badatshipping
Joined 8 years ago
Karma
216
Submissions
51
Member since
Jul 1
Recent submissions
Comment · 7 years ago
Comment · 7 years ago
Why is this better than Bitstream Vera Sans Mono, Consolas, SF Mono, Pragmata Pro, and Operator Mono? The reason can be anything, but what is the reason?
I don't find that this font outperforms any of those fonts on any of the metrics listed on the website (crispness, legibility). Is this, like, a subjective thing? Or do I have bad taste?
Comment · 7 years ago
Try getting a refurbished 2015 MacBook Pro (the last good model), as powerful as you need.
Comment · 7 years ago
I think deciding to not free your memory or use GC (instead of not) would count as having a different program.
Comment · 7 years ago
"The reality is you still have to free resources, so it's not like the garbage collector is doing work that doesn't need to be done."
It's common to use stack and pool memory allocators, where this becomes no longer expensive work.
Comment · 7 years ago
I downloaded it, connected a bunch of apps I use (Twitter, Google Drive, Gmail, Messenger, Slack) and played around. Sincere question: what's the benefit of using my apps this way?
It seems like it just puts each webpage in a different tab and lets me put the tabs side by side. How is this paradigmatically different from my browser, aside from removing a bunch of browser features? Is it organization? Why do my apps need to be organized? Why is this better than workspaces? Is it because workspaces are too janky? (I hate the sliding animation on macOS.)
Initially I thought Stack was a productivity tool, with keyboard shortcuts, quick search/jump, etc. The only thing I've found is ⌘+1/2/3/4, and 1Password integration doesn't work anymore. And what do I do if I need to use ⌘+1/2/3/4 to navigate an inner app connected to Stack?
Put another way, what is the vision here that I'm failing to understand?
Comment · 7 years ago
The article takes issue with Stallman commenting callously on a sensitive topic, having a view the author finds offensive, and directing those comments insensitively toward the wrong people. She never presents an argument why what he said was problematic. This makes me believe that regardless of the correctness of what he's saying, the mere fact that he's "defending" this side of the issue is itself offensive to her.
Suppose Stallman suddenly wanted to optimize himself to offend the author of this post as little as possible. Having a more correct point of view would hardly move his metrics. Having more tact would, drastically. That was my point in bringing up the tact article.
You're entirely right; everyone gets offended by something. I should've been more precise.
Comment · 7 years ago
I know she thinks that, but it's not what her post is about. She quotes Stallman, assumes the reader will agree that what he said was problematic, then spends the rest of the article discussing how we shouldn't tolerate problematic people.
Comment · 7 years ago
Did he try to absolve Minsky of guilt? I thought the thesis of his defense of Minsky was:
"Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism."
"The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X."
He's not wrong that "sexual assault" is used ambiguously to describe a wide range of behaviors, some worse than others. If a guy does something that's 7/10 bad, and everyone's saying it's 9/10 bad, what's the right way to point out that it was only 7/10 bad?
Comment · 7 years ago
That's my whole issue here. The author's post makes it sound like her problem is with his lack of tact. She complains about his "choice of words," about how it wasn't "appropriate" to send an email to undergrads, how "shocked" she is.
If the problem is that his viewpoint is morally reprehensible, why not just say that, and let's hear some arguments in that direction?
Comment · 7 years ago
Fair point, but the expected norm in society, the one that posts like this draw from, centers around outward tact. Like, the whole moral injunction the author is trying to establish here is that he's saying tactless things.
Comment · 7 years ago
I've noticed that people who write posts like this like to quote their subject, and then go, oh my, how shocking! what an appalling thing to say! without addressing the thing that was said, which in this case was (among other things):
“I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
He was responding to a student, who said "Giuffre was 17 at the time, this makes it rape in the Virgin Islands." He was addressing her specific point. He brought up the 17-18 thing because the student herself specified Giuffre's age as the condition of her being raped.
Like, if the student had said "Giuffre was raped because she was coerced against her will," that'd be different. But you can't yourself bring up the technical definition of rape to make your point, then get mad when other people point out that the technical definition makes no sense. If what you really want say is that rape is wrong because it's wrong, just say that!
Of course, the author cares about none of this, because what Stallman said was "problematic." What does that even mean, by the way? This whole post consists of the author repeatedly asserting that various things Stallman said were problematic without explaining why.
This brings me to my next point. Here's an article about "tact filters," a term describing how different people deal with the issue of tact:
http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html
People like Stallman don't get offended, so they assume other people won't either. People who do get offended try hard not to offend others, and expect the same courtesy. These two groups of people have difficulty getting along.
Neither point of view is invalid, in the sense that both sides get along extremely well with other people who are like them. But people with outward tact filters happen to be the majority, so Stallman gets seen as the bad guy. But I could imagine an alternative universe where inward-tact-filter nerds were the majority, and people like this author were expected to e.g. have the mental resilience to not let other people's words hijack her emotions.
So I guess I'm offended that people like Stallman are made to feel bad for being who they are, just because they're a minority.
Comment · 7 years ago
Here's an argument that although Myers-Briggs isn't scientific, it doesn't need to be, and is still as useful as it promises to be:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/27/on-types-of-typologies...
If anything, MBTI helped me assimilate the meta-fact that there are lots of different types of people out there, many of whom I'm simply never going to really click with.
"because there just wasn't any free or paid font that I found both readable, effective and elegant"
and I can think of several, including the ones I listed.
I'm not saying not to do projects like this! Scratching your own itch and sharing your solution is great. I'm just skeptical, as someone who has obsessively tried just about every programming font out there, when I read that a new font does something better than the handful of fonts I always end up returning to. What is that something?