Also unbelievably and unfortunately true. The arrogance of a statement has no bearing on truth. Keep your biases in check and examine the truth behind a statement rather then perceived arrogance. Look at https://www.google.com/.
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.
I feel UI designers are all imposters pretending that their job is some kind of ultra high value skill set. The UI designer is an important job but to compare it to a still life painting? Laughable.
Literally, that still life painting takes 1000x more skill to render than arranging text, pictures and geometric elements on a website. ANYONE can arrange these elements on a website in a pleasing way. It takes time and effort to consider the best way to arrange these elements but it doesn't take extraordinary talent to do this... anyone can do it.
Mind you there are some programmers that are really inept at all forms of "art" but this post isn't direct at those people. On average arranging text in a pleasing way is a trivial exercise. Adding this "color" and "depth" theory on top of it (there's no real science theory here) is just pretentious. Yes these "theories" are sort of applicable but at the same time "what just looks good" also works just as well.
I have little respect for "artists" who do UI because the job requires little skill.
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.
We're in the habit of blaming the police for everything. No. When there is a call for danger assume the worst. Not doing so could mean a life is lost. It is very rare for someone to die of a heart attack because of a swat.
How about we punish the hell out of anyone who does these stupid prank calls instead.
I've hit this as well. There are a number of deep technical falsehoods believed by the industry that are very widespread. These falsehoods are so ingrained that pushing against these falsehoods even rationally or logically could land you in hot water. The one that affected me personally has to do with Quaternions.
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.
All cultures have anti poor sentiments as well as empathetic attitudes towards the poor. What is "interesting" here is prejudice attitudes from people like you towards america.
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.
As my retort to that common mentioned, he is wrong.
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.
> ketralnis is right that this only terminates if an algorithm exists, so the claim that this terminates is equivalent to the axiom of choice.
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)
which is a pointless (but true) statement. The whole thing is distracting everyone.
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.
Your own example used the word "alphabetical." So your example is false because it uses a "particular" encoding.
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.
Your assuming all algorithms are defined in terms of English that's how you can order them alphabetically. English is an arbitrary language that comes from human culture. Same with a programming language. You are defining a set in terms of concepts that are cultural.
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?
Your attitude is childish, immature and spineless. Someone like you wouldn't have the balls to say that in real life so you take it out anonymously on forums.
Either way it's a technicality. I obviously meant "solid mass." CO2 must be converted to solid mass. Any person of normal brain power would've been able to figure out what I meant without delving into pointless pedantry.
Go study humans and manners you lack experience with both.
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.