mannicken

If meth was available like cigarettes or beer, there would be significantly less private production of the drug ;-)

"Combating drugs is not just about a perfect moral vision of society. Getting rid of meth, for example, would be a big aid to society. (As best I understand it)."

I don't mean to undermine your knowledge but that would be impossible, useless, and actually harmful.

And here's why: http://www.rxlist.com/desoxyn-drug.htm -- this is methamphetamine in a legal form that's prescribed to people all over the country. They are using it to help people lose weight. Yeah, I know, right? Meth. Seriously.

Now let's think about "Meth: Not even once." and how that applies to a case where doctor prescribes you methamphetamine for your ADHD (which everyone seems to have nowadays). So what is it now -- "Meth: Not even once, unless prescribed by a doctor"? Nah, doesn't have that nice ring to it.

Drugs are like weapons; that's the reason they're illegal. Imagine not feeling ANY pain, having a sharp powerful intellect, being able to not sleep for days in a row and feel great. You can get stabbed and not even feel it, your hand can be blown off and you won't care. Certainly not concerned with things like having to eat or sleep.

Now I'm sure you would use that power for positive or neutral activities like writing posts online, coding, drawing, studying for exams, or nodding off on a couch, but can you imagine a gang that robs grocery stores on meth? It would be kinda easier to police sober people or people without guns, right?

I don't think drugs should be completely legal or illegal. I think using drugs should be a privilege like driving a car or owning a handgun, a privilege that can be easily earned by perhaps passing tests and lacking history of violent crimes. Like a 'drug user's license' that can be taken away temporarily or permanently for violations of public safety.

I would certainly not want criminals who can harm me owning guns, driving cars, or using drugs. That's my point and this is where I partially agree with prohibition.

I thought about a legible signature. My reasoning was that it was too specific. When you're drawing an icon of a coffee-cup, you're drawing abstract shapes that will hit as many people with a 'coffeecup' concept. Compare this to a life drawing of 'coffee-cup on a bar in Starbucks at 9pm in Seattle on 5th avenue'. Who gives a shit who's signature it is?

By drawing an abstract shape of signature I'm letting the user fill in the gaps ('yay, it's my signature'), without forcing a specific context on his mind ('oh, it's John Doe's signature').

I really think they should define 'work'. Creative work is much different than, say, assembly of radios. A lot happens when you're away from the computer.

""As part of our hiring process at Mixer Labs, we would often give people a half day coding exercise. "

I'm just letting you know, I'm not working with you. Luckily, after years of experience I have been able to arrange lines of clients wanting me to get stuff done for them so I'm capable of screening companies like you on simple cues like this.

Have fun finding a slave who'll just do what you ask, no questions asked, no creativity involved.

Of course, I'm lazy but only about things that don't really matter. Only stupid people laboriously move huge tons of mass by dragging them; smart people invent a wheel and an internal combustion engine.

This effect can be realized on every JavaScript-supporting browser, or in fact any animated-.gif-supporting browser.

I think it was a proof-of-concept work.

It only works on webkit browsers.

Maybe I should change fields. There's so many people in UX design now that it is no longer cool. But I like it. Damn you, cognitive dissonance.

I think cigarettes improve my quality of life enough to justify their cost.

For some people satellite TVs improves their quality of life.

I'm not some spoiled rich kid either; I grew up on potato soup and old cloth in poverty.

Good point. What if I emphasize the "signature line" concept and insert a line to emphasize the "these two are separate" concept?

As in: http://olekbeluga.com/targetgiftbox2.png

Using color temperature to distinguish between primary and secondary elements -- brilliant.

http://uxmovement.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/checkout+or...

I have a little problem with the star at the end of "your price" as it creates dissatisfaction: "Oh, so the price isn't 12.98? What is it? Like $300? $500?"

About gift box... I'm sorry, I had to pull out Ill/PS and do this: http://olekbeluga.com/targetgiftbox.png

Good choice on positioning the shell to the right-top -- it indicates growth and positivity.

Not sure if flatness was intended but: http://imgur.com/fAaMl

I recommend clarifying deep propositions:

"Solid as a shell?" "RGB streams floating inside" -- is this a logo for a painting program?

I recommend using reference photos of a shell, or finding a real shell and studying it.

I like the visual rhythm of days.

But just letting you know, background is way too busy :) Text is hardly readable in some parts. I have no idea what's going on and I'm a power-user who designed and used different types of UIs from MS-DOS shells to Kinect-based NUIs.

Text isn't selectable on the items in Safari which I think is a big deal. Hyperlinks on top right aren't underlined, I didn't even know they were hyperlinks before I hovered on them.

It's like a splash of colors of all sorts, different fonts and text in my face.

I believe my understanding of programming was many times multiplied from what it was when I watched SICP lectures which are, yay, available on MIT web-site :)

Hardness really depends on whether you like something or not, and your previous experience. It's subjective. For a college xc runner, running 5 miles in 35 minutes is "taking it easy", for an average american it's an impossible task,

I think if you find something "hard" you're doing it wrong or setting impossible goals which just lead to frustration and everything becoming harder.

I think the fundamental problem is that designers use right brains to come up with solution: the brain that's involved in processing of emotions, shapes, "a-ha" moments, and seeing the whole picture.

Programming, on the other hand, seems to be a fairly analytical and logical activity that involves verbalizing logic in a programming language.

I suggest starting out with "The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" because if you try to approach design as you would approach programming it will look like a stick figure.

http://illusion.scene360.com/wp-content/themes/sahara-10/sub... this is why negative space is important. It can create unintended things if you are not aware that it exists.

Paper, Illustrator, HTML.

Porting of some C++ network code for a client.

http://olekbeluga.com/notepad/notebook_mockup.html as a hobby.

Illustrator is awesome. Also, pencil and a piece of paper. Sometimes I create physical models of complex UI objects if I need to grasp their animations/behavior. Some designers I knew liked Balsamiq, or Blend, but everyone knows how to draw on paper.

It would be harder to design in Photoshop, methinks, since when designing you're dealing with abstract shapes and lines (vector) not raw pixels (raster). I mean sometimes you do :) I created and prototyped this cool video-preview control entirely in Paint.NET, literally changing pixels to create gradients.

However, being ok and having skills to deal with unemployment gives you an important skill: Being able to openly say "Fuck you" to your employer or a client.

The part about desperation is not exactly right. I think those who are employed, unhappy and scared of unemployment are in a worse position. Unemployed are actually free, they have very little to lose. They have gotten out of zoo cages and roam the world, which while scary is much more interesting than a job.

If you wanna have an absolute security that you'll have food and a roof, go to jail or something.

Well, duh. Design is not art. Art is about beauty primarily. Design is about leading user where he wants to, be it content, product, or a graphic. Design is communication.

What this means to business-people/developers: you can have all the functionality and low prices in the world, but if no one can get what they want in time, it's all useless. There are no sales if the user can't get to the "Sell" button. There are no ad views if the content is hidden somewhere in .html files or is unreadable.

Oh, I think I have a winner: "I would be better off if you killed yourself"

I wish I was making this up but one my friends told me that shortly after I was diagnosed with severe depression. We are no longer friends.

Whoa, dude.

I agree. Having ego is so outdated. Ego is like believing that blacks are an inferior race, or earth is flat, or earth is 6000 years old.

In other words, "apple is being eaten by you just as much as you are eating the apple". It's not so much that you have chosen to eat the apple, as much as the apple chose to hit the receptors in your brain that will make you eat it. But it's all ridiculous: you and apple are one harmonious system.

"Not only does this result in a zero-remainder."

Not necessarily. You're forgetting that each pixel is made out of three little colors, so with certain color arrangements one can probably get remainder even on a 1x1 pixel rhythmic grid.

Rounded corners are friendly. It's almost as if they say "come play with us, we won't bite or cut you".

Sharp corners on the other hand are more like "I'll cut you if you come near me."

Perhaps this means that one can constrain user by placing sharp corners on contextually unavailable objects, and rounded corners on available objects.

Speaking in terms of progressive disclosure, one can animate sharpness of the corners depending on if the users need to interact with the info inside of the corners.

Then it's more like "oh, ok, now I won't cut you -- you're cool, boxes around me told me that, come enter me".

You certainly don't want to work for those people.

>My professional experience involves enough interaction with extraordinarily talented engineers who have extremely abrasive personalities. Often, that abrasiveness is a side effect of their talent: the same ability which allows these talented men and women to see through the complexity and grasp the conceptually simple steps necessary to solve the problem also helps them see through the seemingly-meaningless boilerplate and social grease that we call people skills.

Or they are just socially inept.

With the same approach I could propose that these talented engineers just see through the meaningless of distance running and hence are unable to run a mile under 4:10. Why, isn't it because they suck at running? Oh no, not that. They just _choose not to run a mile faster than 4:10_, right? No, not right. Why?

Why? Because! If you are a genius at A that doesn't necessarily mean you're a genius at B, C, D, E, F and all the other areas.

Let's not even talk about geniuses, most of the "oh, I can be an asshole" attitude comes from people who haven't actually accomplished anything that great for humanity.

Another fun thing from coffee is caffeine psychosis, or generalized stimulant psychosis similar to those sometimes experience by users of (meth)amphetamines.