This comment is less helpful than the one you replied to.
@Simpliplant has a good point, people expect digital paint tools to save, but also made a blanket unqualified statement about creating anything without saving.
@jasonkostempski replied that some people don't want to save, the blanket statement doesn't apply to everyone. And that's absolutely true. This is a valid, though somewhat tangential, point of view about performance art.
There is a long history of artists using art tools that don't have save or undo. Traditional arts are still founded on this concept, the art world still largely values techniques that involve the risk of screwing it up, and are hard to copy. That's changing over time, digital arts are growing up, but the majority opinion in the art world is still that tools with undo and tools that can replicate without loss are for unserious artists.
Music is the same way, it's a performance art, and digital sequencing and digital performance have often been considered inferior. Robert Moog, one of the most famous creators of analog & digital synthesizers, even wanted to make his synth a performance instrument, and didn't like the idea of using a sequencer. Sound patches couldn't be saved either, and many famous musicians had enormous careers using Moogs.
It is indeed incredibly unlikely that someone needing a pixel art editor wouldn't want save, I agree with you completely, and I bet @jasonkostempski does too. But that doesn't invalidate what @jasonkostempski said. The question "why would you create/edit anything if you can't save it?" was taken literally. @Simpliplant didn't qualify people using pixel art editors, the question said why would you do anything if you couldn't save. As it turns out, people do that all the time. Just not with pixel art editors.
Part of having a productive conversation is using context clues and social norms to help your understanding of what someone means when they say something. Derailing the conversation by taking a comment literally when everyone understands the intent behind the comment is not helpful.
But one of the interesting parts of the paradigm of hierarchically-threaded online discussion, is that only one subthread/reply to a given thread has to be a "productive conversation" (i.e. to continue the thread in the "obvious" way); the other subthreads can be tangents, and tangents do not "derail" in the same way they do in a flat-linear-threaded forum.
I would disagree, because they're still visible and still structurally part of the same conversation, meaning people reading the conversation will read those tangents, or at the very least be distracted by them.
And this is why subthreads in all hierarchical discussion systems are sorted by vote-rank: the subthread that most effectively serves as the continuation of the "canonical" conversation will (almost) always appear first. The only time that doesn't happen is when that subthread doesn't exist—as has happened here. More often than not, when this is seen in a "played out" archived discussion thread, this doesn't suggest that people are "getting distracted by" the tangent, but rather just suggests that nobody is all that interested in continuing the original conversation.
(Unless the tangent leads toward a mind-killing subject like politics. I'm 100% behind you on applying careful consideration before making a tangent from a technical topic to an emotionally-charged one; people see that kind of subthread and never even make it to the rest of the subthreads in the same conversation.)
Another part of having a productive conversation is learning not to make blanket statements, and knowing that most of what you say will be taken literally, and being generous and charitable in your interpretation of others.
For me, the best part of having interesting conversations on HN is reading all the alternative points of view by smart people. Not much "productive" happens, from my point of view, by criticizing someone's show HN project, not much "productive" happens when you make blanket statements about what all people want. And not much "productive" happens by only agreeing with others.
So there might be another hidden motive behind what @jasonkostempski said. The comment he replied to literally insults the Poxi project, and perhaps @jasonkostempski was merely defending a Show HN project that's in a very early stage.
In my view, you may be defending the wrong person here. I want to see more show HN projects, and I want people to feel comfortable sharing their projects without fear of getting ripped to shreds, called a joke, and questioned why anyone would ever want to do such a thing. Let's be supportive.
>Another part of having a productive conversation is learning not to make blanket statements, and knowing that most of what you say will be taken literally, and being generous and charitable in your interpretation of others.
So the point was to teach the commenter a lesson by responding unhelpfully?
>In my view, you may be defending the wrong person here.
So, because I was pointing out someone not responding constructively I am by necessity "defending" all points the other person makes? I think that is faulty reasoning.
AFAICT, all of the health benefits of running come in the first 5K or 10K. Running longer distances becomes detrimental. Save your joints, preserve your muscles and keep your body fat at a healthy level (especially important for women). Rather than increasing your distance, concentrate on increasing your speed.
Yes, recent studies indicate that the sweet spot for optimising benefits vs injuries rates is between 5K and 8K, varying a fair amount between people, and gets quickly worse after twice that.
BUT increase your speed very carefully, or you will hurt your knees possibly giving yourself a semi-permanent (recurring) injury or worse. Beyond a certain point injury rates shoot up with speed a lot more than any health benefits do, more so than with distance as it is easy to let your form slip when concentrating on speed, and in my experience the only advantages in doing 10K in 42 minutes instead of, say, 60 are bragging rights and getting finished & to the shower/pub/other faster afterwards!
Also note that those studies (well, the ones I've seen) compared like for like too (same pace over the distance, studying flat(ish) road racing or treadmill running. I find 16-to-20K trail running with a group (sometimes more of a "fast trek" than a run depending on terrain!) to work out much better for me than 10K road running at full pace.
Absolutely, C25K was the best thing I ever did - Run 2x5Ks a week at lunch and a 10K at the weekend. Worked up to 10Ks about 3 or 4 weeks after first 30 minute run. It makes it pretty easy and I lost around 13 lbs from this alone.
When my mum suffered a stroke, she was hospitalised for 7 months and had a team of occupational/speech/physiotherapists around here helping her recover as much as possible (which wasn't much, to be fair).
But socialised medicine is evil, and the NHS death panels could've taken her.
Not all strokes are equal. For a minor ischemic stroke it's normal to be discharged after three days or so. There isn't any reason to stay longer, really, since they'll treat it with medication.
Your mother probably had a hemorrhagic stroke, which is much more serious. She probably had surgery, too?
I'm not really sure why he was discharged the next day, but it might not be unreasonable depending on the exact diagnosis. Or maybe he refused to stay - some people do that.
Weird. I searched for the definition of Aphantasia and came across this[1] link which describes it in detail. I think I'm the same - I can't visualise things in that way.
Wow. Just finished your link. A great read. I don't know which I find more surprising. The fact that Blake (The creator of Firefox) can't picture anything in his mind, or the fact that he thought everyone was the same, and that "picture a beach" was metaphorical.
Wait what, really? I can literally draw anything you ask me to in my mind, I can see things so vividly I can manipulate them with my mind if I want to. Fascinating that you can't, totally... blows..my...mind. :)
Most of us with Aphantasia can feel three dimensional models, however. My tests show I have a high accuracy of the items I'm feeling, but not necessarily a lot of detail. It could be compared to a 3D model with no texture mapping. I will also note that not everyone's visualization systems are the same, so you may be able to draw anything, but some may not be able to zoom, enhance color, rotate, change perspective, etc. I have one friend that can move icons of things around and draw lines between them, but can't imagine a beach.
Sorry about that. If it helps any, it would appear Aphantasiacs have purpose here. My kids have it. We're immune from commercial and "bad image" influence as well.
Social Security 24%
Health Care 25%
Safety Net Programs 10%
Benefits for Retirees 8%
Social programs according to this consist of 67% of the total budget.
Where is the money going to come from?
Also, you know what happened to France when they hiked up their Tax rates? They moved to London. Where did the Russians go? They moved to London. Where did the Greek millionaires/Billionaires go, probably London.
The rich in the US have already started making plans on where to go, there are a lot of places for them to live.
If you think Basic Income is going to be the solution. I'm very sorry to tell you. It's not!
So a substantial portion of the US is already getting basic income, remove the progressive tax system and replace that with basic income and everybody gets it without spending any more.
then a lot of people will try to run from the hungry mobs when time comes. or suppress them by force, redistributing their money to the force of course, so much for hard-earned income.
Also, you know what happened to France when they hiked up their Tax rates? They moved to London. Where did the Russians go? They moved to London. Where did the Greek millionaires/Billionaires go, probably London.
Expatriation tax (for existing wealth) plus sales tax (for new income). It doesn't matter where they live if the money is taxed at the source.
> All technical discussion took place on mailing lists those days, and archiving those were, at best, spotty and with horrible web interfaces.
Not to take away from the contribution Gmane has made to many of my searches over the years, its web interface was one I always held as the epitome of awful design.
Considering its awesome usability, the design can't be that bad. Sure, it might look dated by today's taste but its users don't care when they want to read a specific archived list thread with minimal friction.
I feel the same way. I don't want to diminish the work put into Gmane, but every time I hit a link to Gmane I jump to marc.info and see if I can read the content there.
Still, I continue to be impressed by the amount of work people put into something they care about, while the rest of us just expects it to be there. As some one else pointed out, it really makes you wonder what other kind of one person projects we all use all the time.
