The civil war didn't kill those people, the bullets that went into the brain of the casualties did. Flippantly conflating the two things does not do your argument any good.
Now of course the bullets were inspired by a guy pulling a trigger, the guy pulling the trigger was inspired by the civil war (more specifically to name one example, the the ISIS-Kurdish one in the northern region of Iraq and Syria), the civil war was inspired by the power vacuum, and the power vacuum was inspired by the toppling of Saddam, and the toppling of Saddam was inspired by the USA blowing up the Iraqi regime.
Whether the US is culpable, again, I left as a question. But they did pull the lever for the trolley.
You understand by this reductionist logic you are responsible for the sins of the entire world. By being born your actions triggered through your existence all terrible things that have happened since.
I can’t believe you’d be this dumb. This is well trodden moral philosophy bullshit.
I can't believe you'd be as dumb as to compare being born to blowing up a bunch of people, leading to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths[] (mostly of civilians), many of which who now with their livelihoods and homes blown up and radicalized against the west, then were easy fodder to join any jihadist with a dollar and a plan with newly equipped with captured M16/M4s and Humvees and freshly freed up territory.
And apparently, it's wrong to just question if the USA might have culpability for the aftermath of that.
> I said no such thing, I've never claimed the USA carried out the killings of ISIS.
> US killed far more in Iraq, so might be unrelated.
Of course the United States is to blame for the Civil War, but it did not carry out the killings. If you think that's only a rhetorical difference, I don't know what to tell you.
I have no idea who you're even arguing against at this point, but it's clearly not me, and in any case I'm a bit tired of playing the tag-team game where both of you alternate so one can't be held responsible for the last comment of the other while still pivoting on it. Carry on.
This assumes multiple infinite axis which certainly don’t exist and is therefore false.
Any early branch can infinitely on that confined branch. It means the billions of other possible branches may never be explored even given infinite time.
Counter would be the evolutionary fill theory where any branch can become any other branch given an environment.
its more that it just shows a vast ignorance of history and society to call it a 'Minecraft house.' It's like calling the Pyramids of Giza 'the Minecraft pyramids."
It belays a level of stupidity that is difficult to ignore. The reality is its an Incan Pyramid inspired home.
I'm sure that a lot of the people you're describing as "stupid" here would love to know about the true inspiration behind the building style. Maybe this is an opportunity to share information, rather than to lament the uncultured brutishness of the masses?
Monopoly profits are the allure of innovation. Its the same reason those life-saving medicines get developed (patents).
Why is this a bad thing? Personally Id rather have an Apple monopoly than MSFT for instance. I really love using my Apple products. I never enjoyed using a single MSFT product.
u/rhetocj23 is a one day old account made of random characters that is actively advocating for an Apple monopoly and talking shit about MSFT in multiple posts.
remember folks 20-40% of social media is bots -- this is just a low-hanging fruit
I'm potentially interested in formally studying HCI, but I'm a little worried that my classes will all be filled with visual design people I can't relate to, and that my classes will contain general recommendations that don't apply to users like me, or even make software more difficult to use for me.
I do expect for my tastes to change if I study HCI, and to begin to notice things that I didn't notice before. And I'm interested in good heuristics for designing user interfaces for general audiences.
But I've been visually impaired my entire life, I'm colorblind, my colorblindness is progressive, and I'm going blind (timeline unknown). So my worries that HCI might not be "for me" come from a few places:
1. (This is the element you've perhaps picked up on.) Vision is generally the least compelling aesthetic dimension to me. I love music and poetry, but visual art virtually never moves me. Visual experiences generally lack spiritual depth for me, to the point that I sometimes find the way some people talk about visual art ridiculous or irritating. This is what I mean about not fitting in with people who are passionate about visual design.
2. Because of my vision, a lot of common assumptions about user interface design, especially about what is easy, natural, difficult, or awkward probably don't apply to me on a physical level. For instance:
- I often have to use full screen magnification, which violates the assumption that an entire application is visible to me at once
- gaze detection data can't even be collected for people with eyes like mine because our acuity problems are *worse* in the central visual field to the point that in advanced cases people have to read text exclusively using their peripheral vision
- sometimes it seems I have visual processing difficulties to the point of being unable to tell what a picture is even an image of, like if there are any objects in the image and what they are
- visually recognizing things takes me a lot of time and effort relative to other people, even when I can reliably do it
- although I am significantly and untreatably visually impaired, I do not yet use a screen reader in any capacity and I don't know Braille at all
I'm interested in HCI broadly— both for users like me and users unlike me. But I don't want to put a ton of energy into things that feel inordinately difficult or basically meaningless to me, either.
You can't be unaware of the existence of the field of accessibility in design? It's literally one of the trendiest things in design, probably trendy enough for you to specialize in it entirely if you wanted to.
The proposition for me is whether to take a class or two on this in the course of pursuing a graduate degree in CS. I'm not considering a career in HCI research.
> It's literally one of the trendiest things in design
Ask a person with low vision about how the rollout of "accessible buses" in Chicago affected their transit experience. I'll give you a hint: it made things worse and more difficult. My sister, who is blind, complains about it all the time. When a friend of hers, who is also blind, called in to say that she couldn't read the stops on the displays in the new "accessible buses", the response (after months of silence) was "we asked Chicago Lighthouse how to design the display, and they said standards called for a bold font and contrasting colors, so we're compliant". In fact the display has a much smaller font than the old LED displays. The colors are bright yellow and bright blue, which are "contrasting colors" but have very little luminance contrast, and they're overall harder to distinguish despite the bold font. Why were these colors actually chosen? It has nothing to do with contrast or accessibility— it's because they're the brand colors of the Chicago Transit Authority. And when actual blind people call them to tell them this doesn't in fact work for them, their answer is that they don't give a shit and that they're not interested in changing anything. (Changes would be physically trivial; the new displays are big-ass LCD TVs.)
This is the norm for accessibility initiatives in the real world, because disabled people are rarely directly involved in the design of anything.
If you've lived your whole life in a world in which accessibility concerns are purely theoretical and/or external to you, I suppose it's easy to have faith in "trends". But nobody who has actually navigated the world with disabilities does. Frankly, the only circumstances in which I'd be confident that an HCI class would not be primarily grounded in the primacy of the visual and the assumption of normal vision is (a) if I've reviewed the curriculum of a specific course and the curriculum indicates otherwise or (b) the course is taught by a blind person. Even so, I'm on the fence— maybe I still want to take such a course.
I'm in the early stages of planning to go back to school here, thinking out loud about whether HCI is a corner of computer science worth visiting for me and sharing that question as part of a perspective on "design" and how I relate to it. I don't need help remembering that accessibility research exists, thank you so very much.
When you spend a lifetime learning design you learn the difference between taste and fashion. Taste is the ability to make solid choices coherently within a system being it fashionable or not.
Fashion is just the latest system that is popular.
Tasteful people can design good things regardless of the fashionable era. Great ones can create new fashionable eras.
More examples: look up Dieter Rams (a person). Ran into the name a while back, and man- he made a record player 50yrs+ ago and it was never meant to be in fashion. It sure would still fit in as "simple device that does X" in the 2020's.
I really don't think that's a good example. That's someone who designers hold in high esteem. Most people today would not buy products with these aesthetics.
Granted, I does hold up better than most, but I don't think it's an example of some immutable, objective principles of fashion.
reply