shadowlight
It looks clean, and nice and well arranged.
Does it look like a work of pure talent and skill and a work of incredible skill and artistry? No. No it does not.
Sure google is probably paying some designer 200k to come up with that front page but seriously let's take a look at it from the perspective of reality. How much effort and talent is required to come up with that search page versus painting a still life painting? Let's face it: Not much talent, and not much effort either.
You can take it a notch up further and talk about complicated interfaces like gmail or outlook. For that I have to say that there's a lot of TIME involved in thinking through the placement and color coding of the interfaces. But is there talent? No. Anybody can spend the time to think about that stuff.
As for painting still life? Or the human figure from thin air? That's raw talent. Not many people can do that no matter how much time you give them. I also bet a good chunk of UI designers don't have the ability to even draw at that level.
Have you seen the netflix show Love, death, robots? The artistry in that show is amazing. I respect the people who work on those episodes. That is an example of modern artistry displaying pure talent and raw skill. UI designers in comparison? Imposters, most of them, and I'm not referring to the syndrome.
Also I'm not the one claiming I'm good at UI design. I'm calling out the imposters. Why don't you show me your portfolio and I'll give you my honest opinion on it. Good UI design is good UI but man you guys are not "artists" to the degree the people on that netflix show are actual artists.
Sites and exposes like the parent of this entire thread serve to inflate the worth of people who do this stuff.
Painting the mona lisa is talent. Arranging text and pictures with flat colored geometric elements is NOT talent.
The idea that the still life painting is even comparable to some website design is laughable. It takes a lot of skill to be able to create that painting, it takes almost no skill to devise the layout to that site.
How about we punish the hell out of anyone who does these stupid prank calls instead.
At the company where I work we convert all of our data to quaternions when transmitting over the wire or for data storage. In the gaming and robotics industry there is a misguided assumption that quaternions are always better, and at my company we force this assumption onto all engineers by using typed protobufs. We can never send EUler angles over the wire, we must always send quaternions.
This is actually fundamentally bad. Like it's not even a design question. It is by logic worse to store things as quaternions. Quaternions are only good for certain transformation calculations. They are not as good for data transmission or storage. So I made a proposal to offer alternatives but I was shot down even by the CEO (who took the time to personally make his own viewpoint known on the entire slack thread out of nowhere) because all of these people buy into the misguided notion that quaternions are always better.
The person I was talking to about this was so hell bent on believing that quaternions are better that if I pressed the point further I could start an all out conflict that could get me fired so I had to stop and pretend (aka lie) to agree.
The fact of the matter is, Quaternions are a higher entropy form of storage for rotation and orientation. You lose information when converting something to a quaternion and this is good for calculation but definitively bad when you choose to use quaternions for data storage or transmission. If you transmit or store things as Euler angles you CAN always convert it to a quaternion. The conversion is trivial and mostly a non-issue.
The problem is that once you have a quaternion you can't go back to Euler Angles without additional assumptions. The back conversion algorithm is not One to One. So by forcing this format as storage you are limiting the future productivity of this data by keeping it in a higher entropy form.
Each quaternion is realized by TWO euler angles within a 360 range of motion across 3 axis-es. When you convert something to a quaternion you cannot go backwards. You cannot find the original euler angle where the quaternion came from because you HAVE two options to choose from.
For gaming this problem is not so apparent because you're in a virtual world and having everything exist in quaternions is ok because rotational orientations don't have to be realized by actual movement or rotations. The computer simply draws the object at the required orientation.
But real world rotations HAVE to be realized by euler angles. You cannot Orient something in reality without actually turning it about an axis. Gimbal lock cannot be erased in the real world and even the Apollo module suffered from this phenomenon despite the fact that the engineers knew about quaternions. People at my company seem to think the issue disappears once you switch everything to quaternions.
Thus for something as simple as having one robot gimbal imitate another... if the communication protocol between them both was exclusively quaternions (with no additional assumptions) the imitating robot can choose an alternative euler angle to project it's motion onto and the two robots WILL not be be in sync. Total information Loss.
So all in all this proposal never went through. I was shut down by stubbornness and over confidence by "robotics experts" who've been brainwashed by false dogma. The people I was proposing this to told me that I should trust the extensive experience their backgrounds of building self driving cars at uber and building robots at CMU. Yeah I respect that but can you not see the literal logic of the issue here? I don't respect people who aren't able to see logic.
The company culture is just part of the story, these falsehoods are likely held industry wide and you'd get these issues everywhere. False Dogma is powerful. Try telling a christian that walking on water is ludicrous when looking at it logically. It's same issue here. Peoples' brains will fight logic if it goes against their beliefs.
Very likely I might even get replies to this post who have so much confidence in quaternions that they'll come up with a retort that doesn't fully understand the problem I illustrated here.
Option to account for income from money in sp500.
Also stop calling Americans "interesting." Using a term like this is a deliberate insult on a culture or a person. You are examining the culture like it's a lab rat and commenting on how the behavior is "interesting."
You are not an idiot. People do not talk like this in real life by remarking on how behavior is "interesting" to the subjects face. You and others only use these terms behind the anonymity of a forum. Therefore you are aware this is insulting. Stop.
This is a common tactic used to get around the HN rules. You say "interesting" posing it as an innocent remark. It is not, you are conducting a deliberate and insulting attack on American culture here.
That is still random. You are arbitrarily picking an encoding, (English) in this case. Why not a Russian programming language or Chinese? How did you *select* your encoding out of the set of all encodings?
The act of assigning order to an unordered set is arbitrary. ABC order is a made up concept. It's not numerical, it's an arbitrary language and an arbitrary order that's a by product of human culture. Thus invoking this is at it's essence invoking the axiom of choice. You are arbitrarily selecting an algorithm.
No my algorithm above will never terminate. There's a recursive call where the input never shrinks and it won't converge on a base case.
It's equivalent to saying
def f(x):
return f(x)
Basically ketralnis is clarifying context which is sort of lost with my post. There's an axiom and do you believe in the axiom of not?
If the axiom can be proven then it is not an axiom. But a theorem. What I'm doing here is kind of pointless because we know it's an axiom by definition, the question is whether this axiom is valid or not. Attempting to prove the axiom is a a signal that I'm lacking clarity with the logic here.
No. I'm saying selecting an algorithm out of the set of all algorithms.
I'm not saying defining the set of all algorithms.
One way of selecting an algorithm is to select a way to encode the algorithms.
It's easy to see that this is true. You chose an arbitrary example above. Try to do the same without choosing anything arbitrary. You can't.
The axiom of choice is an assumption that is neither known to be true or false.
Try to select an algorithm out of the set of all algorithms without using an encoding. If you must use an encoding, please ensure that it's not a "particular" encoding.
You can't.
The point is all encodings in the known universe are "particular."
Additionally, to even use an encoding you have to *select* and encoding from the set of all encodings.
Algorithms themselves have no specific order. In order to define enumeration you must first start off by *selecting* which algorithm gets the first enumeration. This is a completely arbitrary choice.
I can say arbitrary stuff like the set of all sets with positive numbers but when I say the set of all algorithms written in English and C++ suddenly I'm getting too specific. Where is the line drawn?
def a(x):
return a(x)He can't make such a statement about probability when the circumstances aren't even known.
We don't even know how life forms so how can we even know what the probability of it forming is?
How do we know that probability is high enough that it is very likely to occur? The chances of it occurring could be incredibly low.
I think us programmers think in terms of time. But in math there is no time so whether you do things in parallel or procedural is irrelevant. That's why you can discuss infinities in math.
a = the algorithm
A = set of all selection algorithms
b = any set
def a(x):
while True:
f = a(A) # you have to select an algorithm from the set of selection algorithms
result = f(x)
if result is None:
A = A - f # set of all selection algorithms without f
continue
else:
return result
a(b) #will always return a result or not terminate for any choice of b?
I'm looking at it and such an algorithm is defined in terms of itself (like a factorial, which is legal) and may never terminate (which also legal because an algorithm selecting the smallest number from all sets that only contain positive numbers will never terminate either).
Wait but then if you look at the code it provably will never terminate because A does not shrink as it recurses.
I think it's quite narrow minded and downright evil to paint a picture as if this is what I'm doing.
I NEVER said the CEO doesn't matter. But certainly he doesn't matter as much as you and their salaries imply. Jobs died, guess what happened to Apple? Nothing. Steve jobs matters, but along with every other CEO in the world, if he suddenly dies, life goes on and not much happens to the company.
Additionally what the hell is this garbage about assembly workers pushing buttons? That's just one step in a highly complex process. There's designers, engineers, programmers and assembly workers. All of these people combined contribute far more than Steve Jobs saying, "build me a touch screen phone." Certainly you need someone to give the order but in no way is this person a critical part of the equation. You saying this is a deliberate distortion of what I am saying. The best word to describe it is: lies.
>[0]I’m not trying to put down their musical or performance talent, just commenting on the fact that even the greatest entertainment products are still just entertainment products and certainly don’t justify a huge x compared to CEO’s just because one song is more popular than another.
Yeah great job covering your ass while distorting and twisting my point. No dude. CEO's as they stand today deserve far less than celebrities. The entire operation falls apart without a celebrity. Not so for the CEO.
CEOs are an important part the equation for a product. But they are also the least important when compared to the rest of pipeline. The CEO is replaceable, the pipeline is not.
All production is limited by rate of available energy and/or available extraction of material.
It is actually more accurate to say the economy is a fixed pie than it is to ludicrously say the economy is a source of infinite wealth.
When I pay for a product I want the majority of my payment to go to the workers responsible for realizing the product not the CEO telling the workers what to do. We all know a company is destroyed if you remove all the workers, but not if you remove a CEO. The same cannot be said of celebrities.
Additionally I'm a fucking worker as are most people here. So of course it's a problem for me if the CEO is taking something that isnt considered a fair share by workers. I'm also 100 percent fucking aware of what my CEO actually does and how much he actually contributes.
What amazes me is the leaps of logic that CEOs formulate in order to justify their crimes and lie to themselves.
Trees aren't the complete solution and the reason why has nothing to do with the tree dying and releasing the carbon.
What's going on here is that plants are converting CO2 into mass. A tree that isn't growing isn't creating new mass and therefore isn't lowering carbon in the atmosphere.
Instead one of the first things you did was deflect. I said you were well off, you said when you were a kid you were not well off. I stayed on course and said that your past has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You are currently well off and that's why you have such opinions about the free market.
I highly doubt you'd support the free market policies you do now when you were poor. Likely you never thought about these policies until you became rich. That is my point. The whole point is that your wrong about the free market and evidence is that your foundations for supporting such a thing have more to do with your circumstance than it does with reality.
Defeating your argument involves getting personal because personal reasons are the foundations of your argument.
If I'm wrong it's easy to point out that I'm wrong. All you gotta do is tell me exactly the inflection point in which you developed this free market logic. Was it when you were poor or when you were rich? I'm simply saying they came about when you were rich.
Feelings shouldn't be precious. They should be disregarded. When communicating a point, if disdain is felt it should be presented. If it is not felt then it shouldn't be presented.
>If you struggle to separate your disdain for people who disagree with you then that's a chance to grow, or a chance to dig your heels in.
I hold disdain for certain people. But not for all people who disagree with me. Clearly what you're saying is completely false.
Growth to me is not the ability to separate disdain from disagreement. Growth is the ability to not hide your disdain. To express it when it's required.
To you I am not expressing disdain. You only perceive it as such because you disdain what I am saying. The reality is, I'm the same as you. I'm quite well off. The difference between us, is that I don't twist reality or morality to justify my sins.
I knew you were rich and well off, because I am rich and well off. Why would I disdain someone like me? The only difference between us is that I don't lie to myself.
>Some people see black and white everywhere.
Very unlikely someone is actually like this. We see gradients with our physical eyes with brightness and saturation, we hear gradients with sound for volume. Our human bodies are tuned to analyze and perceive gradients. It is fundamentally impossible to see black and white everywhere.
These people only see black and white in certain topics you are discussing with them, and it is not automatically "perplexing" that they disagree with you on those topics.
People like you are everywhere as well. What type of person are you? Someone who accuses people who disagree with you as people who see things only in terms of black and white.
>It's an internet forum, so no big deal, but you've gone on quite an accusatory rant without actually reading my comment properly.
Not only am I accusatory. But I'm accusing you of something that is 100% true. And I would tell you this to your face in real life. Think about it.
Why would someone having a binary opinion on a topic be perplexing? Binary things exist. Thus it would only be perplexing if you felt that binary things didn't exist. That's the logic derived from reading your statements. Nothing is assumed here, it is a logical derivation.
Of course, reality is far more nuanced than that. You are fully aware that binary things exist. You're not stupid. But than again neither is the person you're "perplexed" about. He's fully aware that gradients exist as well. Nobody is actually so stupid that they believe binary things don't exist nor is anyone really so stupid as to believe gradients don't exist. Such a belief is completely ludicrous. We ALL know this. There is nothing to be "perplexed" about here.
The true nature of what's going on is that both of you only had a difference of opinion. But instead of discussing it in a civil way you decided to call anyone with a differing opinion than you "perplexing." Your opponent was OBVIOUSLY not someone who sees the world in black and white, just like you are OBVIOUSLY not someone who only sees the world in gradients.
But it gets even more nuanced then that. I'm willing to bet you weren't even aware you were being insulting at the time.Let me make this more clear. You don't suffer from brain damage, so you're also 100% aware that calling someones behavior "perplexing" to their face is insulting. Whether it'd be on HN or in real life.
You know this, you're aware of this yet at the very moment when you called someones behavior "perplexing" on HN you lost all awareness. The human mind is biased and contradictory. It lies to others and to itself to justify things such that certain actions can be taken at certain times.
Your brain was too busy constructing a retort to use against an opponent that you never were able to see the hypocrisy within yourself. Would I call that perplexing? No. It's actually normal. Lots of people use the "perplexing" tactic on HN, and likely all of them have the same hypocritical blindness to the rudeness of such an action. It's not you who was biased it's always your opponent who sees everything as black and white. People are ironically biased towards always seeing other people as biased rather than themselves.
In fact, the people who are the least biased aren't the people calling out others, the person who is the least biased is the person who is aware of their own biases.
Well. Now you're aware. And hopefully you'll wise up and be less rude. Instead of asking me to re-read your content, why don't you re-read my content. The whole point of the example is to illustrate the hypocrisy and unreasonableness and rudeness of the "perplexing" tactic. Yeah, I'm fully aware you're not so stupid as to think the world is never black and white, the whole point was to illustrate how you're likely fully aware that your opponent isn't so stupid as to think the world can never be a gradient.
This post serves to win the game and lay out ammunition for others to use in the future.
Every culture and conversational arena has rules that must be obeyed when playing the dominance game. By pointing out how someone is violating the spirit of HN etiquette I dominate the other party by elucidating how the other person isn't playing by the rules. I can link to this thread in the future for anyone who wants to call someone "perplexing" in the future.
You should note that dominance games exist in both men and women. Everybody flexes sometimes but most people are never self aware about it.
You should also know that relating gender to behavior even though it's scientifically valid is a cultural no no. Expect to lose the dominance game should you ever go this route as you'll be labelled as sexist or people will become incredulous. "Are you literally implying men and women can behave differently? That's preposterous!!"
There's a subtle veiled insult here when you called me a woman. It's also a little off topic, but whatever. The obvious move would be to call you sexist as the rules of our modern culture say it's an easy win. I can also just be silent and you automatically lose as others vote you down. But you aren't technically wrong about the differences between male and female behavior. So I won't take that route because it's cheap.
Either way you are completely off. I'm a dude. I'm a heterosexual male doing what heterosexual male humans typically do in the wild. I seek to dominate ass holes who call others perplexing. I dominate by being fucking completely right and not by using cheap conversational tactics. This entire post was the typical male testosterone fueled maneuver. I'm curious as to why you weren't able to see that? Maybe it's because you're female? Go read a psychology book on gender. Maybe that will help you understand the male mind better.