You get used to the slightly different layout very quickly. You might swap back and forth a bit but when you go to bed you will start dreaming about typing on it. You will even enjoy doing typing races just to press the keys.
Another new one just released is the NuPhy Air75V2.
Love the Keychron. I wanted a mech keyboard without getting lost in the whole world. My one requirement was bluetooth and the Keychron was the cheapest, non-ugly option that had it. TKL, with F-keys but no numpad, is the ideal size for me. Looking at the NuPhy now...
I've been very happy with my Keychron K3 pro so far. I'm quite surprised there aren't more options for low profile mechanical keyboards (besides Keychron and Nuphy) as I always though the portability of a keyboard as 1 of the most important features for modern day usage and commuting.
I think there is a cultural component that has transferred throughout history whereby people need to signal their level of education to others.
You've probably had it happen yourself without realizing.
You hear someone explaining something in a simplistic way, and notice yourself wondering how deeply they understand the topic. Then when you are explaining the topic, you don't want people to question your own knowledge level like you did to the other person, so you use techniques to signal the depth of your knowledge.
This might be fancy words, or skipping over simplistic things.
And I think this just becomes second nature.
You can see it with programming languages. If I told you to rate a Rust dev vs JS dev, you are thinking Rust is harder to learn so they must be smarter.
It can also just be a challenge to imagine how you thought about a concept when you were initially learning it.
English is pretty terrible for explaining a lot of math too. Math is better understood visually, but back in the day you couldn't exactly share an interactive diagram.
Agree. Our math is convenient for us humans living in our universe.
But how much of our math is just a poor approximation of our universe? Like Newton's gravity was.
If our math only _approximates_ the world, if we discovered something that explains things better, it would all be irrelevant.
There are a lot of hints that something big is missing in our maths as a means of explanation. Like the mathematical constants Pi and Euler repeating infinitely, quantum randomness...
A good line of questioning is to explore the constants that arise in physics, of which there are nineteen[3].
E.g. "Why is the speed of light what it is?".
~300,000,000 meters per second. But the definition of a meter is actually defined by the speed of light, so this number is very human-math-specific.
So instead, you want to look at the speed of light in terms of other physical constants to find a "dimensionless" constant.
This leads us to the fine-structure constant[1], which is a single number that pops out when you relate a few of these experimentally measured constants to each other.
0.0072973525693 ≃ 1/137
This is a number that if any different would mean the universe would not exist in the way it does.
Something very human is the notion of "1". Counting things is very important to intelligent life.
I was thinking the other day, about the world from the perspective of a tree. It doesn't care about counting things. So "1" is irrelevant to it. It's an invented concept by humans.
And most of our mathematical thinking is based around this.
There could be an infinitely deeper and more complicated maths to explain things.
It's like looking at a leaf without a microscope to figure out biological processes. Until the 1600s, biologists could only study what their eyes could see.
All this quantum randomness feels like we are still just looking at a leaf with our eyes.
I don't get how MS can't just build a control library. You always have to use these expensive third-party closed-source libraries.
I remember when the Ribbon UI came out. And there were like 10 different vendors making all different ones, each with a different look and feel.
Just like Amazon took internal services and made them exposable in AWS, so should Microsoft with every UI component they build. You shouldn't be able to ship any UI internally, unless you make it publically accessible. I guess WinUI 3 is heading in these direction by decoupling from the OS. But boy it took a lot of time!
I don't get React Native. It's such a huge, complicated abstraction with no ability to performance tweak. I don't understand how a company as big as Facebook doesn't have enough resources to build native apps for each platform. These UIs are the simplest app you could build as well.
I use the Keychron K1 Pro with Brown Gateron switches. It's an 80% (ten-key-less / TKL). I needed this one because I use the right shift key a lot and it has a full-size one whereas the 75% is shortened.
You get used to the slightly different layout very quickly. You might swap back and forth a bit but when you go to bed you will start dreaming about typing on it. You will even enjoy doing typing races just to press the keys.
Another new one just released is the NuPhy Air75V2.
It's a real addiction!