just was working with a computer here that had been upgraded to 10.10 (not my idea, it's not entirely stable yet with some of our software) and noticed that, among the many changes, terminal now displays a single inverted bullet "•" when entering a password for something such as SUDO. Was not expecting that. (does not indicate password length as typed)

kickin' the dirt around, I was just wondering if anyone else has encountered unexpected changes in 10.10?

Hah?!

A bullet is round and located vertically in mid-line. How can it be "inverted"? Do you mean period (.) on the line or half of a diaresis/umlaut above the line?

dit dit dit dah dah dah dit dit dit

I mean graphically inverted. Instead of a black bullet on a white (transparent) background, it's showing up inverted, as a white bullet, with the rest of the rectangular area for the character being black.

dah-di-dah-dit, dah-dah-di-dah

Oh you ham you ...

I probably would have said "negative inversion of image and ground" (as in photographic negative).

At least we're on the same frequency now.

Yep, and unhappy about it!

The command-I option to selectively remove e-mail from my server is gone.

In a slightly different vein, my early experiences with Yosemite are reminding me of something I read about Edgar Degas...how you had to stand behind him while he was working and forcibly remove the painting from his easel when it was finished, because he had absolutely no idea when a painting was finished and would keep "improving" it until it was ruined.

Reminds me of many years ago (okay, okay, 45 years), when I worked in recording studios. More often than not, a band would come in and lay down a take that really felt good, with lots of energy. Then, the tracks would start to be replaced "I can play that a bit better" and soon you had a tune that was technically better but without the feel and energy of the original.

And since art and music are in the mind, eye and ear of the beholder, who is stay say if subsequent iterations are really better or worse?

I suppose you could create a collective opinion (cf. "Rotten Tomatoes" web site for movies), but still, if the individual (dis)likes what s/he hears or sees, that's the end of it.

So, um, yeah, about that...

The problem with Rotten Tomatoes (and, really, any group consensus on art) is the reviews are shaped by the audience expectations, which are in turn shaped by what's familiar. We've become used to the Hollywood formula for movies, so movies need to stick to the Hollywood formula if they hope to get good ratings on Rotten Tomatoes.

I recently saw the movie "Chappie," which was brilliant...but oh so very, very un-Hollywood. And it didn't end in a nice, neatly packaged Hollywood way. Unsurprisingly, it's getting terrible Rotten Tomatoes ratings.

Art that's truly brilliant is often art that challenges. Art that challenges often isn't appreciated by large numbers of people, at least not at first.

I recently ran across a "Vote For Your Favorites" website that had Lady Gaga ranked as the 50th greatest piano player ever.

(Her listing was appended with a note that she was also ranked 36th on the list of people whom people most wished would just go away. )

I am not suggesting that Rotten Tomatoes or any other collective web site be the arbiter of what is good or not good. The individual should always be free to decide. Unfortunately our culture, and I admit to succumbing as well, has grown accustomed to relying on restaurant reviewers, movie and TV critics as the primary (?) input regarding good/bad.

I was intrigued by the above comment regarding Degas. The artist himself did not recognize "good"! Once again, whose "good" are we accepting?

It also makes you reconsider the meaning of the term ’unfinished work’…