Every industry is full of technical hills that people plant their flag on. What is yours?
I work in disability support. People in my industry fail to understand the distinction between duty of care and dignity of risk. When I go home after work I can choose to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. My clients who are disabled are able to make decisions including smoking and drinking, not to mention smoking pot or watching porn. It is disgusting to intrude on someone else’s life and shit your own values all over them.
I don’t drink or smoke but that is me. My clients can drink or smoke or whatever based on their own choices and my job is not to force them to do things I want them to do so they meet my moral standards.
My job is to support them in deciding what matters to them and then help them figure out how to achieve those goals and to support them in enacting that plan.
The moment I start deciding what is best for them is the moment I have dehumanised them and made them lesser. I see it all the time but my responsibility is to treat my clients as human beings first and foremost. If a support worker treated me the way some of my clients have been treated there would have been a stabbing.
Disabled people are so often treated like children and it just sucks.
Like you, I tend to feel that in general, people need to stop trying to force people to live the way they think is best. Unless there is a very real, very serious impact on others (“I enjoy driving through town while firing a machine gun randomly out my car windows”), people should be permitted to choose how to live as far as possible. Flip side is that they gotta accept potential negative consequences of doing so. Obviously, there’s gonna be some line to draw on what consitutes “seriously affecting others”, and there’s going to be different people who have different positions on where that line should be. Does maybe spreading disease because you’re not wearing a facemask during a pandemic count? What about others breathing sidestream smoke from a cigarette smoker in a restaurant? But I tend towards a position that society should generally be less-restrictive on what people do as long as the harm is to themselves.
However.
I would also point out that in some areas, this comes up because someone is receiving some form of aid. Take food stamps. Those are designed to make it easy to obtain food, but hard to obtain alcohol. In that case, the aid is being provided by someone else. I think that it’s reasonable for those other people to say “I am willing to buy you food, but I don’t want to fund your alcohol habit. I should have the ability to make that decision.” That is, they chose to provide food aid because food is a necessity, but alcohol isn’t.
I think that there’s a qualitative difference between saying “I don’t want to pay to buy someone else alcohol” and “I want to pass a law prohibiting someone from consuming alcohol that they’ve bought themselves.”
I disagree with restricting alcohol for food stamps. In fact, it shouldn’t be food stamps, it should be cash. When you attach all these requirements and drug testing and restrictions you are destroying the autonomy of the person you are claiming to help.
It is like with housing. Many of the housing programs available require drug tests, job seeking documentation, separating men and women, and so on. In some cases this can make a little sense, given that men are much more likely than women to be domestic abusers, but other cases make less sense. If someone uses drugs to cope with their life and then you offer housing only if they stop the thing that is helping them cope they will not be helped, they will be harmed. They will not be able to take the housing and end up off the street in a secure place building a life, they will be still on the street and still on the drugs.
If I go and work a job and get paid should my employer be able to say “I’m fine with paying you so you can have housing and food, but alcohol? No, I don’t want to pay for alcohol”? This would be insane. Your employer choosing what you can do with your money outside of work hours is authoritarian nonsense and yet when it comes to welfare or charity people think it is fine. I disagree vehemently.
If I give you money to alleviate your suffering who am I to decide how you employ that? I want you to have more money because it is fungible, you can do almost anything with money, so you can make choices. I want you to have more power to effect your life, not less.
I assume you are an American given your reference to food stamps. Where is the American spirit of independence? Of self determination? Of rugged individualism? It seems quite dead in the modern era of state capture and authoritarian oligarchy. It is a loss and a tragedy.
How are you distinguishing:
- it’s ok to treat all men as criminals who may attack women and women as victims who may be attacked so we need to keep them from fraternizing
From
- it’s not ok to try to reduce their self-destructive behaviors that are keeping them from being able to support themselves
Statistically speaking the rate of abuse from men to their partners is extremely high. I don’t know how to manage this best but it seems likely that at least some of the situations of abuse would be helped by having spaces without men in them. Does that mean we should force men and women apart? No. But how to manage that I will concede is a difficult problem.
In many cases of abuse the abuser keeps the victim close and prevents any outside contact as much as possible. Having the moment without the abuser nearby can provide an opportunity to escape which seems to provide some significant utility. On the other hand someone who is supported by their partner and actually does derive benefit from that would suffer from the separation, not to mention the suffering of the men who would theoretically be separated from their partners and kids.
I don’t have the answer, but I do see it as fundamentally different from the self destructive behaviour situation. Someone who is disabled is no less able to make bad choices. If I could be a tradie, say an electrician, and I can go to the pub after work and smoke a pack of cigarettes then the same should apply to a disabled person. Is it the best decision? No. But it is theirs.
In the same way an abused partner should be able to make the decision to stay in the abusive relationship, whether that be a good or had choice. That said, paths out from abusive relationships and from smoking should both be made available as much as is reasonably possible.
Statistically speaking the rate of abuse from men to their partners is extremely high.
No. Higher than the other direction but hardly extreme
Statistically speaking the harm from drug adficts and alcohol is is much higher
In Australia, the country I live in, roughly 1 in 4 women have experienced intimate partner violence since age 15. For men this is 1 in 14. 23% compared to 7.3% to be clear. That means that about 3 times as many women have experienced IPV than men. This includes LGBT relationships, so abusive men who abuse other men would show up as part of the men being abused statistic, as with women abusing women.
As for the harm from drug addicts and alcohol use/abuse, where does the harm come from? Surely if I am in my own home and I take a drug and while high I stay at home I am not harming anyone? If I were to hurt my partner or other people in my house that would be a possible route for harm to occur. But if I don’t drive drunk or high and I don’t hurt those immediately around me how does harm happen?
I would suggest that much of the harm around drugs comes from the criminal enterprises involved with production and supply, crime committed to fund addictive drug use, and over policing coming from having already had one interaction with police leading to petty things becoming criminal due to that interaction. Surely there are other harms, but think about how much of this would be alleviated by legalising the less harmful drugs and decriminalising the rest. The legalised ones can be produced under regulation and made safer to consume as well as being made affordable. This would kill the criminal systems around drug production and supply. For the decriminalised ones it would shift the lower towards the user, allowing users to have power over dealers and have a way out of those fairly toxic relationships.
But again, we can always talk about some other harm out there and ignore the case at hand. I would rather close the conversation with a simple statement. We do have a problem with men abusing women which is larger than all other forms of abuse. We would all benefit from this being reduced. And lastly when managing something like a shelter it is reasonable to take a few extra steps to provide a way out for women who are particularly vulnerable at that time. Should we offer that for men? Of course. But is it going to be used far more by women? Yes.
You’re confusing “way too women experience partner violence sometime in their lives” with “all men are violent criminals and need to be separated”.
While yes, a lot of drug related violence is caused by the drug war, the harm for drugs is easy to see from with a significant portion of the homeless, theft and ciolence as the worst addicts fall out of society, and ruined wasted lives. Harm for alcoholism is much more obvious and easy to see, but I’d also add all the victims of drunk driving to it’s harm
I mean, sure. But we were talking about disabled people, and disabled people possibly can’t buy anything for themselves for reasons out of their control. You’re essentially imposing a different standard of life on them just based on that.
And maybe that’s not wrong - you’re not the only one that takes this stance - but it does deserve pointing out.
(And with, like, porn it doesn’t even apply. That’s mostly for free)
Patient autonomy!
RIP those disabled people who’s carers won’t even let them nut, and who definitely don’t have anywhere else to go.
Not strictly technical, although organizational science might be seen as a technical field on it’s own.
Regularly rotating people between teams is desirable.
Many companies just assign you in a team and that’s where you’re stuck forever unti you quit. In slightly better places they will try to find a “perfect match” for you.
What I’m saying is that moving people around is even better:
You spread institutional knowledge around.
You keep everyone engaged. Typically on a new job you learn for the first few months, then you have a peak of productivity when you have all the new ideas. After some 2 years you either reach a plateau or complacency.I’m in health sciences and I wish we would do more education days/conferences. I’m a med lab tech and I feel like no one knows what the lab actually does, they just send samples off and the magic lab gremlins Divine these numbers/results. I feel the same way when another discipline discusses what they do, its always interesting!
I’ll allow it, institutional knowledge while sounding good does cause business continuity problems.
It’s even better for software, since now everyone regularly needs to learn a new code base. It’s a huge incentive to make code better quality and more maintainable
Cleaning, organizing, and documentation are high priorities.
Every job I’ve worked at has had mountains of “The last guy didn’t…” that you walk into and it’s always a huge pain in the ass. They didn’t throw out useless things, they didn’t bother consolidating storage rooms, and they never wrote down any of their processes, procedures, or rationals. I’ve spent many hours at each job just detangling messes because the other person was to busy or thought it unimportant and didn’t bother to spend the time.
Make it a priority, allocate the time, and think long-term.
Make it a priority, allocate the time, and think long-term.
In many jobs, someone with the power to fire you makes the priorities, allocates your time and does not think long-term.
Starting a new job soon, and I’m paying for some holes in documentation as I prep my offboarding documentation for my current team. Definitely making it a priority to do better going forward! Being lazy in the moment is nice but the “stitch in time” adage is definitely true
I’m so hot for you right now.
Not everything needs to be deployed to a cluster of georedundant K8s nodes, not everything needs to be a container, Docker is not always necessary. Just run the damn binary. Just build a .deb package.
(Disclaimer: yes, all those things can have merit and reasons. Doesn’t mean you have to shove them into everything.)
But then how will I ship my machine seeing as it works for me?
Damn, I haven’t thought of that! Looks like I have to use a subdirectory of your Homedir from now on.
Just symlink my home folder to your PC and we are good to go.
I see you are well-versed in the ways of Citrix.
Genius!
Docker is the source of my secret nerd shame lol. I feel like I’m reasonably competent with computers - I’m no pro but I can install and setup Arch (BTW) without using Archinstall and stuff like that. But I just don’t understand Docker. I’ve read so many ELI5 guides and I understand in a really general way what it’s meant to do, but I just… cannot picture in my head what it’s doing. I don’t even know where it is on my machine! But I still have two apps that I run in Docker. They just… exist somewhere and if they ever break I’m lost.
That makes two of us. I’m in IT rather than development but I deploy VMs and containers semi regularly at work and at home. Docker seems to be designed to be an ephemeral isolated environment for repeatable testing, but oh so many server applications are distributed primarily as docker images.
You might find LXD more straightforward. I think docker was first and foremost a development platform, not meant for deploying production appliances. That’s why there’s this nonsense about persistent volumes. If it were designed from the ground up to be a turnkey appliance platform you wouldn’t need to mess around with that stuff because of course you want your filesystem to be persistent between reboots in a production environment.
This is a non technical hill but it is applicable to my technical career. The hill is that REMOTE WORK WORKS. I am so frustrated that so many businesses are going back to hybrid or full RTO.
RTO is about control and management/owners thinking that everyone else is lazy and would not do anything if not constantly pushed. I believe that is because they are the kind of people who would need that kind of supervision.
The financial side is that making people go to work maintains value. The money you spend on lunch, travel, dry cleaning, maintenance of cars, and the increased value of property near places of business add to the ownership class’s wealth. All that money you spend traveling to/from and while you are at work goes to them. If you save that money by working from home, the wealth stays with you.
Hear hear. My job’s about to force RTO starting January. Precious few other engineering jobs offer WFH to non-SW engineers.
Bastards, all if them.
I think it’s way more sinister. If people don’t waste time on stupid shit like commutes, pressing and starching business attire, wasting social energy on superficial coworker interractions, and needlessly spending money on lunchflation and work clothes, then everyone has more time/money to be a healthy human being with more time for self-actualization and community-building. Such people tend to attempt to facilitate a healthy society, and that misaligned with the goals of the exploitative wealthy class.
RTO mandates are employees reduction schemes, nothing more.
Except they’re actively hiring more people still. (My company that is doing RTO I mean.)
React sucks. I’m sorry, I know it’s popular, but for the love of glob, can we not use a technology that results in just as much goddamn spaghetti code as its closest ancestor, jQuery? (That last bit is inflammatory. I don’t care. React components have no opinionated structure imposed on them, just like jQuery.)
I much prefer VueJS, much more intuitive and clean.
And you favorite poison is?
I like that you called it poison because all options are bad, but I prefer the one I consider the least bad: Angular.
AI is a fad and when it collapses, it’s going to do more damage than any percieved good it’s had to date.
I can believe that LLMs might wind up being a technical dead end (or not; I could also imagine them being a component of a larger system). My own guess is that language, while important to thinking, won’t be the base unit of how thought is processed the way it is on current LLMs.
Ditto for diffusion models used to generate images today.
I can also believe that there might be surges and declines in funding. We’ve seen that in the past.
But I am very confident that AI is not, over the long term, going to go away. I will confidently state that we will see systems that will use machine learning to increasingly perform human-like tasks over time.
And I’ll say with lower, though still pretty high confidence, that the computation done by future AI will very probably be done on hardware oriented towards parallel processing. It might not look like the parallel hardware today. Maybe we find that we can deal with a lot more sparseness and dedicated subsystems that individually require less storage. Yes, neural nets approximate something that happens in the human brain, and our current systems use neural nets. But the human brain runs at something like a 90 Hz clock and definitely has specialized subsystems, so it’s a substantially-different system from something like Nvidia’s parallel compute hardware today (1,590,000,000 Hz and homogenous hardware).
I think that the only real scenario where we have something that puts the kibosh on AI is if we reach a consensus that superintelligent AI is an unsolveable existential threat (and I think that we’re likely to still go as far as we can on limited forms of AI while still trying to maintain enough of a buffer to not fall into the abyss).
EDIT: That being said, it may very well be that future AI won’t be called AI, and that we think of it differently, not as some kind of special category based around a set of specific technologies. For example, OCR (optical character recognition) software or speech recognition software today both typically make use of machine learning — those are established, general-use product categories that get used every day — but we typically don’t call them “AI” in popular use in 2025. When I call my credit card company, say, and navigate a menu system that uses a computer using speech recognition, I don’t say that I’m “using AI”. Same sort of way that we don’t call semi trucks or sports cars “horseless carriages” in 2025, though they derive from devices that were once called that. We don’t use the term “labor-saving device” any more — I think of a dishwasher or a vacuum cleaner as distinct devices and don’t really think of them as associated devices. But back when they were being invented, the idea of machines in the household that could automate human work using electricity did fall into a sort of bin like that.
I’m a bit more pessimistic. I fear that that LLM-pushers calling their bullshit-generators “AI” is going to drag other applications with it. Because I’m pretty sure that when LLM’s all collapse in a heap of unprofitable e-waste and takes most of the stockmarket with it, the funding and capital for the rest of AI is going to die right along with LLMs.
And there are lots of useful AI applications in every scientific field, data interpretation with AI is extremely useful, and I’m very afraid it’s going to suffer from OpenAI’s death.
The issue that I take with AI is that it’s having a similar effect on ignorance that the Internet created but worse. It’s information without understanding. Imagine a highschool drop out that is a self proclaimed genius and a Google wizard, that is AI, at least at the moment.
Since people imagine AI as the super intelligence from movies they believe that it’s some kind of supreme being. It’s really not. It’s good at a few things and you should still take it’s answers with skepticism and proof read it before copy/paste it’s results into something.
Weird i haven’t seen this one yet: the cloud is just someone else’s computers.
If you’re selfhosting, the cloud is your someone else’s computer ;)
Hardly a hot take really…
OP didn’t really ask for a hot take…
It was kind of implied, though.
How do you die on a hill if nobody’s fighting you? Is it just a hill suicide? That wasn’t in any war I’ve read about. I guess Life of Brian had something a bit like that.
Dying on the hill doesn’t mean it has to be controversial or a “hot take” IMO, but whatever.
…which are much more secure than yours ?
Riiight… downtime in the big clouds is totally not a thing and databreaches unheard of.
They have tighter security because they are bigger targets.
Is there anybody on Lemmy that isn’t a software engineer of some description? No? Anyone?
Carpenter
I’m a geologist!
Yes, me. I am a network engineer with an expired CCNA
Fellow network engineer here. The expired cert is implied.
I’m a machinist.
Just because I’m not in a technical job doesn’t mean I’m not a technology user.
Low voltage electrical engineer!
Yes, there are dozens of us.
My field is HR.
As for technical hills, I’m not sure.
Shoe Cobbler
Musician and Audio Engineer (so my 9-5 is in IT)
I do gynecology as a hobby.
I do (workplace) safety, compliance and hazardous waste handling.
I’m not, although I do write some code.
Manufacturing design automation specialist
I was thinking the same thing.
otoh, the post does say ‘technical’
Lots of trades are starting to use more modern equipment, to the slow embracement of older more “established” tradespeople.
An example from a couple decades ago, when auto leveling tiling systems were coming out, more “prestigious” companies refused to use them since they think it’s cheating. It’s like a calculator, a tool to make your life easier though.
Anyways, now you won’t catch tilesetters NOT using them.
This was my introduction to the ‘wonders of tech.’
With great fanfare and joyous noises, we were promised a wonderful, fully modern system that would solve a problem no one knew we had. I was a new supervisor and had to learn a system that seemed to be designed to frustrate and annoy everyone who used it.
the tl, dr is the city wasted lots of money on a project the Mayor’s daughter was pushing.
I’m an Illustrator. And I even contributed something non software engineery.
the only code I would ever write is some hacky scripting.
I fucking hate AI in HR/hiring. I try so hard not to spread my personal data to LLMs/AI ghuls and the moment I apply for a job I need to survive I have to accept that the HR department’s AI sorting hat now knows a shit ton about me. I just hope these are closed systems. if anyone from a HR department knows more, please let me know
I’m lucky in that I’ve been in the same job for ages (since before AI) and so I haven’t had to deal with this yet, but a friend of mine was using AI to write his resume recently and I had the thought that the resume is probably being written by an AI, then sent to another AI to read it and that you could conceivably get a job with a resume that no human has ever entirely read. Probably not an original thought but it had never occurred to me before lol.
You could also starve in the street after your résumé is rejected by several levels of LLMs, never having had human eyes land on it once.
Yeah probably the more likely outcome.
“I try so hard not to spread my personal data” reminded me Linkin Park
One thing, we both know why.
It doesn’t even matter how hard you try.
Keep that in mind, the design has right to exploit your time.All I know privacy is a valuable thing.
Watch it fly by as the disks spin.
Watch it collect down to the end of the day,
the applications piling awayIt’s so unfair, didn’t look out below
Watch the ram go right out the windows.
Tryna get job, d-didn’t even know
I wasted it all just to watch spies goI kept everything disabled.
And even though I tried, it traced apart
What was personal to me will eventually be a tracked thing in a time whenI tried so hard, not spread it all.
But in the end, it doesn’t even matter.
I had to apply to not lose it all.
But in the end, it doesn’t even matter.Hardly a hot take really…
deleted by creator
They should stop teaching the OSI model and stick to the DOD TCP/IP model
In the world of computer networking you are constantly hammered about the OSI model and how computer communication fits into that model. But outside of specific legacy uses, nothing runs the OSI suite, everything runs TCP/IP.
Understanding that other protocols are possible is important. Sure, reality doesn’t fit neatly into the OSI model, but it gives you a conceptual idea of everything that goes into a networking stack.
So does the TCP/IP model and that is what systems actually use.
Plenty of things don’t fit into the TCP/IP model at all. Infiniband, for starters.
Thank you. Didn’t know of any non-IP network stack. Got something new to research while commuting.
Another one is fibre channel (not to be confused with just running ethernet over fiber).
Does infiniband run IP?
No
It doest run CLNS either.
Doesn’t matter. The OSI model does not stipulate an OSI protocol
This is going to blow your mind but there are other systems out there that do not implement TCP/IP at all.
And they all have their own models to learn.
Don’t you mean the OSI model? ISO means International Standards Organisation lol
I’m sticking that to autocorrect.
WELCOME TO THE OFFICE OF SECRET INTELIGENCE SAMPSON!
[Co. Gathers jumps out of the plane without a parachute]
I don’t discount your point but coming from the support side, it’ll cause confusion to call it a layer 6 issue than a layer 8 issue. Layer 0 issues won’t change at least, especially as long as sales gets in the middle of project planning.
Okay, I’m pretty late to the party, but here we go. My field is illustration and art, and especially color theory is something that a lot too often is teached plainly wrong. I think it was in the 1950s when Johannes Itten introduced his book on colortheory. In this book, he states that there are three “Grundfarben” (base colors) that will mix into every color. He explained this model with a color ring that you will still find almost anywhere. This model and the fact that there are three Grundfarben is wrong.
There are different angles from where you can approach color mixing in art, and it always depends on what you want to do. When we speak about colors, we actually mean the experience that we humans have, when light rays fall into our eyes. So, it’s actually a perceptual phenomenon, which means it is actually something that has small statistical differences from individual to individual. For example, a greenish blue might be a little bit more green for one person or a little more blue for the other.
Every color, however, has its opposite color. Everybody can test this. Look into a red (not too bright) light for some time and then onto a white wall. The color you will see is the opposite. They will cancel each other out and become white / neutral.
Ittens colormodel, however, is not based in perception. In this model yellow is opposed to violet, which might mix to a neutral color with pigments but not with lightrays. But even that doesn’t work a lot of times. I mean, even his book is printed in six colors, even though his three basecolors are supposedly enough to print every color…
In history lot of colormodels have been less correct course. What is so infuriating is that in Ittens case, he just plainly ignored the correct colortheory that already existed (by Albert Henry Munsell) and created his own with whatever rules that he believes are correct.
Even today, this model and rules are teached at art schools and you can see his color circle plastered all over the internet.
Tldr: Johannes Ittens colormodel is wrong, even though it’s almost everywhere.
(Added tldr)
Fun fact:
OKLab which was created recently by Björn Ottosson as a hobby project, is a pretty accurate perceptual colorspace. It is open Source and has been adapted by Photoshop for Black and White conversion.
I kinda hope painting apps will also impliment it as a standard model for colopickers.
Can you post examples of what correct and incorrect models look like?
Itten
Munsell
The colormodel of munsell, for example, takes into account that some light waves have the same energy, they are experienced in a different brightness. >Helmholz-Kohlrausch effect
The Color model is dependent on what you want to do with it but in Ittens case, it doesn’t even help with pigment mixing nor as a perceptual representation.
I’m sorry I’ve really tried to understand what your position is but I can’t wrap my head around it. I find this really interesting but I don’t understand it, are you willing to help?
Itten is “normal” RYB color wheel, yes?
Can you ELI5 how Munsell is different? The graphic you linked pretty much looks like it showed the same RYB archetype, with some layers and different levels of brightness… Isn’t that just RYB with extra steps?
Here’s some things that might help us meet in the middle:
-I understand radio/light/EM spectrum/frequencies/amplitudes
-i struggle with concepts of hue, contrast, brightness, luminosity, flux
-i am not an artist at all. I have pretty strong aphantasia - I’m not sure if that’s relevant but it seems like it might be in this case so I’ll mention it here
Sure. Colors are a huge topic and I’m not a physicist. There are a lot of colorsystems, and I probably don’t know half of it, but I try to break it down.
There is no real “normal” colormodel. We just sort colors on a chart that fits our needs the best.
The color model you will see most often is, for instance, in Photoshop the HSV model. (Hue, saturation, value). It’s good but has its own flaws with the color brightness.
In Ittens and Munsells case, you can see a small difference in the colors that are opposite of each other, in both colorwheels. In munsels case, yellow is opposed to indigo. In ittens case yellow is opposed to violet.
itten
Munsell
That’s a small but significant difference. Opposing colors should combine into grey and not into other colors. In ittens case they don’t.
(Upper is correct, lower is Itten)Munsell is closer to a perceptive color space that takes into consideration that colors have different value and chroma levels, and vivid yellow is brighter than a vivid indigo.
Itten only used the flat ring model and lost the value and brightness of colors.
Now I compare those two because they are from the same time period, and Ittens model even came a little later.
Munsells color model even holds today.
Thanks for entertaining my struggle. I get it now.
When I referred to itten as “normal” I was making reference to its prevalence (which seems to be something that peeves you, given its inaccuracy), but I think it’s so prevalent because it’s so damn simple. I had to read and re-read your posts and look at your graphics in order to understand what the various layers were signifying, but the flat itten wheel is easy as pie to comprehend to the point that it’s taught to children in preschool. I’ve never really needed any more depth of understanding in my day to day life since then.
Like many models, the simplest are often very inaccurate on a technical level. As a layman the difference between indigo and violet and purple and blue green or whatever are unremarkable in most cases, so the slight yet important difference of which is across from yellow on the wheel doesn’t seem significant, until you showed an example of how they mix.
I can see why it bugs you if you have experience in a field that uses color theory as part of its toolkit. For me I’ve always just needed to know the bare minimum of RGB vs CMYK or whatever.
What would you prefer to see, that there’s just better education about colors once people are old enough to get some more nuance?
Glad I could help.
That is true, and I get that it should be simple for children. But that doesn’t mean that the foundation has to be incorrect.
Just using the simplified version of a correct layout like I showed you should be the way to go in this case.
Of course, most people won’t need to know what’s colorsystems there are. Itten is none of the less still teached by artschools even though it is this incorrect simplified version of a color space. At that advanced stage, there is no need to stick to a simplified version, let alone a one that doesn’t lead to correct results.
Ittens model is just a remnant of its time. And it keeps being shared because of that simplification. But hey, that how history sometimes goes.
I think that’s pretty crazy that itten is taught in art schools of all places, except maybe as an example of how models have different strengths and weaknesses, to spark a deeper acknowledgement of the color space in general (as this conversation did for me).
The good news is that now there’s two of us. Cheers!
the hill i am willing to die on is: FUCK AI. I’ll be dead before I let it write a single line of code.
I don’t let it wrote code per se but I’ve found it useful for writing regex for me to paste into notepad++ find/replace commands.
Holy shit, that’s a thing you can do? Like a sed type function works in Notepad++?
I bet someone smart could, but i just have Gemini or Claude open on the side where I tell it what I want to do with a regex in NP++ (or Geany now in Linux). Then I paste it into the regex box of the Find/Replace and test it then run it.
Transparency + blur + drop shadow is peak UI design and should remain so for the foreseeable future. It provides depth, which adds visual context. Elements onscreen should not appear flat; our human predator brains are hardwired and physiologically evolved to parse depth information.
Can you give an example?
Im not him, but theres a tiny shadow underneath the cursor on most windows, probably most everything else. Buttons are slightly 3D looking to appear like they pop out.
What of, more specifically?
An image of the 3 concepts together as you deavribe.
Windows 7 is a great example.
Dynamic typing sucks.
Type corrosion is fine, structural typing is fine, but the compiler should be able to tell if types are compatible at compile time.
This is one of those things like a trick picture where you can’t see it until you do, and then you can’t unsee it.
I started with C/C++ so typing was static, and I never thought about it too much. Then when I started with Python I loved the dynamic typing, until it started to cause problems and typing hints weren’t a thing back then. Now it’s one of my largest annoyances with Python.
A similar one is None type, seems like a great idea, until it’s not, Rust solution is much, much better. Similar for error handling, although I feel less strongly about this one.
I usually take these holiday weeks off to learn a new language or framework, and started to take a peek into Python, I had it on the back burner way too long. Got to the dynamic variable types and my heart sunk… I couldn’t continue.
Maybe I should take a third attempt at Rust.
Honestly modern python is not that bad because of the typing hints and checks you can run on them nowadays. Also it’s worth noting that python has very strong types, so it’s not illy willy magical types, and while it is possible to use it like that it’s normally not encouraged (unlike other languages).
That being said, if you haven’t learnt Rust I strongly encourage you to read the book and go through the rustling exercises. Honestly while still a new and relatively nieche language, it fixes so many of the issues that exist in other languages that I think it will slowly take over everything. Sure. It’s slower to write, but you avoid so much hassle on maintenance afterwards.
i hadn’t heard of the rustlings before. looks neat, might be what i need to finally learn rust properly
Coming from a background where all the datatypes are fixed and static (C, PLCs) it took me so very long to get used to python’s willy nilly variables where everything just kinda goes, until it doesn’t. Then it breaks, but would’ve been fine if we just damn knew what these variables where
Now my brain just goes “it’s all just strings”
Now my brain just goes “it’s all just strings”
Dynamic typing does kinda smell like primitive obsession, now that you’ve brought it to my attention lol
Do you mean type coercion?
From my perspective, dynamic typing IS type corrosion!
Type coercion = Allow types to be converted to other types automatically to perform some operations like comparison.
Type corrosion = some non-standard condescending term to say that dynamic typing has no proper rigid types?
It was obviously a typo
It was a typo, but I also wanted to add that type coercion is not dynamic typing, the coercion can be done statically during compile time, so it could not be the 2nd one, even if it wasn’t a typo
No it’s not, they’re completely different concepts. In C/C++ lingo Dynamic typing is having every variable be a
void *whereas type coercion is implementing conversion functions for your types to allow casting between types, e.g. having a temperature class that can be casted to a double (or from it).This is a function with dynamic typing and no type coercion in C/C++:
int foo(void* param) { Temperature* t = (Temperature*) param; return t->intValue() + 10; }This is the same function with type coercion and no dynamic typing in C/C++:
int foo(Temperature& t) { return t + 10; }I’m making a Star Wars joke based on a typo. I know what type coercion is. The joke is that dynamic typing is corroded and disgusting to me. The Star Wars reference being Anakin saying from his perspective the Jedi were evil.
Dyac
YESSSSSSSSSSSSS. You are so valid for this. Static typing is so so so so so useful.
Its not possible to have objects that are statically typed.
What are you talking about? What do you think C/C++/Rust/Java do?
Wut
