You clearly didn't understand what I showed you. Watch the video again.
> There's no limit to the variety of analogies you can dismiss if you simply allow yourself to declare them inapplicable
Of course. Analogies never work they way you think they work. At best analogies are dubious claims that need to be proven. You equated Shortcuts to Photoshop, and that analogy is not even tenuous. It's false.
> As for control, it sounds good to me. Honestly, not being able to run reporting is a feature
WHo said anything about reporting? Oh wait, no one, except you.
We were talking about filters, and this is directly related to the filter functionality that you're so intent on defending.
> I'm a bit done here since you are one of these people who refuse to use analogies to inform their thinking.
I don't refuse to use analogies. However, I refuse to use false analogies, and I also refuse to use only analogies to inform my thinking. I prefer facts over analogies.
> many billions of people over the years have found analogies to be a useful endeavor
And once again you're veering into some completely unrelated tangent that no one is talking about.
> Douglas Hofstadter has a good talk about analogy
If only you had the will and comprehension to keep with the topic at hand without resorting to inventing arguments for other people, overusing false and inapplicable analogies etc.
One counterexample in an ocean of examples doesn't amount to much.
> Regardless of whether you think "you've failed" if you develop this, I'm sure photographers thought the same thing about Photoshop
If only you could have the will to abstain from inapplicable analogies
> I don't care if the autocompletions are there, what I care about is having control
Yeah that's a very shitty control you have. If you really need "mathematical definition of filters", make sure they are, you know, useful. See short video: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOFZ9y-R-tu0XCMfOhqdRW_... (switch to 1080p if needed)