The point is that I and others are clearly attempting to refer to a specific technique, even if we’re doing so using a term with which you disagree. If you dislike us using the term we’re using, then please provide an alternate term that we can use to refer to the specific technique. Otherwise, how are we to discuss said specific technique without giving offense?

So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re coming upon others who agree with my assertion that the term “touch typing” refers to a specific technique for typing, and using the term to refer to that specific technique, and your response is to call them pedantic because you think the term should be defined more broadly than they (or I) understand it to be defined. Is that correct?

As for the issue you point out with my analogy, I think one of us is confused, and I’m not attempting to imply that I know which one. I used the analogy because touch typing is a specific technique for typing, just as Taekwondo is a specific type of martial arts. A self-taught fighter would be analogous to a self-taught typist. If you believe the term “touch typing” absolutely cannot refer to a specific typing technique, then I would ask for the term you believe is correct to refer to that specific technique to which the rest of us are referring. I’m fine with using a different term to refer to the technique to which I am attempting to refer, but “touch typing” is the only one I know. If you know another, please provide it, and I’ll use that.

The term “touch typing” is not a generic term for typing at any particular speed, or for typing with or without looking at the keys. It refers to a specific typing technique in which specific fingers are used for specific keys. Referring to the term correctly is not pedantry or elitism. I don’t think anyone is arguing that another technique is inferior, or that it is in any way not typing, only that it is, in fact, different from the specific typing technique referred to as “touch typing”.

In a similar vein, a self-taught fighter could potentially be more skilled than one with some training in Taekwondo. That doesn’t mean that the self-taught fighter is using Taekwondo, and pointing out that difference is not “pedantic at best”; it’s simply correct.

Yes, still amused. Automobiles indeed have higher max speed than cyclists do, and they also accelerate more quickly.

In a comparison between cars and cyclists, I’m a little amused that you’d call cars slow to accelerate. When driving, my main issue with cyclists wasn’t anything to do with traffic laws; it was just that, when stuck behind them, my trip was doomed to take a great deal longer. Granted, the only thing I believe ought to be done about it is to build more bike paths, but still; a cyclist calling automobiles slow to accelerate is worth a laugh!

I like Fossify Messages, personally, and because I also like handling texts from my desktop, I have a Matrix bot to forward them to my Element account.

Is it? I’m genuinely asking. I haven’t seen statistics on how much storage people looking for cloud backup solutions use, but to me, anything under 1TB seems too small to be worth it, these days.

I’ve been using rsync.net for a while now. It’s been stable, fast, and relatively inexpensive. There’s also the benefit that it’s easy to script automated backups directly to it. For more Dropbox-like functionality, I have a Nextcloud instance that uses rsync.net as external storage. It’s been great so far!

In my experience as a software developer (not games) for nearly 20 years, I’ve gotten the strong impression that most people really don’t know what they want until they have it. My ideal client (i.e. person who intends to use the software I’m about to write) for a new project would have a clear idea about what they’re trying to accomplish, and what problem(s) they’re trying to solve. In my entire career, I believe I could count the number of times I’ve encountered such a client on one hand. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the client has a vague notion of automating some things that currently take them longer than they’d like, and initially provide very few details about the actual problems and goals. The result ends up being a series of updates, with feedback between, until the client is finally satisfied. Interestingly enough, it isn’t that these people are in any way stupid, or that they simply never bothered thinking about it. Rather, it seems to be because they’re a little overwhelmed (the reason they came to me in the first place), and focused more on relieving the burden than on what kind of solution might accomplish said relieving. This isn’t unreasonable; it just happens not to be particularly helpful.

All of that said, I do believe there is a lot of merit to providing feedback that focuses on what we want, rather than what we don’t, largely because, in my experience, people tend to have more specific ideas when thinking about what they’d like. When thinking about what they dislike, many people will naturally focus on their own emotional reactions to things, rather than how said emotions were actually triggered. When thinking about what they want, there’s still a focus on the emotions one wishes to experience, but most people tend to imagine something that will trigger those positive emotions, and state that, rather than talking about the feelings themselves, resulting in higher specificity.