thisisweirdok

As much as I prefer MDN, W3Schools is fine now.

> if you put too many icons in a row and they are all different, they won’t work.

uhh what? says who? where's the source of this? This is only the case if your icons don't look different enough. In the example those icons aren't great because they've overly complex and easy to mix up.

>you won’t come up with a great icon for a commit. Or a release. Or an issue. Or a license.

You can, and you also don't necessarily need to. Icons aren't only for the illiterate or first-time users... they create a signpost for repeat users to scan for without reading a word. As long as you consistently use the same icons and they make at least a little sense, they can be useful (I agree that some of Github's don't make much sense at all though).

>I mean, Icon + Label + Counter make for a symmetric and weak composition:

It's best to refrain from insults during critique, but this is flat out dumb. Completely unfounded. No evidence. The composition is "what is it" and "how many" — it makes perfect sense.

>The thing with vanity metrics is that there should be just one. One metrics is simple to understand and focus.

Again, no. This is how _you_ use it. You've done no research. I want to see forks because I want to know how many people are potentially engaged in _doing_ something with a repo. Stars matter less to me because there are some repos that just have a lot of stars because someone wrote an interesting article about it once. (I do think stars and watching is a bit redundant, I personally have no need for both but my personal experience does not solely dictate what the product needs to be)

> Watch button

Again, no. `Watch` is an action. If I click the dropdown I expect to have options for "watch". "Not watching" simply adds words and makes me put forth a little cognitive effort (minimal but it's there) to parse what the opposite of "not watching" is. You are adding the need to think more, not less.

--

Honestly I'm too exhausted to continue. This redesign isn't well thought out at all. At this point I skipped ahead to the end, and honestly it's just a garbled mess. You don't understand the product or its users. If you were my student (I'm a design professor) I'd give you credit for the effort, and the visual design is fine (though are you trying to trick me into thinking that making corners more round is meaningful?)... but there's an endless mountain of straight-up bullshit to call out here.

You're not talking a lot into account, especially that drivers are freelancers who own their own vehicles. That $6 per 15 minutes turns into $24/hr (if you're literally non-stop taking fares, which is impossible).

Then you have maintenance, wear, healthcare, retirement, etc... Just accounting for fuel and maintenance these drivers are making minimum wage without any benefits, even if they drive full-time.

The so-called gig economy is bullshit that erodes just about everything it touches, from workers rights to public services.

There are multi-billion dollar companies that still need IE11 because they don't want to build new internal applications. Contrasted to the funding that some cities get, it's amazing they have computers at all.

There's this huge fervor over disruption and startup dollars, but just like the rest of the country... municipal software infrastructure is just sitting around full of holes.

The problem is that ride sharing isn't providing a service with a realistic and sustainable price. In Boston I can get a 15 minute Uber pool trip door-to-door for $3.

They're undercutting public transportation and traditional taxi services that need to operate with a realistic budget that isn't fueled by billions of VC dollars.

Talk to anyone with a reasonable public transit system about how ridesharing is clearing up the roads (spoiler alert: it's not, they're decreasing public transit ridership and contributing to a constantly worsening congestion issue).

eeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Uber undercuts both public transit and traditional taxi services with prices that are unsustainable and can't provide a living wage for their drivers.

This was OK initially because taxis in many places were benefiting from localized monopolies and also screwing many drivers, but in the long run it means Uber kills all the competition and then just jacks prices back up anyway.

I don't dig the drunk driving fear mongering either. If I hired the homeless $3 a trip to carry drunk people home that doesn't mean my exploitative program should suddenly be free of municipal adjustment.

I'm not talking about an intellectual understanding, I'm talking about emotional understanding. Sympathy is intellectual understanding (i.e., recognition), but is not emotional understanding.

I'm talking about how the terms sociopath and psychopath are used colloquially, which as you pointed out is incorrect. The original comment I'm responding to is "Psychopats and sociopaths will [always commit crimes]."

Criminals with APD and Psychopathy as depicted in popular media are incredibly rare — that's the entirety of what I'm trying to express. The American obsession with prisons has next to nothing to do with the prevalence of people who fit the layman's understanding of "sociopaths" and "psychopaths." If it were directly related very few prisons would need to exist at all.

Empathy is understanding, sympathy is recognition.

If I stub my toe you don't have to feel that pain to empathize it, you have to understand what it feels like to suddenly be in pain. Sympathy in that situation would only require recognizing and pitying someone who is in pain, without necessarily understanding it.

>untreatable Antisocial Personality Disorder

I'm talking specifically about people you'd qualify as psychopaths/sociopaths as they're colloquially depicted. The "evil" emotionless/unreachable criminal is incredibly rare.

>California has at least 4 state mental institutions devoted solely to housing violent mentally disordered offenders.

This is unrelated, but keep in mind that often these institutions are treating a symptom and ignoring the disease. California probably wouldn't need 4 state institutions if they had reasonable access to mental health and stable housing.

They often have zero support system when they're released. They're temporarily put into group homes or halfway houses where they're surrounded by other people with mental disorders and various related issues like substance abuse (not to mention that abuse in general is rampant in this type of housing, including by staff). Some people know that this type of housing is problematic, and opt for homelessness instead.

They've got no permanent homes, finding work is incredibly difficult, and they're grouped together with other people with wide-ranging mental disorders and other problematic histories.

It's hard to imagine that anyone is _ever_ able to escape these cycles of institutionalization.

Alright, I guess I can revise my comment to say that I feel like it's kind of fucked that GP's empathy only extends to his self and no further.

Psychopathy and sociopathy aren't cut and dry clinical diagnosis. The idea that there are these inherently evil people roaming around out there is incredibly rare and is inflated by popular media.

What people typically refer to is Antisocial Personality Disorder, which varies wildly. Many people with APD aren't criminals, or even "bad" people.

It's rare to the point that I suspect that you could house the number of violent criminals with untreatable Antisocial Personality Disorder in a single prison.

Yikes dude. You should feel empathy because women and black people are fellow humans, not because you _are or have fathered_ someone in those groups.

You seem pretty defensive for someone that can be proven wrong by a 30 second Google.

Sure, but the people in the billing department have never met me? So unless they're doing a credit check or doctors are taking notes on suspected financial situations... I doubt they're doing this.

Right, but in this case if the deciding factor is climate change and you're ambivalent about the outcome of climate change and humanity... you might as well just roll the dice.

I've said things like "really? there's nothing you can do about the cost?" but that's a really weak push for it... I just hate kind of being a dick about it (asking for a manager and making a counteroffer makes me feel pretty shitty, but I'll give it a shot).

really? I've been told by different hospital billing departments that they will put me on a payment plan, but will absolutely not negotiate beyond an insurance provider's agreed upon rate.

Of course, that stance is in their best interest and not mine... so maybe I wasn't being forward enough?

This all feels quite ridiculous.

>This is an especially bizarre reason for having children.

This is basically why every species on the planet (with sexual reproduction) has children, whether you're aware of it or not. It's the instinctual drive to propagate. It's why sex feels good (for at least one party involved, for most species).

Get this though: if you have insurance and your insurance doesn't cover something, you often can't negotiate. I had a $10,000 procedure that insurance didn't cover (i.e., I hadn't met my high deductible yet), and I had no choice but to pay the insurance's agreed-upon rate (which I feel was higher than what I should have been paying out of pocket).

So it was kind of negotiated, but through insurance and their negotiated rates not an individual's out of pocket negotiated rates.

This was also a service where I wasn't informed that a second doctor was out of network, which also screwed me me (and there's literally nothing I can do about this after the fact).

I thought this was an interesting point from the Gates' annual letter, the specific context is Africa but it's true globally.

> As more children survive to adulthood, women are having fewer kids than ever before. The result is a global population that’s creeping slowly toward middle age.

So people are _already_ having fewer children. Assuming we want to maintain the human species, _someone_ needs to be having children. For diversity everyone should be having _some_ amount of children.

Then of course, it depends on your climate change mindset.

If you think humanity is doomed and there's no way out of this: Don't have children because you think they'll die suffer through the apocalypse.

If you think humanity needs to continue and we will solve this problem: have children because we can avoid the apocalypse.

If you're unsure? Have children. Someone's bound to survive the apocalypse. Maybe it'll be your genetic material.

Personally I think we'll make it through. Life will be different, but we've got a better chance of surviving than humanity has ever had in the past. I think it's more likely that we'll get wiped out by a cosmic event that we don't even see coming.

Heat pumps keep getting better and better. I actually use one as my primary heat source in New Hampshire now. It's cheaper than oil or traditional electric resistance heating.

Plus air conditioning in the summer is a nice bonus.

This is mildly unrelated, but living in New England and being stuck with shitty heating bills in January and February always makes me wonder what things would be like if we had enough common sense to move to regions of the country where heating isn't so vital. There's plenty of space out there.

Sure excessive heat is an issue, but if my heat goes off when it's 2°F I would likely die within a day or two. Not in practice of course (thanks society!) just in theory. I can withstand 102° heat just fine if water is available and I'm a little careful.

Oh god no. At least not as the primary guidance for long-range. It can be partially used to track a target, but it's not being used to decide where to target in a broader sense.

Short range devices sure, but they still require a human to point and launch. There's not a margin of error there that will divert a missile from an armored vehicle to an elementary school.

This absolutely needs to be an agreed upon standard similar to chemical weapons and mines.

Anyone remotely familiar with software development knows that automating either when to launch or what to target will not end well.

Which bug will end a civilization?

But a human dictates the launch and what the target will be.

What exactly are engineers and designers at Facebook doing? There are thousands of them! I've seen teams of 10 ship more (granted, no one is delivering on Facebook's scale)...

I know most of them are likely working on backend stability and performance... but come on.

That's fair, but I also think there's a lot to consider with various brain chemistry. I don't think anyone can just thrust themselves into it if they're in objectively bad scenarios.

It's fleeting. What makes you happy today might feel miserable tomorrow. You need to recognize this and be willing to change.

It's hard. Life is hard.