bsanderson

il y a 8 ansdiscuss

Agreed that we probably end up on that naturally for things like traffic lights or danger signs, but I was thinking more interns of a full UI with that approach as an integral, conscious design consideration... based on more in depth and sophisticated study of replicating colour schemes in a natural environment in a broader sense.

bsanderson

il y a 8 ansdiscuss

It would be interesting to design a UI colour scheme specifically with this in mind, with strategic use of red vs green for focusing attention in a way that parallels the eye's natural biological tuning, as a similar approach to accessibility UI design for colour-blindness.

If anyone knows anything like that that's been tried I'd be really interested.

bsanderson

il y a 8 ansdiscuss

Sure but who said anything about music? The word music doesn't appear in the original link or in any other comment on this page, or in the link I posted.

bsanderson

il y a 8 ansdiscuss

Actually a thing...

Auditory Beat Stimulation and its Effects on Cognition and Mood States

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4428073/

bsanderson

il y a 9 ansdiscuss

Easy there tiger.

The record will probably remain broken while women spend huge amounts of time building up education and careers and then have an unfair additional burden of crap to deal with that their male peers don't.

I don't see how it sounds stupid (maybe I'm THAT stupid) to say that men who don't face the results of misogyny in the same way as their female colleagues are generally less inclined to even think it's an issue or to put effort into doing anything about it.

Nothing at all I wrote said "A man did something bad, you're a man, therefore you're responsible".

A more accurate reading would be;

1. Culture is complex and we are all a part of it. 2. Our current culture has some elements of misogyny that unfairly impact women in the workplace. 3. We can all contribute to improving things even if it doesn't affect us directly.

Now, point 3 depends on agreement that there is a problem so not sure if you agree with that or not.

I think the challenge is thinking of the issue as a cultural issue rather than on an isolated individual basis. When thinking about it while limiting the scope to a single individual then you think that person is either good or bad, and most people assume they're not the bad ones, so they get defensive if they think someone is lumping them in with the bad people.

Culture is complex and more nuance is required. It takes an open mind to realize that you may have biases that contribute to the issue, such as the second example on the site, with the elementary school teachers. The original site author, as well as the linked NY times article, do not say all those teachers are terrible misogynists at all because that isn't the point.

bsanderson

il y a 9 ansdiscuss

I don't see anything on the original site where the author claims that fixing or improving the pipeline would not "contribute" to fixing the issue so maybe a bit of straw from your end as well.

My understanding of the author's motivation is that it was in response to positions others are taking in saying that the root cause was the pipeline, and the central premise of the site (clearly by its URL) was that even if the pipeline was 100% fine, there are more significant issues that are the causes of the problem that are not taken as seriously as they should when people present the pipeline as being the central problem. Not sure who's making that claim so maybe some straw from the original author of the site as well. Strawmen all the way down sometimes.

Maybe isitONLYapipelineproblem.com might have been more clear.

bsanderson

il y a 9 ansdiscuss

Apologies if it came across as exaggerating your point, I didn't mean to equate what you wrote to Jim Crow laws at all but rather to provide an extreme example to illustrate how preferences of the majority are not related to whether an environment is good or bad.

I'm also not looking to argue really. I just find it frustrating when women raise what strike me as some pretty valid points and it gets shot down immediately (such as this original post being flagged and having pretty defensive/dismissive comments immediately).

The original link has a references link for each point, which point to things such as the National Science Foundation rather than personal opinion blogs. Nothing on that page is a big rant about how all men are evil, etc., and I think the sources provided are pretty solid. The reaction is telling and as another commented noted, does to some degree prove the point.

bsanderson

il y a 9 ansdiscuss

The majority of those in an environment can have preferences that lead to a bad environment.

That's like saying that Jim Crow laws weren't "good or bad" because a majority of people supported them at some given time.

The plain truth is that many work environments including tech are worse for women than men. The cause of that reality is the behaviour of some men in that environment, as a result of the larger culture having a significant degree of misogyny that has only gradually being eroded through massive effort over decades.

Cultures evolve and it's bullshit for men who are not faced with the disadvantages in the workplace to avoid responsibility since it doesn't affect them directly. Everyone should have the humility to acknowledge that even though they may feel that they have good intentions, that they as an individual component of the larger culture, may to whatever degree be contributing to the problem and conscientiously think through what role they can play in improving it.

The only honest alternative position is to either hold the belief that there is no actual problem at all, or to be openly misogynist and think that the existing inequality is the way things should be.

bsanderson

il y a 9 ansdiscuss

If the environment is bad because of the shitty behaviour of some men, the most expedient and appropriate corrective course of action is to change the behaviour of those causing the problem rather than to assume that's just the way men are and waiting for more women to join the environment to balance them out.

The burden shouldn't be placed on the women entering a bad environment to put up with it until they gain sufficient numbers to fix it themselves.

bsanderson

il y a 9 ansdiscuss

I don't think it's making "a buzz out of nothing special"... you compare it to every data centre with battery backup which is a standard thing, but scaling that to apply the same principle at a full grid scale rather than a single data centre is not nothing special.

bsanderson

il y a 9 ansdiscuss

Does it really prove your point?

What you said you'd find helpful is a "global database of opinions" whereas being down-voted on this particular site is a very limited context.

Would you find it helpful if I happened to be in the key interviewer for a job that you really want and are fully qualified for and reject you based on my perception of you here, bubbling up through data processing and aggregation into a "global" system that's totally opaque to you? And further, that my negative reaction adds more data and pushes your score down?

Up/Down voting comments here is totally appropriate as limited to this context. Applying that type of data, invisibly aggregated across all aspects of your life is what's seen as a problem, correctly in my view.

bsanderson

il y a 9 ansdiscuss

It is a very nearsighted view of individuals and grossly oversimplifies people as intrinsically good or bad without considering how people change over time, or how they're ahead of their time and seen as right later.

Especially in the context of cultural production. We wouldn't have the Beatles ("more popular than Jesus" controversy, drugs, bed-in for peace) or probably any other rock/punk related music... also anti-racism, LGBT rights, feminism, and other social movements we look back on as positive would all have significant impediment to making progress if possible at all.

In a very narrow per-use-case context like rating a contractor on quality of work, or restaurants on quality it's obviously not a problem but the key difference is social-wide aggregation and enforcement of norms that sound good at the time (to a critical mass of people) but leave no room for society to evolve and improve through new ideas and beliefs.

bsanderson

il y a 9 ansdiscuss

Definitely a good point, although it might be a reflection of high budget long form content reflecting interests of older people more than younger generations, and as they grow into being more represented at the professional tiers (which takes years of experience) they'll produce new shows that reflect their values and interests.

In terms of younger audiences though there is also huge success with high budget animation. Pixar's success over time still seems more tied to quality of each film rather than declining consistently over time due to loss of interest in the format itself.

For news, 100% agree, ripe for disruption from social media (or at least web over cable news) although that is obviously facing new challenges in terms of reliability (i.e. Facebook/Twitter re election).

bsanderson

il y a 9 ansdiscuss

Also, I'm the same way with shifting to more relaxing things like reading and dinner with friends so totally agree on that! I was writing more with what I think of as the average consumer. I would like to see the trend of more complex/expensive high quality shows (like Breaking Bad and The Wire) continue and wouldn't worry so much about reality tv being killed by viral content.

bsanderson

il y a 9 ansdiscuss

Yes, obviously true in terms of finite time in the day. I think the total time is actually increasing (although up to a finite point) but the main point is that it's more of a transition from linear/cable/sat/ads to VOD/OTT/mobile as the primarily factor that the large companies have to manage, rather than heaving losses in time spent on complex (high budget professional content) vs non-complex (user generated).

To imagine an extreme end of the spectrum as a thought experiment, I can't imagine that 5 years from now I'll be watching 1 minute viral videos all evening instead of professionally produced long form content. Candy is great but I still haven't replaced a (complex) full meal dinner with a pile of candies.

Even for video content on Facebook, I'd assume as that takes up more of the finite time it will trend towards increasing volumes of professionally produced content.

There's a lot of interesting low budget user generated content but that won't change the fact that a lot of value created by professional, extremely talented writers, producers, cinematographers, editors, special effects graphics creators, etc..

bsanderson

il y a 9 ansdiscuss

"The most watched minute of video made in the last five years shows baby Charlie biting his brother’s finger. (Twice!) That minute has been watched by more people than the viewership of American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, and the Superbowl combined. (174 million views and counting.)"

Not sure why the two use cases are presented as directly competing. The popularity of long form scripted content on Netflix and shows like Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, etc., are huge and not going away even though the methods of distribution are changing from linear broadcast with commercials over cable/satellite to subscription on-demand OTT without ads. That's the transition taking place rather than hours spent viewing 1 minute viral videos taking away from hours spent watching high cost production long-form content otherwise the ratings would be crashing for those shows and Netflix wouldn't be spending billions on production.

Seems like a false dichotomy.

At least a few times per week I go through the YouTube and Vimeo apps on the Apple TV and apart from catching up on late night talk shows on YouTube, and some interesting short-form content on Vimeo, it doesn't at all replace watching high quality (expensive, complex) content from iTunes and Netflix.

The article also doesn't cover live programming at all, which is increasing exponentially in complexity for things like sports (Olympics coverage, specifically) but also a ton of live event production that wasn't possible before complexity (new technology) increases. Again, user-generated live (Periscope, YouTube) is additional, and doesn't replace watching that content either. There's a ton of room for more complexity with new technology for things like the Super Bowl with tiny 4K cameras in each helmet and delivery over web streaming with viewers watching from whatever angle they want, etc., that user generate content has no means of replacing.

The challenge is managing the shift from ad revenue to subscription revenue, and subsequent competition for the consumer's total monthly subscription budgets, rather than complex production being challenged by non-complex (user generated) content.

Unlike the AT&T example listed, large companies are already aggressively moving towards acquiring content rights and shifting to building OTT/VOD platforms, which is a key motivator of the recent large acquisitions like AT&T (ironically) and Time Warner / Turner / HBO, and Disney and Fox... the pivot is underway and whether or not it is successful doesn't seem related to those companies not being able to simplify but rather if they can avoid a fall in revenue from loss in ad sales during the transition process.