Minor things that bother you

[1995hoo]

Minor things that are a major nuisance in the short term: When a software company changes the keyboard shortcuts without notice. I logged onto my office PC this morning to find that apparently there must have been a Microsoft Word update. We make extensive use of "Track Changes" (redlines) and comment bubbles and for years I've hit Alt-I followed by "M" to insert a comment. This morning that no longer works and now apparently you're expected to hit Alt-N (for some reason, that's the new command to get to the "Insert" options) and then "L" (which isn't even part of the word "Comment"). Talk about unintuitive. I went looking through the Options screen to try to find a way to redefine the keyboard shortcut, but "Insert Comment" isn't an option. Turns out that's because Microsoft thinks a comment is called an "Annotation"—a colleague found that "InsertAnnotation" is Microsoft's term for "Insert Comment." They have Ctrl-Alt-M defined as a shortcut for that, which is close enough to Alt-I, M, that I suppose I will get used to it in a week or two.

Minor in the scheme of things? Definitely. Major nuisance when you need to retrain yourself to overcome years of muscle memory? Absolutely.

[thenetwork]

When I have to move the antenna and reset the TV so I can catch the end of the game.

^^ THIS!!!

Back in the days of analog TV, if the picture went fuzzy for a few seconds or was not fully tuned in reception-wise, you could at least hear and still watch a moving picture despite the annoying audio/visual problems.

Nowadays in the digital TV tuning age, if you don't have the right digital antenna (usually an outdoor antenna that can rotate), the slightest distortion will freeze/pixelate the screen and stutter the audio. 

I now have TWO antenna sources (a house-mounted antenna and portable rabbit ears) I have to switch between on my Living Room TV if I go from a clear channel to a channel that acts up.

[Rothman]

Minor things that are a major nuisance in the short term: When a software company changes the keyboard shortcuts without notice. I logged onto my office PC this morning to find that apparently there must have been a Microsoft Word update. We make extensive use of "Track Changes" (redlines) and comment bubbles and for years I've hit Alt-I followed by "M" to insert a comment. This morning that no longer works and now apparently you're expected to hit Alt-N (for some reason, that's the new command to get to the "Insert" options) and then "L" (which isn't even part of the word "Comment"). Talk about unintuitive. I went looking through the Options screen to try to find a way to redefine the keyboard shortcut, but "Insert Comment" isn't an option. Turns out that's because Microsoft thinks a comment is called an "Annotation"—a colleague found that "InsertAnnotation" is Microsoft's term for "Insert Comment." They have Ctrl-Alt-M defined as a shortcut for that, which is close enough to Alt-I, M, that I suppose I will get used to it in a week or two.

Minor in the scheme of things? Definitely. Major nuisance when you need to retrain yourself to overcome years of muscle memory? Absolutely.

I've said before that the person in charge of upgrades to Microsoft Office products also must feel the need to totally reorganize their home when they temporarily lose a single item.

[Hobart]

Minor things that are a major nuisance in the short term: When a software company changes the keyboard shortcuts without notice.

Minor in the scheme of things? Definitely. Major nuisance when you need to retrain yourself to overcome years of muscle memory? Absolutely.

I fully understand your pain. Musescore, the music notation software I use, changed the default keybinds for ties from plus to "T", and over the years also got rid of the "Alt+T" shortcut to add a tempo marking, with no replacement keybind.

I detest the fact that the first thought developers seemingly always have when looking at a piece of software is to change the parts that work well, and the parts that are buried deep into the muscle memory of current users. I might as well switch to Dvorak while I'm at it.

[1995hoo]

....

I detest the fact that the first thought developers seemingly always have when looking at a piece of software is to change the parts that work well, and the parts that are buried deep into the muscle memory of current users. I might as well switch to Dvorak while I'm at it.

I tried that once and failed miserably. The muscle memory is just too ingrained and it was too counter-productive for me to spend the amount of time it would have required to make the change. Also, something that didn't occur to me then was that switching to Dvorak would have caused me even more difficulties whenever I use a different keyboard for whatever reason (working in a different location, helping Ms1995hoo with her laptop, whatever).

[hbelkins]

The omnipresence of Taylor Swift.

[roadman65]

New car radios. Now that the old dials are gone, some are touch screen, and some have a knob on the console to change stations and a button the middle to click on whatever the menu item you want is. Give me the days when you had two knobs ( one for tuning and the one on the left for volume) and a digital display in the center. 

Oh, right, they want you to control the radio from the steering wheel.  To me only the presets should be on the wheel, as turning the volume down on the knob is not that distracting as when you look for the right preset button.

[Rothman]

The omnipresence of Taylor Swift.

I find her easy enough to ignore, despite liking her song, "Shake it Off."  Definitely don't find her omnipresent.  Then again, the most popular and biggest moneymaking performer of all time is going to have a significant presence somewhere.

Therefore, you are consuming media which is telling you to be bothered by her omnipresence.

[hbelkins]

The omnipresence of Taylor Swift.

I find her easy enough to ignore, despite liking her song, "Shake it Off."  Definitely don't find her omnipresent.  Then again, the most popular and biggest moneymaking performer of all time is going to have a significant presence somewhere.

Therefore, you are consuming media which is telling you to be bothered by her omnipresence.

I wouldn't know one of her songs if I heard it.

But she's everywhere. I know several people who are rooting for the 49ers in the Super Bowl because of her.

[Rothman]

The omnipresence of Taylor Swift.

I find her easy enough to ignore, despite liking her song, "Shake it Off."  Definitely don't find her omnipresent.  Then again, the most popular and biggest moneymaking performer of all time is going to have a significant presence somewhere.

Therefore, you are consuming media which is telling you to be bothered by her omnipresence.

I wouldn't know one of her songs if I heard it.

But she's everywhere. I know several people who are rooting for the 49ers in the Super Bowl because of her.

So?  Lots of celebrities are everywhere.

[kphoger]

I read this interpreting "pointer" with its C meaning, and was quite alarmed. "Skittering" seems like something someone might describe that kind of pointer doing (we have documented "wild pointers", "stale pointers", as well as pointers "scribbling", "smashing", "mangling", and "doing a fandango", so imagining one "skittering" doesn't really seem too out of the ordinary), but it would probably lead to all of your data being ejected into outer space, and definitely not just a minor thing that bothered you.

It always makes me smile when you type in another language. 

[CtrlAltDel]

This doesn't really bother me, but I recently learned that if you took the names of the numbers from 0 to 99 and put them in alphabetical order, 0 would have course be last, but second to last, I was surprised to learn, would be 2.

[fhmiii]

The omnipresence of Taylor Swift.

I find her easy enough to ignore, despite liking her song, "Shake it Off."  Definitely don't find her omnipresent.  Then again, the most popular and biggest moneymaking performer of all time is going to have a significant presence somewhere.

Therefore, you are consuming media which is telling you to be bothered by her omnipresence.

I wouldn't know one of her songs if I heard it.

But she's everywhere. I know several people who are rooting for the 49ers in the Super Bowl because of her.

Don't hate on the Chiefs just because the broadcasters want to push Travis Kelce's girlfriend.  They're just excited that a bunch of women who've never been interested in football are suddenly watching games and reading post-game analysis and listening to sports podcasts.  As soon as the novelty wears off, they'll stop promoting her.  For now, even as a Chiefs fan, all I have to say is I hope they're very happy together, but I tuned in to watch football not TMZ.

[Rothman]

The omnipresence of Taylor Swift.

I find her easy enough to ignore, despite liking her song, "Shake it Off."  Definitely don't find her omnipresent.  Then again, the most popular and biggest moneymaking performer of all time is going to have a significant presence somewhere.

Therefore, you are consuming media which is telling you to be bothered by her omnipresence.

I wouldn't know one of her songs if I heard it.

But she's everywhere. I know several people who are rooting for the 49ers in the Super Bowl because of her.

Don't hate on the Chiefs just because the broadcasters want to push Travis Kelce's girlfriend.  They're just excited that a bunch of women who've never been interested in football are suddenly watching games and reading post-game analysis and listening to sports podcasts.  As soon as the novelty wears off, they'll stop promoting her.  For now, even as a Chiefs fan, all I have to say is I hope they're very happy together, but I tuned in to watch football not TMZ.

Wait a minute.  Are we just talking the NFL?  That's hardly "everywhere."

[tmoore952]

The omnipresence of Taylor Swift.

I find her easy enough to ignore, despite liking her song, "Shake it Off."  Definitely don't find her omnipresent.  Then again, the most popular and biggest moneymaking performer of all time is going to have a significant presence somewhere.

Therefore, you are consuming media which is telling you to be bothered by her omnipresence.

I wouldn't know one of her songs if I heard it.

But she's everywhere. I know several people who are rooting for the 49ers in the Super Bowl because of her.

Don't hate on the Chiefs just because the broadcasters want to push Travis Kelce's girlfriend.  They're just excited that a bunch of women who've never been interested in football are suddenly watching games and reading post-game analysis and listening to sports podcasts.  As soon as the novelty wears off, they'll stop promoting her.  For now, even as a Chiefs fan, all I have to say is I hope they're very happy together, but I tuned in to watch football not TMZ.

I'm not hating on the Chiefs. They deserved that win yesterday and Kelce was a big part of it.

The issue I have with Taylor Swift is that ---- at least as far as I can tell --- she wouldn't be anywhere near an NFL stadium if it wasn't for Kelce. I'm also not that big on Kelce outside the football field. I think he runs his mouth a lot.

[Rothman]

The omnipresence of Taylor Swift.

I find her easy enough to ignore, despite liking her song, "Shake it Off."  Definitely don't find her omnipresent.  Then again, the most popular and biggest moneymaking performer of all time is going to have a significant presence somewhere.

Therefore, you are consuming media which is telling you to be bothered by her omnipresence.

I wouldn't know one of her songs if I heard it.

But she's everywhere. I know several people who are rooting for the 49ers in the Super Bowl because of her.

Don't hate on the Chiefs just because the broadcasters want to push Travis Kelce's girlfriend.  They're just excited that a bunch of women who've never been interested in football are suddenly watching games and reading post-game analysis and listening to sports podcasts.  As soon as the novelty wears off, they'll stop promoting her.  For now, even as a Chiefs fan, all I have to say is I hope they're very happy together, but I tuned in to watch football not TMZ.

I'm not hating on the Chiefs. They deserved that win yesterday and Kelce was a big part of it.

The issue I have with Taylor Swift is that ---- at least as far as I can tell --- she wouldn't be anywhere near an NFL stadium if it wasn't for Kelce. I'm also not that big on Kelce outside the football field. I think he runs his mouth a lot.

How dare people attend NFL games just because their significant others get them hooked on it.

[tmoore952]

The omnipresence of Taylor Swift.

I find her easy enough to ignore, despite liking her song, "Shake it Off."  Definitely don't find her omnipresent.  Then again, the most popular and biggest moneymaking performer of all time is going to have a significant presence somewhere.

Therefore, you are consuming media which is telling you to be bothered by her omnipresence.

I wouldn't know one of her songs if I heard it.

But she's everywhere. I know several people who are rooting for the 49ers in the Super Bowl because of her.

Don't hate on the Chiefs just because the broadcasters want to push Travis Kelce's girlfriend.  They're just excited that a bunch of women who've never been interested in football are suddenly watching games and reading post-game analysis and listening to sports podcasts.  As soon as the novelty wears off, they'll stop promoting her.  For now, even as a Chiefs fan, all I have to say is I hope they're very happy together, but I tuned in to watch football not TMZ.

I'm not hating on the Chiefs. They deserved that win yesterday and Kelce was a big part of it.

The issue I have with Taylor Swift is that ---- at least as far as I can tell --- she wouldn't be anywhere near an NFL stadium if it wasn't for Kelce. I'm also not that big on Kelce outside the football field. I think he runs his mouth a lot.

How dare people attend NFL games just because their significant others get them hooked on it.

It's not just that. All the other "people who have significant others in the game" that you mention are not shown on the broadcast multiple times a game. All the victorious players have significant others who come onto the field at the end of championship games. Those regular folk people aren't shown on screen over and over.

Flip the script. Suppose a WNBA star starts dating Justin Timberlake or Ed Sheeran, for example (think a big male pop star who is available -- substitute someone else if the male names I mentioned are unavailable). If the broadcast networks kept showing the male significant other on the screen all the time, it wouldn't go over well with many of the women WNBA fans, who want the women players to get the attention. They'd say things like "Men get all the attention everywhere else. This is our game ---- men, go away".

We all know one big reason this is not happening here ---- is that the NFL is trying to get to an untapped demographic. When Kelce retires and Swift goes with him, let's see how many of that demographic hangs around (or if Swift does). I'll be much more accepting if she (or the demographic) hangs around when Kelce is gone.

[Scott5114]

Businesses that card everyone, no exceptions. Grow up. One look at me and it'll be blatantly obvious to you that I'm well above age 21 (I have enough grey hair that you should be able to tell I'm around age 50). I remember once a restaurant refused to serve my grandmother, who was around 80 years old at the time and looked it, because she didn't carry an ID. The first time Wegmans carded me (or "proofed" me, as their sign calls it), I found it amusing. Now I just find it utterly stupid.

This is because in marginal situations they'll have to deal with people arguing "but why do you have to card me, I'm clearly over X age" when they are not, in fact, clearly over X age. Or you have someone like me who is abjectly terrible at estimating ages who might card a 45-year-old and let a sick 20-year-old who hasn't gotten enough sleep go.

It's far easier and more likely to obtain compliance with the law to just have a blanket "card everyone" policy.

[Scott5114]

The omnipresence of Taylor Swift.

I find her easy enough to ignore, despite liking her song, "Shake it Off."  Definitely don't find her omnipresent.  Then again, the most popular and biggest moneymaking performer of all time is going to have a significant presence somewhere.

Therefore, you are consuming media which is telling you to be bothered by her omnipresence.

I wouldn't know one of her songs if I heard it.

But she's everywhere. I know several people who are rooting for the 49ers in the Super Bowl because of her.

When people post about sports outside of the sports quarantine board.

[thspfc]

I wouldn't know one of her songs if I heard it.

How do you expect people to react when you say this?

Like, is this a major achievement? Are you proud?

It's like when people brag about how little sleep they got last night, as if anyone ever wanted to know that.

It's not just that. All the other "people who have significant others in the game" that you mention are not shown on the broadcast multiple times a game.

Please. She's the biggest celebrity on the planet. Get over it.

Flip the script. Suppose a WNBA star starts dating Justin Timberlake or Ed Sheeran, for example (think a big male pop star who is available -- substitute someone else if the male names I mentioned are unavailable). If the broadcast networks kept showing the male significant other on the screen all the time, it wouldn't go over well with many of the women WNBA fans, who want the women players to get the attention. They'd say things like "Men get all the attention everywhere else. This is our game ---- men, go away".

The WNBA doesn't have fans. And the point is irrelevant anyway, it's not a gender issue at all.

We all know one big reason this is not happening here ---- is that the NFL is trying to get to an untapped demographic. When Kelce retires and Swift goes with him, let's see how many of that demographic hangs around (or if Swift does). I'll be much more accepting if she (or the demographic) hangs around when Kelce is gone.

Yes, that's exactly what's happening, and I don't know why anyone is surprised or angry about it. The league has risen to its current popularity by attracting new fans, through whatever methods it may be.

It's far easier and more likely to obtain compliance with the law to just have a blanket "card everyone" policy.

On the aggregate, it absolutely is not. For every piece of shit that argues, there's 100 normal people that just pull out their ID. But when you card everyone, you're wasting all that extra time per person for no reason. I'm willing to deal with the rare piece of shit if it means carding 50-70% fewer people.

[J N Winkler]

This is because in marginal situations they'll have to deal with people arguing "but why do you have to card me, I'm clearly over X age" when they are not, in fact, clearly over X age. Or you have someone like me who is abjectly terrible at estimating ages who might card a 45-year-old and let a sick 20-year-old who hasn't gotten enough sleep go.

It's far easier and more likely to obtain compliance with the law to just have a blanket "card everyone" policy.

In cases where the proffered ID is scanned (such as the checkouts at the supermarket near me), I wonder if part of the motivation is to serve as a check on the cashiers.  Everything stops when an age-restricted item is scanned and does not resume until ID is scanned or the system is overriden, and it would not surprise me if a cashier is called to account by a manager when overrides exceed a certain percentage of register transactions.

[Rothman]

The omnipresence of Taylor Swift.

I find her easy enough to ignore, despite liking her song, "Shake it Off."  Definitely don't find her omnipresent.  Then again, the most popular and biggest moneymaking performer of all time is going to have a significant presence somewhere.

Therefore, you are consuming media which is telling you to be bothered by her omnipresence.

I wouldn't know one of her songs if I heard it.

But she's everywhere. I know several people who are rooting for the 49ers in the Super Bowl because of her.

Don't hate on the Chiefs just because the broadcasters want to push Travis Kelce's girlfriend.  They're just excited that a bunch of women who've never been interested in football are suddenly watching games and reading post-game analysis and listening to sports podcasts.  As soon as the novelty wears off, they'll stop promoting her.  For now, even as a Chiefs fan, all I have to say is I hope they're very happy together, but I tuned in to watch football not TMZ.

I'm not hating on the Chiefs. They deserved that win yesterday and Kelce was a big part of it.

The issue I have with Taylor Swift is that ---- at least as far as I can tell --- she wouldn't be anywhere near an NFL stadium if it wasn't for Kelce. I'm also not that big on Kelce outside the football field. I think he runs his mouth a lot.

How dare people attend NFL games just because their significant others get them hooked on it.

It's not just that. All the other "people who have significant others in the game" that you mention are not shown on the broadcast multiple times a game. All the victorious players have significant others who come onto the field at the end of championship games. Those regular folk people aren't shown on screen over and over.

Flip the script. Suppose a WNBA star starts dating Justin Timberlake or Ed Sheeran, for example (think a big male pop star who is available -- substitute someone else if the male names I mentioned are unavailable). If the broadcast networks kept showing the male significant other on the screen all the time, it wouldn't go over well with many of the women WNBA fans, who want the women players to get the attention. They'd say things like "Men get all the attention everywhere else. This is our game ---- men, go away".

We all know one big reason this is not happening here ---- is that the NFL is trying to get to an untapped demographic. When Kelce retires and Swift goes with him, let's see how many of that demographic hangs around (or if Swift does). I'll be much more accepting if she (or the demographic) hangs around when Kelce is gone.

Of course regular folk aren't shown on screen multiple times.  Swift isn't regular folk, not by a long shot.  She's established herself as one of the most unregular folk by becoming a billionaire entertainer.

Football play pauses plenty of times to show her or whatever other celebrity the networks and NFL desire.  No different than showing Vince Gill at Belmont games or Eminem at Lions games or Spike Lee at Knicks games or Jack Nicholson at Lakers games...

What's fun are the obvious reasons Swift is held to a different bar for "acceptance" by football fans.

[DTComposer]

It's a tempest in a teapot, in any case:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/25/style/taylor-swift-nfl-broadcasts.html

Over the last five games she's been on screen for a total of 158 seconds, or an average of 31.6 seconds per game - one commercial-length each game. Many actual commercials are shown at least four times per game.

In my opinion, anyone who feels like she's been on camera too much is ignoring facts in favor of other narratives - getting their righteous indignation up for no reason.

[JayhawkCO]

One of the comedy NFL accounts I follow:

"Kind of happy the super bowl will be ruined for millions of the most annoying guy you know who turns into a gremlin when they show Taylor for 2 seconds in the booth."

[algorerhythms]

It's a tempest in a teapot, in any case:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/25/style/taylor-swift-nfl-broadcasts.html

Over the last five games she's been on screen for a total of 158 seconds, or an average of 31.6 seconds per game - one commercial-length each game. Many actual commercials are shown at least four times per game.

In my opinion, anyone who feels like she's been on camera too much is ignoring facts in favor of other narratives - getting their righteous indignation up for no reason.

You know what is severely overrepresented in sports these days? DraftDuel/FanKings/whatever the gambling thing du jour is.