Mtinie

I think it’s reasonable to assume that it means what you described on this site.

Which only made sense if you wanted to conquer a frozen, iron/oxygem-heavy planet[0]. Or, I guess, if you are a Krytonian.

——-

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_el...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptonian

The “dot” for “dop” mistakes were curious, not because they existed, but that the transcription engine got it right a few times.

I can get behind this idea. Thank you for clarifying.

Which is valid, but what's the timeframe for rechecking and validating if there's been a change? I'll posit it's practically impossible to catch every single change within a reasonable timeframe to ensure that "a repo no longer public, today, within a data set collected earlier" would be excluded.

I may be misunderstanding your suggestion. If so, I'm curious to learn what I missed.

Thank you for sharing! I appreciate the plan you have for the building. Best wishes on your endeavor.

"I have a 1931 model school built by the works progress administration."

As in, you own one? If so, that's awesome! I'd be very interested in learning more.

The concept of “pace layers,” to me, is a way to describe the iterative process:

1. Determine the base requirements.

2. Build the first draft.

3. Determine what parts of the first draft are useful. Capture those in a design guide.

4. Iterate on the parts that were useful but not fully fleshed out.

5. Add refinements to the design guide.

6. Define adjusted and new requirements. Pull in elements from the design guide as applicable, design and build new elements when they don’t exist.

7. Repeat.

(Note: I’m sure I truncated some steps you can fit in the flow)

Design systems are living documentation and a lagged record of solutions that work in context. They are incomplete and will always be missing things but with each subsequent iteration they should continue to evolve and adapt.

The design system moves at a slower velocity than the product development which informs it. This is why the phase layer model works well for me to help describe this iterative process.

This compliments your desire for minimal design upfront and rapid development with engagement and validation with the people who are putting it to use.

Addendum: Added note about layer velocities.

Addendum 2: Fixed a few typos

AFAIK, it’s not about emissions or reception, it’s about increasing the LEO coffers via traffic fines.

It may be described as a signals concern but that’s simply window dressing.

THE George Santos, who recently quarterbacked the Super Bowl winning KC Chiefs? Damn. That guy gets around.

It’s difficult for independent artists to live as independent artists today, even without the specter of a “trillion-dollar groundbreaking plagiarism machine”[0]. So far, we’ve still been producing original work, primarily because it’s what we do even when we’re not making money from it. It’s a blessing and a curse.

This is not to dismiss the concern. I simply wanted to state that artists will find ways to keep moving the creative bar forward.

[0] I really like this turn of phrase, thank you for sharing it.

Such is every aspect of life, fortunately or unfortunately.

You need permits to dig a tunnel in Herndon (VA), so it’s not illegal. Similar to any major construction on your home. She didn’t secure them beforehand.

Should they be represented in that case? Scrapers can literally cover every variable within all programmatic languages.

Special purpose is specific, and therefore not standard. I can produce a web-centric language that excludes <html> but has zero use beyond being a jackkass.

(Postscript: I don’t disagree with your point)

I’m very interested in hearing more about this. Do tell. How exactly do these teams save lives and prevent terrorist attacks?

Grandfathering should not occur when the grandparents have quantifiable and qualifiable issues

Is it a scenario, even if unlikely?

Photos would be awesome! For science.

I may be missing a fundamental point of your comment or from the linked content, but given the minuscule number of users who’d be concerned with this in practical presentation, I sincerely hope that the UXers involved didn’t optimize for this use case.

Society says that progress goes forward. Toes? Not always.

In the specific hypothetical case mentioned, wouldn’t that constitute “public” information if it was overheard in a non-controlled location?

I agree they share elements, and that’s totally expected given their architectural style lineage.

Central Post & Telegraph building is classified as Neo-Baroque[1], while the Harold Washington Library (of significantly later construction) reflects many of the Beaux-Arts[2] forms and ornamentation.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_Revival

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaux-Arts_architecture

You are mistaken. I distinctly remember attending gatherings with friends of my parents’ when I was a kid (1980s). At some point in the night, usually after dinner, someone would pull out the latest issue of “People” or “Cosmopolitan” and narrate their favorite article(s) to the rest of the group.

Now, this is much more communal than you posited but if that was happening I have no doubt people were sneaking an article or two while out with friends.

As an aside, are we at a point in democratized hardware where I could buy the right components and a traced PCB to recreate a Gameboy?

Right, but I’m wondering if the notch was actually useful for legitimate passengers in the event of an accident.

The strange thing about that modification is that it appears on the surface to be a legitimate safety improvement. Could the underlying test be subpar?

> We can't trust foreign companies for various reasons.

Removing the xenophobia:

“We can’t trust companies for various reasons.”

Really? That’s an interesting take and one that I hadn’t considered. I need to think about how I feel regarding the underlying premise but I can certainly see where you can make the argument. I agree that jumping to lynch mob reactions aren’t helpful.

My original point—-which was likely not worded well—is that the humans which make up “society” need to reach a point where they can recognize that corporations make and follow-through on decisions because they are supported by sign-off from our fellow humans, not because of an abstract corporate mechanism.

Thank you for the sidebar.

The primary difference is directly connecting injuries and deaths with the action, rather than indirectly connecting them.

This does not mean that I personally feel they aren’t equally reprehensible and bad for society.

Or, we collectively decide that it’s unlikely scandals of this scope did not previously pass the CEO’s desk at some point in the timeline and start with penalties at the top, and then move down the line.

My argument can be expanded to the fact that if a “rogue underling” did this without C-level input that leadership at the company is negligent at the least, or attempting to abstract responsibility and hide the issue behind deniability at the worst.

Addendum: I should have picked a better phrase to start with. I agree that the legal process is the correct way to proceed, but once a determination of culpability is made, hiding behind layers of leadership should not be the defacto norm.