[untitled]
22 comments
I don't see it at all, in the logo or in the grid. Am I the only one?
Calling the swastika "made of dicks" is kind of dubious, it'd be more accurate to say that it's made from the space between the "dicks". Even then, I don't see anything I'd identify as dicks.
It's clear that the black in the second image looks like a swastika, and with your mind's pattern matcher thus primed you can see it in several of the ones in the grid as well (but far from all).
edit: This, found elsewhere, makes the swastika clearer: https://i.imgur.com/MIg6FpN.jpg.
It's clear that the black in the second image looks like a swastika, and with your mind's pattern matcher thus primed you can see it in several of the ones in the grid as well (but far from all).
edit: This, found elsewhere, makes the swastika clearer: https://i.imgur.com/MIg6FpN.jpg.
Tilt your head, the smaller bits look like testicles and the longer one is the dong.
But it could be just me.
But it could be just me.
With that explanation it became clear, so... thanks?
Probably wouldn't have seen it without the explanation though.
Probably wouldn't have seen it without the explanation though.
I don't know I kinda saw it straight away, but didn't really see/care about the swastika, the logo is just kinda bad because it doesn't seem to convey any message at least to me.
I don't see it either. Perhaps some people are seeing it as a swastika due to the nazi moral panic we have been experiencing over the past couple years? It's not unreasonable for a human to make that kind of correlation when there are bombarded by stories of nazi resurgence on a frequent basis.
I think that's probably a little dramatic. To me, subjectively of course, it's clear as day. It's the first thing I saw. I think it's funny. It's just pattern recognition - it doesn't have to be a chance to commit a psychological critique of people you ideologically disagree with.
Nazi resurgence?
No, I think we are the (silent) majority. Otherwise it wouldn't have passed design and approval phases.
However, it does look generic and forgettable. This is one of those cases when you think "well, I could have done this job myself". And I'm not even a designer.
However, it does look generic and forgettable. This is one of those cases when you think "well, I could have done this job myself". And I'm not even a designer.
> "well, I could have done this job myself". And I'm not even a designer.
That's not necessarily a bad thing that a logo is so simple that non-designer can draw it. But, I do agree that it does look very generic and forgettable.
That's not necessarily a bad thing that a logo is so simple that non-designer can draw it. But, I do agree that it does look very generic and forgettable.
No. This is all people that want to complain about something clutching at straws. It's a perfectly fine (if a little generic) logo. Better than the old one.
The first response to the tweet quoted in the article ( https://twitter.com/tbaxter/status/1085659746755997696/ in case they kill this post) is #duckorgy which is even funnier... :D
discussion of the new logo: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18923719
I hadn't looked at it closely and I hadn't noticed that it was supposed to resemble a hash sign. Is that a bad sign for the logo?
Domark(1)
If the swastika gets diluted as a knee jerk symbol of frothing-at-the mouth moral high ground, I’m okay with that.
Kind of like Michael Jordan’s Hitler moustache.
Maybe Kanye West will have a son named Adolf. I’d be cool with that.
Kind of like Michael Jordan’s Hitler moustache.
Maybe Kanye West will have a son named Adolf. I’d be cool with that.
I'm totally lost. How does the "frothing at the mouth" insult apply to somebody making a questionable claim to a moral high ground? What does it mean to claim the moral high ground against somebody who has potentially used Nazi imagery by accident? Doesn't the "by accident" part make that inapplicable?
In honour of your nickname:
> How does the "frothing at the mouth" insult apply to somebody making a questionable claim to a moral high ground?
Well, those claiming moral high ground usually show themselves indignant about something: because "morality" is a gut feeling about things being right or wrong, and when you want to show that your gut feeling is that something is really really wrong, you show yourself indignant, which means angry, and therefore "frothing at the mouth".
> What does it mean to claim the moral high ground against somebody who has potentially used Nazi imagery by accident?
I guess it means to show that your moral feelings are stronger than the other person's: so you show yourself indignant. You don't stop to consider that maybe you're seeing something that isn't even there, that if there is a mistake it's yours, and that a left-turning swastika would not be nazi imagery even if it was there, strictly speaking.
> Doesn't the "by accident" part make that inapplicable?
No, the "by accident" presupposes the existence of the nazi reference, which is by itself very dubious, except of course in the eye of the beholder.
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."
:)
> How does the "frothing at the mouth" insult apply to somebody making a questionable claim to a moral high ground?
Well, those claiming moral high ground usually show themselves indignant about something: because "morality" is a gut feeling about things being right or wrong, and when you want to show that your gut feeling is that something is really really wrong, you show yourself indignant, which means angry, and therefore "frothing at the mouth".
> What does it mean to claim the moral high ground against somebody who has potentially used Nazi imagery by accident?
I guess it means to show that your moral feelings are stronger than the other person's: so you show yourself indignant. You don't stop to consider that maybe you're seeing something that isn't even there, that if there is a mistake it's yours, and that a left-turning swastika would not be nazi imagery even if it was there, strictly speaking.
> Doesn't the "by accident" part make that inapplicable?
No, the "by accident" presupposes the existence of the nazi reference, which is by itself very dubious, except of course in the eye of the beholder.
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."
:)
Why is this even on HN?
Did anybody consider the python logo? :)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Python-l...
"A swastika, made of pythons!"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Python-l...
"A swastika, made of pythons!"
A man goes to a Psychologist and says, "Doc I got a real problem, I can't stop thinking about sex." The Psychologist says, "Well let's see what we can find out", and pulls out his ink blots. "What is this a picture of?" he asks. The man turns the picture upside down then turns it around and states, "That's a man and a woman on a bed making love." The Psychologist says, "very interesting," and shows the next picture. "And what is this a picture of?" The man looks and turns it in different directions and says, "That's a man and a woman on a bed making love." The Psychologists tries again with the third ink blot, and asks the same question, "What is this a picture of?" The patient again turns it in all directions and replies, "That's a man and a woman on a bed making love." The Psychologist states, "Well, yes, you do seem to be obsessed with sex." "Me!?" demands the patient. "You're the one who keeps showing me the dirty pictures!"