scottlawson

YOU MUST MAKE YOUR GAME EVEN THOUGH NO-ONE IS GOING TO BUY IT

YOU SHOULD MAKE A GAME TODAY, AFTER READING THIS

you 100% disagree with this?

That's awesome to hear! Sometimes the journey is the destination, its a great project to get started with electronics.

I'd actually argue it has some wicked problem characteristics. The input space is enormous (all possible audio), perception is subjective and nonlinear, and there's no objective function to optimize against, only "does this feel right?". Every solution you try reframes what "good" means. It's not as hard as social planning but is way harder than it sounds, no pun intended.

I didn't go into much detail about it but there's a whole rabbit hole of color theory and color models. For example, the spectrum effect assigns different colors to different frequency bins, but also adjusts the assignment over time to avoid a static looking effect. It does this by rotating a "color angle" kind of like the HSL model.

I really like your LED installation in Rosetta Hall, it looks beautiful!

what I meant with "DevOps won't want to support it" was someone saying this before DevOps had even been asked, and by someone who wasn't even on DevOps, who just assumed that they probably wouldn't like this sort of thing.

the "good for them personally" reaction is so true. It's almost like a team-level version of the inonvator's dilemma, where protecting the thing you already own feels more rational than supporting something that might replace it.

That's fair. The title is provocative and probably overstates my actual position, which as you note is closer to "the way people practice critique in meetings is low value and here's how to do it better". The point about making critical thinkers feel worse is taken too. The people I'm describing in the post aren't the careful, thoughtful critics, but instead the reflexive ones. I could have drawn that line more clearly.

I like that angle a lot, and this very thoughtful comment. Distinguishing between the idea and the person is a good way to think about it. I think sometimes people cross that line without realizing it. Your point about making sure people still want to bring ideas next time is really what it comes down to.

you're right that a good idea should be able to survive scrutiny. The issue I'm describing isn't "someone asked a tough question". It's when objections pile up so ast that nothing can survive long enough to be properly evaluated. That's not a rigorous process, that's just a kill zone. The difference between a productive and unproductive kill zone comes down to culture. Teams that default to "here's why it won't work" end up very efficient at producing nothing. The teams I've seen do this well still kill ideas but they just do it after giving them a fair shot. The proposer has to do their homework but the environment has to let them get far enough to do it.

Heilmeier Catechism is really interesting, thanks for linking that. I like how the questions break down different major aspects. It treats risk as one of the dimensions of evaluation but not entire conversation. That's the shift I was trying to describe. Critique is valuable as part of a complete picture, not when it is the only lens.

Thanks for posting this. I'm glad I'm not alone in the monorepo club! I really believe in the benefits. Especially for a personal monorepo where the amount of code is not usually enough to run into the limits of git.

I'm curious about your CLI tool, what do you use it for?

thats fair, I appreciate your feedback very much! Initially, I typed out easily two or three times as much text as what made it into the final post, and had to trim and summarize what I wrote down to size. I totally hear what you are saying about generic structure and prose.

it isn't quite true that the categories are static, in fact, I've changed them a fair bit as I've reorganized containers. Sometimes I realize that two different containers should really be one container, and when that happens, I'll write down the sum of the dots on the new box label and continue it, so I don't lose the information. Less often, I'll take some parts out of a box and put them in a different one, accepting the loss of partial information. But I generally do that because I notice a subset of parts doesn't really belong in the box, and so the dots weren't really conveying information about those migrated parts anyways. It's more fluid than you might think at first.

short term memory, but I'll admit it isn't perfect and sometimes I'm pretty sure that I might be double labelling. But that's okay because even an occasional mistaken double label is still a partially valid signal that the box is being used a lot.

they aren't plastic, but surprisingly, I'm able to remove them with fine tweezers and transplant them when needed. They are 6mm diameter so pretty small and I've never seen them shred like larger labels/stickers.