Because that was exactly the jump for me. Ultrasound led to expedited surgery that happened within 2 weeks of the ultrasound. The results of the surgery led to chemotherapy. It wasn't long between the ultrasound and BEP being hooked up.
> What's so bad about having some false positives?
Having invasive surgery. Undergoing chemotherapy. The former is bad, the latter is basically a 'lets hope it kills the cancer before it kills you' situation.
It's arguable which one is worse, but I'd rather not have to ever partake in either of them again.
You know what's a progress indicator? An actual progress indicator. Not some text telling you such and such process is 1234/5678 steps done...followed by yet another line of text telling you that the process is now at step 3 of 20. It could just be a % indicator with a spinning cursor, unless the -v/-verbose flag is present.
Of course artists can learn to understand what all this means; But that is not their job, they have other things to deal with besides the esoteric and overly verbose CLIs we programmers often make.
> artist should use any of the nice frontends that work on top of git and hide its verbosity.
Right up until something goes fucky. You know how many times I got messaged by someone dealing with vcs going wrong for them at a late hour in the evening? If I had a nickel for every time, I wouldn't be rich, but it probably would have bought me a gallon of gas.
It's not the verbosity strictly speaking. It is the minimal level of abstraction between you and the vcs and it can hardly be helped by a 'nice frontend' when things go wrong. And they will; they always do.
While I agree that git is a tool for the development of an operating system kernel, it's become clear that this is not the general perception of it. I don't mean those of us who have followed it throughout it's evolution, but those that are not 'in the know'. I have heard probably too many programmers pushing it as the end-all-be-all solution for version control even in environments not appropriate for it.
I will disagree that the output is too complex; it is. And yes, the large binaries issue is also a huge challenge to it's use. There's only so much time in the day, and when you work in gamedev there are often severe pressures to perform, and spending extra time to get into the weeds of a version control system is often not possible without sacrifice.
I apologize if I came off harsh and combative. Gamedev is a passion for me and I spent many years in that field, including working on proprietary version control systems because existing ones like SVN, Git, Perforce...etc did not fit the needs of the team.
One of the things I very frequently heard from the non-programmer disciplines was how obtuse and indecipherable the existing version control systems were. That is where I'm coming from.
Your knowledge is still appreciated, by me as well, because while I am well familiar with the way git works, I have worked with many people who were not, and did not have the time or budget in their minds for understanding it because they had many other concerns. That is what I mean when I said that I worked with some brilliant people -- I could not do even a modicum of what some of them were capable, and likewise they probably weren't capable of the same modicum of what I was doing.
I don't know what specifically the GP post was trying to insinuate, if anything at all, but it resonated with me as someone who had experienced the same thing many times over in my career. And I probably judged your comment a little harshly on first read, which is mea culpa. You provided good information for those newer to git and seeking to understand how it actually works besides the cheat sheet guides you so often find.
> Git is a tool by programmers for programmers. If folks outside the programming community are able to use it, great, but that's not its target audience. You don't need to convince me why git isn't suitable for artists.
Precisely, and I think Lore is an interesting proposition for exactly that reason.
Now explain this to an artist with very little programming experience beyond what they picked up from their coworkers.
I don't mean to be too glib, but some programmers have this decrepit idea that anyone working with computers should understand programming to be able to fully utilize them.
I worked in gamedev, and many of my colleagues were brilliant, but your comment would read as complete nonsense to many of them. That is the problem git has in the gamedev space. You're trying to manage teams of programmers, designers, sound engineers, gameplay specialists, producers...even c-levels. The parent comment to yours is right, to many many people who work on things that Lore could be useful for would find git to be gobblygook.
As a long-long-time Lego fan, yeah, some of us will buy the 'knockoffs' if they provide something different that Lego itself wont.
I myself have tried many of the non-Lego lego sets over the years. One that has been holding my attention recently has been Lumibricks, which integrates lights into the sets, and is also cheaper than official Lego sets for similar part counts. One of the big things I've found is that where Lego wins a lot of points is on their instructions and build steps. Many other companies either make their instructions hard to read or parse, or don't do a good job with progressively building up subassemblies so they don't collapse in your hands. But there are some Chinese companies that are now making the entire experience a similar quality level as Lego does. A lot of the 'knockoffs' also focus more on the visual of the model rather than the play. Lego itself is often willing to sacrifice some realism to make sets be more playable, much to the chagrin of some fans.
Lego used to have a huge moat in manufacturing. They made good molds, they perfected the processes for making pieces (barring a few problematic colours....cough brown and dark red) and they invested heavily into clear design targeted towards accomplishing a certain level of play and excitement from those buying and building the Lego sets. Now though, those things are not a moat, they're just basic table stakes, and there are a lot of other new players entering the market who are doing just as good. I've seen multiple stages of Lego's evolution over my life, and I think they're going to need to come up with something new that's not just a silly expensive noise/light brick to continue to command the price premium that they do. Sure, their IP deals will probably float them for a while, but without bringing something new to the recipe, they might slowly start to go the way of jello deserts.
It's actually supposed to do exactly that! The set is supposedly designed to be built in the same order as the real life basilica was and is being built.
Ah I see. What I've been trying to do is integrate the LEDs into specific pieces instead, so I've mostly been using individual ones rather than strips. I was actually inspired by a Lumibricks set for my method of routing the pieces. Currently I'm trying to add lights to the modular Cinema set, which I think would be great, and I've had to resort to cutting out parts of bricks to get things routed around.
> The LED string was ~$60 and it was a silly amount of work but I have it sitting over my left shoulder during conference calls and people ask about it constantly so it was fun.
My first experiment with adding lights was to the Technic Porsche set, and interestingly, in meetings it doesn't get blurred as much as the rest of the background (probably due to the lights I put in it) so I often get asked about it as well.
I'd love to see the back of that if you actually integrated the LEDs into the main engine (and I apologize if you did post other photos, I have X mostly blocked so I can only see the directly linked post.) I've been hacking at adding some lights to a few sets that I thought would look great with actual lighting on them, and my biggest challenge has been the routing of all the wires in a way where the lights actually look like they're integrated into the set and not just randomly sticking out of places.
They're doing the best they can given the budget and size constraints. The set has to simultaneously be interesting and not tedious to build, cost a somewhat reasonable amount, not be too huge that no one can display or even reasonably build it at home, and able to closely enough replicate what they're trying to model.
Could they make a bigger version of this set that is more closely resembling the real thing? More than likely, yeah they can; look at the displays they have at Legoland. But would that more detailed version be accessible for even the well off AFOL? Most likely not. It'd be too big, too expensive, and too unwieldy, and will probably still fail to capture some of the details of the real thing.
I've talked with a Lego designer before, and for some themes they're not allowed to even request new molds. Even new colors of existing pieces can be contentious. My own head canon about the bonsai set is that the reason they made such a big fuss about having the recolored frogs is because it probably was a big fuss internally too. "Who'd ever need pink frogs?" sort of thing.
This is actually not particularly true. In fact, the problem of unique pieces almost ended up sinking Lego because they were spending so much on molds and manufacturing of a single piece that was only used in one set. If the set didn't sell well, Lego could potentially lose money on the set overall because of all the tooling costs.
Back in the aughts, they redid their philosophy of having large single-purpose pieces and went to having those large pieces be replaced by subassemblies of much smaller pieces that were much more general purpose. That's when SNOT became huge in Lego's official sets.
As someone with multiple decades of experience with Lego, things now are much much better than they were back in the 90's and early aughts specifically because of this pivot that Lego did. There is something to be said about part count inflation, and how many of the parts nowadays are tiny little pieces rather than the big 2x2 or 2x4 bricks. And also, some sets and some themes do require their unique pieces. Friends has their little minifigures that are different from the standard minifigs. The Mario sets might need to have some specific pieces -- there's no standard 'mario mustache' tile. But overall, Lego has done a pretty incredible job of increasing the utility and decreasing the single-use aspect of many pieces.
So the set supposedly is going to be built with the same progression as the real thing -- the parts of the basilica that were built first in real life are also the first parts of building the Lego set.
So I kinda wonder, what is the scaling like if you account for the actual build phases. How many pieces would you have to do on each of those 200 days to match the real-life progress of the basilica.
So, fun trick with sets like these, that are in the more 'professional' space of Lego is that most of the time, these sets are very open ended because they only provide you a bunch of common pieces. Which you can buy yourself.
Bricklink has a wonderful feature that you can take a set and then part it out into a wanted list, and then search seller inventory to find those parts. That's how I built that giant Imperial Star Destroyer set from the aughts for a little over $200 instead of the like $1000 that used copies of the set were going for at that time (it's probably even more now.)
Just for funsies, I looked it up, and you can get the whole 21050 set for about $150 now on bricklink, which is a pretty good $/psc price. Considering what the set is, and the lack of stickers, means it should be easy to wash a used set to get all the pieces nice and clean; a laundry bra bag with a fine mesh works great for this.
I have an anecdote about doing exactly that. Always was a LEGO kid (first set I got was bought 3 months before I was born) and slowly over time collected a giant bin of pieces from all the various sets. Now as a much older adult, I actually find myself going back to that bin on occasion to sort out the parts and try to rebuild the sets. Much like how that big bin of parts let me build stuff from my imagination when I was younger, as a form of therapy, now resorting those pieces and reorganizing them is a new form of therapy for myself, and it all comes from the same toy.
I find it particularly endearing how a single system of toys can provide decades of experiences to a single human. I don't think I've ever encountered another toy that is like that on such a massive scale. Yes there's other construction toys out there that strive to do the same, Knex was another one that I was into for a while, but there's nothing that quite scratches that same itch that Lego does.
With that said, as someone who put together the Big Ben set back in the day and had raw fingers for a week after, I have a somewhat PTSD-like reaction to this set. It looks like there are going to be a lot of steps dealing with making many of a subassembly that is itself made out of a bunch of tiny pieces that you need to make sure line up well.
These days I much prefer the large Technic theme sets because they are not so repetitive and require a deeper immersion to actually complete; harder to just space out while building the set. Certainly more meditative for me.
All that is to say that if you're going to consider this set, be aware that the build experience might not be the level of fun that the part count seems to indicate.