It was one of the things I found amusing my first time using OS X after growing up on Windows. Enter would “enter” a folder or execute a program, while Return in Finder starts renaming the file.
On Windows you can rename with F2, and on macOS, Command-Down will work like enter does on Windows (I think of it like going down a directory, since up does the opposite, though it also will launch a file).
You open files and directories far more often than you rename them, so F2 makes sense for rename but Enter / Return doesn't. It was clearly an afterthought as Macs were always meant to be used with a mouse.
How do multi-account containers differ from Chrome profiles? I hadn't paid much attention to Firefox outside of Linux installs as I mainly use Safari with Chrome as a backup, but I'm interested to try again.
First, they are color coded / icon specific tabs, not full windows like chrome. I have used it a lot in the past when I'm doing sso testing at work, or logging into 5 or 6 different AWS accounts at the same time. It's really nice to jump from the green tab (Dev) to the red tab (prod) to check some settings or logs. They feel a lot lighter then full on chrome profiles. You can also tie each to specific proxy profiles, so in my last setup we used ssh tunnels to access different environments, so each container connected to different ssh tunnels.
Sure and the voters who did not participate in the election would all have voted the democratic party. I think the election showed that there are real people who apparently don't agree with the democratic party and it would probably be good to listen to these people instead of telling them what to do. (I see the same phenomenon in the Netherlands by the way. The government seems to have decided that they know better than the general public because voters who disagree are "uninformed" or "uneducated". This is absolutely the opposite of democracy. You do not just brush whole swats of the population to the side when they don't agree. It breaks the feedback loop that democracies should have.)
We have an electoral college that essentially disenfranchises any voter that is not voting with the majority unless your state is so close that it could be called a swing state. This affects red state democratic leaning voters just as much as blue state republican leaning voters…their votes are all worthless. For example, the state with the largest number of Trump voters is California, but none of their votes helped decide the election because California as a whole chose Kamala. And let’s not forget that we have one of the largest metropolitan areas and several territories that legally can’t vote for the president or have representation of any kind in the federal government.
A lot of people try to claim the popular vote as a measure of who won over the country’s opinion, but that’s simply not possible because the incentives and structure of the electoral college make it impossible to use as a measure of that.
The best we have for measuring who won over the hearts and minds of the country are polls. Polls are full of faults, but if executed correctly, they don’t disenfranchise by structurally underrepresenting entire classes of people. And the results of polling over the last hundred years suggest that Americans generally lean to the left of how our votes play out. You can call bullshit all you want on that, and there are very fair criticisms of polling as a measure of who would vote for what, but the fact of the matter is that the Republican Party knows this. That is why they oppose any attempt to get rid of the electoral college and also why they refuse to entertain enfranchisement of DC and US Territories. They know they’ll lose.
You can not at the same time count non-voters entirely as opponents and then discount the fact that half of them lean more conservative than progressive.
I’m not sure where your figures are coming from, did you mean at the moment of posting your comment? If you look at the integral over the year, California does decently well[1] on renewables, and the people paying for it help blunt the competitive edge of the tremendous federal subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels.
Technically it does decently well on combined "non greenhouse gas + renewables." This is a rather self serving categorization of generation sources and might not be what people buying "100% renewable" energy think they're actually getting.
In any case, subtracting Nuclear and Hydro, if more than half the kWh purchased in the state are purchased as "100% renewable", they cannot all be possibly served by renewables even in the aggregate.
