sleightofmind
Thanks for the explain.
What is the initial drawing being done with?
What is this stable diffusion process? (Amazing is one answer.)
A very brief description of the software used.
Color me astounded. I actually liked (was delighted by) the results in step-6. When I realized it was done programmatically somehow, I had to pick myself up and get back in my chair.
And vim? Yeah. Wouldn't want to live without it, though I'm not going to argue it's better than any other capable editor. It's okay to like something just because, right?
What I did not realize, and subsequently caused me to regard his farming skills with greater generosity, was that during the first fifty years of his life, the percentage of people working on farms went from 20% of the US population to 2%! So, even if one were a good farmer, there was still a very real chance of getting squeezed out.
If you want Ayn Rand that makes sense, read We the Living, in my opinion, by far her best work. As a matter of fact, I'd say Ayn Rand's three major works, can be rated worst to best with length being the determining factor. Worst -- Atlas Shrugged. If ever a book needed an editor of steely resolve, it was that windbag of a novel -- would have been great at 1/2 it's length. The Fountainhead was tighter and better. But We the Living is the best because it is set in the world of her youth and makes her rah-rah cheerleading for capitalism and her deep hatred of communism completely relatable in context. The story never leaves the Soviet Union, so it's very different from her other work.
I love capitalism, but reading Atlas Shrugged left me feeling like this is one hard woman. Reading We the Living left me feeling like now I get it -- I'd be hard, too.
Example: I (who am not a programmer) once wrote a tangled mess of HTML and JavaScript to accept, and tabulate data entry for rebar (reinforcing steel) estimates. I was inordinately proud of it, bird's nest of bad programming practice that it was. I could TAB or ENTER-key my way through all fields, the up and down arrows performed the same tasks as the TAB-key, just like on a desktop program.
So why was it important to do things this way, and break the conventions so dear to the heart of the standard's purist? Because this is how I (and many others) estimated rebar in the 1990's:
You sat at a wide desk or table with a set of plans 30" to 48"-wide spread out to your left (if you were lucky) and another 30"-48" of table was needed to catch the plan pages turned to reveal the one you were working on. You right hand rested on the keyboard's ten-key pad some 3-5 feet away. You didn't look at your right hand -- you looked at your left hand index finger which was glued to (and rarely left) the large page at precisely the item you wanted to enter into your tabulation program, as you entered the SAC code, the qty per unit, the number of units, the bar size number, the bend category, the grade of steel, and the total length. Your eyes never left the drawing as you did this, and immediately upon completing that line item, your left hand picked up a yellow highlighter and highlighted that item -- one of many hundreds or thousands that would be necessary in a materials take-off of any appreciable size. To force the use of the TAB-key, or the mouse to move through data-entry fields would simply guarantee that no one would use your program. Ever.
But the purist says, "Someone may stumble." Aunt Loreen said, "Sometimes the 'You shoulds' are the sh-ts."
I thought at first you had invented a clever new word combining strategy and survival. Then I realized that v is just very close to c on a qwerty keyboard. Oh well.
Thanks.
Huh? My definition of a personal website differs mightily from yours. Today, neocities.org and a day spent learning how to write simple HTML suffices. Fact is, I'm getting ready to do this once again myself. And I can email my friends (you know -- real friends) with a link. And I've found Google to be quite good at quickly adding my site to their databases. I can always find my sites using sensible search terms in Google.
A personal website should not look like a corporate website, or like MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter (well, unless that's your obsession).
I find that a little HTML, the tiniest bit of CSS -- say 15-lines or less, some images/diagrams, and most importantly, something honest and interesting to say, is about all that's required.
The use of Pandoc can make writing HTML almost trivial, but then writing plain HTML is almost trivial anyway, even with Notepad. A personal website is not a place to track visitors, or to manipulate them with "Please Subscribe" membership assaults upon them. It's personal, it's right there in the name. By personal, I don't mean it's where you spill your guts about yourself (although, if you want, you can). It can even be a subtle ad, emphasis on subtle, for your work. Will the real John D. Cook, please stand up?
But why, in the name of all that's precious, does it have to be complicated? That's a rhetorical question, whose answer is, obviously, "It doesn't."
And about this dis-aggregated business, this "gain more control over their audiences..." stuff, that doesn't sound so personal to me.
I suspect many folks would gladly visit stale-looking sites that don't torment them with drop-down (and over) videos, and membership pleas 5-seconds after they begin reading the content they really came for. And on many sites, the absence of a comment section would be a blessing indeed -- the vitriol of the internet knows no bounds, and just being exposed to that stuff can sometimes send your mind down Negative Nellie Lane.
So to any non-technical readers who would like to create a simple site to say something they've been wanting to say to no one, someone, or everyone, I say give Neocities, or something similar a try. Wait a week, search Google for your site. Feel special. It's fun!
EDIT: Oops! Should have read farther in the comments. FartyMcFarter already mentioned Huskies just a couple of comments down.
My father, born in 1930 in Minnesota, told of watching farmers bringing out a team of horses to help pull stuck tractors out of the springtime mud -- it wasn't only about their not-insignificant strength, but their superior traction. In his teens -- which would have been in the forties, he worked with teams of horses, which seems oddly late in the 20th century, but he did, as did my paternal grandfather. The terms for the various parts of the, to me, very-complicated-looking harnesses were as fresh in his mind in his eighties as they had been in his teens.
There are other Eucalyptus trees that are massive and perhaps less attractive, that I still find awe inspiring because of their massive size.
I did not know that they were such a problem in wildfires, despite being born in and living nearly the whole of my life in Southern California. You learn something every day.
Endings are hard. I suspect one of the things that has enhanced Tom Hanks' acting career is making sure most of the stuff he did had a good solid ending, not a quick fade -- consider Saving Private Ryan, and Castaway. Killer endings. Tolstoy, unlike Chekov, does great endings.
Start with some easy Tolstoy, like Kholstomer, The Story of a Horse, or Master and Man. If you don't like those, maybe you're just not a Tolstoy reader. No problem there.
http://www.lrgaf.org/training/kholstomer.htm
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/986/986-h/986-h.htm (Master and Man)
I love 19th-century English literature, especially Hardy, and the same goes for the Russians Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, and the Ukrainian/Russian Gogol, so maybe it's a patience for carefully described settings/characters, carefully developed plots, and a willingness to be dragged, slowly, methodically, and for me, magically into another world and time. Not sure. It's possible certain books only suit certain temperaments. Tolstoy, I'm almost certain, appeals to those who've wrestled with religious belief or doubt for decades, whether they've moved towards or away from belief. He himself scared the Russian elite greatly because of his strong desire to live a truly Christian life, and his apparent willingness to do so. A truly Christian life terrifies most folks, religious or not. Don't assume I'm in sympathy with Tolstoy on this topic. But his sincerity clearly bled through into his writing, and gives it a power few other authors exhibit.
There may be authors on a par with Tolstoy, but I'm hard pressed to come up with one I consider better. War and Peace? Best book I've ever read.
The question was aimed at Non Programming Professionals. I thought my answer was thoroughly non-professional, and therefore just about perfect. /s
But seriously, you both make good points.
Same idea, though.
For much of my 30s, 40s, and 50s I was strictly a fee for service patient in Southern California. This, of course, is no solution for someone with significant health problems. I've been blessed with good health, undeservedly so. I had cataract surgery on my left eye in 2011 for $2600 cash, up front, at the area's biggest hospital. No further charges materialized. I had no regular primary care physician at the time. To me, $2600 for a surgery, the result of which was so magically wonderful that I burst into happy laughter in the ophthalmologist's office when he removed the eye bandage, was worth far more than the $2600.
Don't overlook businesses like Everlywell or Private Labs MD that enable one to get tests performed outside your own network. I've used such a service to "nudge" my health care provider (with whom I am generally satisfied) to investigate some subject further. Admittedly, this is not much help for exotic tests.
If, like me, you are lucky enough to live reasonably near our southern border, labs in Mexico don't even require a doctor's order to perform tests. There may be exceptions to this -- I don't want to imply that I know more than I do.
I don't want to "wave away" the very real problems that exist for those who cannot afford any service outside their network, nor do I mean to ignore the very real problem of arrogant medical professionals who ignore a patient who tells them, "Listen, Doc, I've had this same test three times in the last three months." I only mean to suggest that sometimes, when it is possible, it helps to work around a stubborn physician, rather than attempting to bend said physician to your view.
There is a 1940 booklet called "Outs" Precautions and Challenges by Charles H. Hopkins, that is devoted to precisely this problem. As I recall it is just as suitable for close-up as stage magic. It is a playing cards only book, but the principles remain valid for all magic.
There was a film industry guy, forget his name, who insisted that if someone wants to see you do some tricks (informally) you must first make them prove that it matters. Have the host set up a room or an area specifically for you to do you magic. Then require anyone who wants to see your impromptu act come to you. It's about setting a tone.
Just being very experienced and performing flawlessly sends a message as well.
Others like Slydini, simply did not perform close-up magic unless conditions were perfect, and it was very obvious that the magic was wanted. He had a presence, and a lifetime of reading audiences. When he performed, he was in charge, no one doubted it. However, Slydini, like Daryl, had tricks tailored for perfect conditions, and tricks tailored for the worst of conditions.
Some like John Carney, student of Dai Vernon for many years, are just so darn natural, that you don't realize they're doing magic until your jaw hits the table. So with John, there's simply not much chance of interrupting, because it just seems like your having a little chat. He is the master of doing things on the off beat. He often seems genuinely surprised that something magical happened. Of course his knowledge of outs is extensive.
The late lamented Daryl was not afraid to show a little bit of anger if someone kept interrupting. Nothing rude, but the offender got the message. Not everyone can do this. Daryl was amazing in his planning. When he wrote up a trick, he described exactly what conditions it was suitable for: seated, 3/4 surrounded; seated 180-degs surrounded; standing, audience in front; standing surrounded, etc. Methods differed for the same trick depending on conditions. Not every trick could be performed under every circumstance, and he noted this when describing them. He used some pretty advanced techniques known to some close-up workers to control the angles in less than favorable circumstances.
Ricky Jay, would get extremely angry if you interrupted his trick, or demanded he shuffle the cards or such. He'd lecture you with the ruined deck sitting in plain view, and remind you that you had agreed not to mess with his performance. After a minute of anger (acting?) and hectoring, he'd give in, take the deck you'd apparently ruined by shuffling, and proceed to astound you with its successful conclusion. But then, Ricky Jay was a student of magic, from ancient to the modern, that has had very few peers in that respect... perhaps Vernon, Mulholland, Marlo, Diaconis, and a few others.
Bottom line, without polish, brashness, and flawless execution, most of us will get our tricks ruined by our audience now and then. Just go the confidence store and buy a couple of large bags of the stuff. Real magic is hard work, study, and confidence. Can't help you with the last one. I feel your pain. Voice of experience.