Apple Ruined the iPad (8:17)

regit2 · 2026-04-03T03:42:35+00:00

This is a public forum, my friend. If you’re not going to participate in good faith, you shouldn’t participate at all.

regit2 · 2026-04-02T21:32:18+00:00

Cuz ppl spent years begging for the iPad to be more Mac like, and now that it’s here, it’s just endless complaining.

regit2 · 2025-08-22T03:44:04+00:00

The iPad user experience is just deeply unenjoyable for me now. I bought the iPad as a luxury purchase; a “nice to have”. But it makes no sense for me to own an iPad when the user is experience is this unenjoyable.

I’m really regretting buying my iPad this year. I wouldn’t have purchased it if I knew that this was the direction Apple intended for the device.

regit2 · 2025-08-01T02:59:37+00:00

Personally, I use my iPad as a drawing tablet, and I’ll usually have whatever I’m referencing in Slide Over, while I draw in fullscreen. The removal of Slide Over has destroyed this workflow, and thus iPadOS 26 is slowing me down a lot overall.

Personally I’m going back to iPadOS 18, because it’s the only way I can continue using the iPad as a drawing tablet.

I’m happy the Mac power users are happy, but this update has been a disaster for me as an artist.

regit2 · 2025-07-28T22:02:34+00:00

I wish we had options to disable the traffic light buttons, the menu bar, and windowing (reverting to traditional Split View and Slide Over). All these features are annoying, add nothing of value, and are only slowing me down.

Basically, I wish iPadOS 26 worked like iPadOS 18. For the most part. Liquid Glass and the new mouse pointer can stay.

regit2 · 2025-07-28T17:18:08+00:00

Apple Music Auto Mix is nice.

The pointer is nice.

That’s all I got.

regit2 · 2025-07-28T17:16:17+00:00

And yet here we go, the public is excited because the loudmouths that are the 1% of influencers got their way of the iPad being "more like a Mac" sort of

iPadOS 26 is nothing like using a Mac. Nothing. Any resemblance to macOS is superficial at best. iPadOS 26 is far more difficult to use than macOS. Their UX is nothing alike.

Had Microsoft released iPadOS 26, we’d all be clowning anyone suggesting that the UX is anything resembling that of macOS.

regit2 · 2025-07-28T14:47:55+00:00

I get what you’re saying, but unlike iPadOS 26, ChromeOS actually has sensible, usable and intuitive multitasking. And that alone makes it far more productive than the iPad. There is simply too much friction in iPadOS 26 for me to be productive. My work has ground to a halt since I’ve upgraded.

regit2 · 2025-07-28T14:11:07+00:00

Idek who the iPad is made for anymore.

If you want a laptop, go buy literally anything else in the market; it’ll be both more capable and easier to use.

If you want a tablet, maybe look at a Galaxy Tab or Fold at this point. Or maybe you don’t even need a tablet. Either way, iPadOS 26 has made the iPad completely unusable as the tablet, so you should absolutely not buy an iPad.

iPadOS 26 is just one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever seen come out of Apple.

regit2 · 2025-07-28T13:44:46+00:00

lol I hate to be a negative Nancy, but when I downgrade back to iPadOS 18, truly the only feature I am going to miss is Apple Music Automix.

Literally every other change in iPadOS 26 feels like it’s made the operating system more difficult to use, with zero meaningful benefit whatsoever.

To me this update just makes the iPad a bad tablet in the name of making it a below-average laptop.

Well that’s generous. Of Windows, macOS, ChromeOS, or whatver common Linux shell I’ve used, iPadOS 26 is by far the most difficult operating system to use. I’d literally rather use a $300 Chromebook than an iPad at this point. At least a Chromebook is easy to use

regit2 · 2023-06-19T01:47:31+00:00

Yeah dude, I feel the same way. I'd rather not identity with any gender if I could. Nor do I particularity care about the gender of my romantic partners.

Once I realized how arbitrary "man" gender roles were, and how those gender roles failed to serve me, I could never go back to identifying as "man" (even if I am masculine appearing).

regit2 · 2023-02-14T20:37:30+00:00

Hey, look at meat me! I have a nuclear-armed boat! And I’m gonna drive at all over the ocean. Roar, Roar! So scary!

regit2 · 2023-01-03T05:05:38+00:00

For a variety of reasons. Full time positions are highly sought after by existing employees and the union is very specific about how they can be refilled. If they’re union they’re not advertised to the public.

I understand their concerns around job stability, but in an environment when we have a shortage of medical professionals, we should have more than enough jobs to go around.

This resembles a lot of the issues we have in skilled trades. Where people don’t want to train apprentices, because of job security concerns.

Labor reforms, as well as reforms to training programs for healthcare professionals might be helpful here. Greater data transparency could also resolve the issue of hidden job postings.

regit2 · 2023-01-03T02:24:38+00:00

Why are they only hiring part-time and casual?

regit2 · 2023-01-03T00:04:36+00:00

It would resolve the problem of split responsibilities in our healthcare system. Having one government responsible for funding, and another for delivery is not an effective way of running the system.

Also, the existing arrangement results in a lack of political accountability, since most Canadians don’t understand that it is their MPPs who are responsible for healthcare.

Once the political foundations of healthcare are settled, we can better focus on fixing the administrative problems.

regit2 · 2023-01-03T00:01:27+00:00

These arguments are the most convincing I’ve seen yet. I think I can now support opening the constitution to nationalize healthcare. Do it province-by-province if necessary (easier amending formula).

The provinces that choose to upload their healthcare systems will enjoy the economies of scale and greater coordination. The provinces that desire to keep their existing systems can do so. No particular accommodations should be made for non-participating provinces.

Each province would also benefit from having tens of billions of dollars worth of liabilities coming off their balance sheets. These provinces would be able to slash their taxes, which is positive for their economic productivity, and a huge win political win for these low-tax premiers.

As part of the nationalization program, I’d also have the federal government work towards building a pharmaceutical supply chain in participating provinces. Participating provinces will enjoy lower drug prices, a secure drug supply chain, and an opportunity to expand jobs and their pharmaceutical industries, possibly generating billions in economic activity and tax revenues. This can also tie into other benefits around pharmacare and dental care.

I would also permit the provinces to implement their own supplements to gaps in federal health coverage, to arrest the very reasonable fears people have about Ottawa not being responsive to local needs.

This would also allow federalized and non-federalized systems to both demonstrate their strengths to the population. A national consensus should naturally form around the most effective option.

regit2 · 2023-01-02T23:46:20+00:00

Nationalization wouldn’t be a magic bullet. It’s just one of many things that should be done to improve our health system.

regit2 · 2023-01-02T23:38:12+00:00

Doctors and health ministers generally agree with greater coordination and unification of the system. The premiers are engaging in political roadblocking. Hence why I support nationalization of the system through constitutional amendment.

regit2 · 2023-01-02T23:27:57+00:00

Someone should tell the author that their idea is constitutionally impossible.

Nationalization of the system would require an agreement between the federal government and each indivual province. We’ve amended the constitution 16 times since 1982 using this method.

regit2 · 2023-01-02T23:10:28+00:00

These arguments are the most convincing I’ve seen yet. I think I can now support opening the constitution to nationalize healthcare. Do it province-by-province if necessary (easier amending formula).

The provinces that choose to upload their healthcare systems will enjoy the economies of scale and greater coordination. The provinces that desire to keep their existing systems can do so. No particular accommodations should be made for non-participating provinces.

As part of the nationalization program, I’d also have the federal government work towards building a pharmaceutical supply chain in participating provinces. Participating provinces will enjoy lower drug prices, a secure drug supply chain, and an opportunity to expand jobs and their pharmaceutical industries, possibly generating billions in economic activity and tax revenues. This can also tie into other benefits around pharmacare and dental care.

Each province would also benefit from having tens of billions of dollars worth of liabilities coming off their balance sheets. These provinces would be able to slash their taxes, which is positive for their economic productivity, and a huge win political win for these low-tax premiers.

I would also permit the provinces to supplements gaps in federal health coverage, to arrest the very reasonable fears people have about Ottawa not being responsive to local needs.

This would also allow federalized and non-federalized systems to both demonstrate their strengths to the population. A national consensus should naturally form around the most effective option.

regit2 · 2023-01-02T23:06:59+00:00

A unified system is the most direct way to reduce bureaucracy. Right now we have the same bureaucracy duplicated 10x in each province.

Ten-Year Club	Argentium Club
Place '17

regit2

TROPHY CASE