This is some weird stuff: 'You wake up in the middle of the night and find that you are still asleep.'

This is a pretty cool project, even though it makes very little sense when you play. Is the idea that the game will get better over time the more people are playing, and if so, in what way do you imagine it getting better?

I have aphantasia and I found out three years ago when I heard the research on radio, that others do see images in their mind.

So far, it has been very problematic to explain to others what it is like to not see images in your mind, I guess because it is fundamentally a process of understanding.

There is a reddit community /r/aphantasia if anyone want to know how it is from their point of view.

Auth0 do the same thing though. They make library abstractions such as "passwordless" and make it a separate authentication flow altogether, where as in reality it is just a matter of generating temporary passwords. There is no need to not be able to just enable and disable temporary passwords for any user.

Also, try implementing generation of API-key like tokens for users that can be expired, revoked, authorized etc.

Auth0 have made products that hide complexity, in my opinion, but if those products fit your particular need, sure it works great.

Sounds like there is room in this market for competition

I cannot disagree more.

There is a general confusion that the job of a user interface is to simplify the system, where that is the last thing a user interface should do. What a user interface should do is to make it as simple as possible for a user to understand and interact with the system.

Google's system is immensely complex and they have intentionally not given their users all the information and not all the options for interaction. This is intentional of course, but by looking at the user interfaces they provide as is we have to conclude that they are doing a very poor job of giving us access to understand the full complexity.

Imagine if Adobe replaced all their interfaces with a few simplified buttons, one brush to use, filters are automatically applied, lighting automatically adjusted based on personal history etc. No one would use such a program.

The GRPR in this case is pointing out that Google is not showing all the options and when they are they obscure them, ie they have bad user interfaces by making it as difficult as possible for a user to understand and interact with their system.

If anything, this will force Google to make good user interfaces. For, if the measurement of a good interface is about how simple the interface is regardless of the complexity of the underlying system, then all good user interfaces should be reduced to one button. Such a measurement of quality is ignorant and cannot further any skill in designing user interfaces.

I saw them all a few years ago and I highly recommend them.

Adam Curtis's movies are more like long essays than documentaries but all worth watching.

> Adam Curtis's movies are more like long essays

... with a great soundtrack. ;-)

Seriously, though, thinking of them as essays is a very good idea. When I hear documentary, I usually think of David Attenborough, fact-conveying kind of film.

Curtis is more about ideas, and my usual reaction to his films is "Now that gave me a lot to think about."

Me too, they were being aired as I was at university and our lecturer showed them to us.

One of the best things I learnt at university was the existance of Adam Curtis and his documentaries!

I love how he creates an amazing montage of footage taken from the BBC archives to help narrate his documentaries. He never creates new footage.

> Adam Curtis's movies are more like long essays...

Aha.. that's a good way of putting it.

This has actually never happened to me. I replay the games I played as a kid about every two years and they are always great. The game I reply the most are Kid Chameleon for Sega 16bit and Wonderboy in Dragon's trap for Sega 8-bit.

I might look into this but I cannot stand ads and I'm inapt at using mobile phones, so probably not.

All games I remember good still are, my MAJOR gripe is that post 1995 most games got standardized as to what left/right clicks are for and how movement control is performed (wasd+shift/space) so going to play game before or around that timeline with those clunky ux is a major mental drain

i.e. Fragile Allegiances, Magic Carpet, Shogun Total War are all enticing but I cannot play without getting frustrated.

Honorable mention to Master of Magic, which is completely workable.

Mobile wise since Dwarf Fortress got a mobile skin I couldn't be happier.

There are many ways, of course, but I'll tell you what I do.

If I am angry or upset in any way I first think about it. If I cannot understand the anger I let people know what I am feeling and that I might need to be alone or just need some silence.

If, then later, still aren't any wiser about what I am feeling I start analysing my emotions. For me it helps to read philosophy or art (movies, music books etc). It is a way of looking at things from a different perspective and this can help me reflect on what is going on.

However, I never have the intention of getting rid of my emotions. Rather, I have an interest in my existence and metaphysics in general. So whatever comes of it I am fine with.

So, my advice is to let people, including yourself, know that you are about to "snap" don't try to not feel whatever you feel. Not everything has to or can be resolved.

This is my experience as well. I am from Scandinavia and now living in Canada and I have only met a handful of individuals who do not interrupt others while speaking. Unlike you I tell them to shut up, which is the way it is where I come from but doesn't translate well.

Furthermore, I have never seen any american interviewer not interrupting their subjects.

This is my bias, so I never see sexism nor racism in this context. I only see idiots who think more of themselves than they should.

In this particular case and in regards to sexism, however, the voice that should be listened to most, in my opinion, is the voice of the subject. If we don't consider her voice the most important voice we put her in the subaltern and that is the worst position you can have. The subaltern being women in the context of patriarchal history.

The person who said 'Let her speak please.', should also be heard, regardless of her motives. The interviewers should shut up and let their subjects speak at all times, so we need more of this social courage.

Why is it weird to have conversations this way?

I would find it very odd to save a string of questions until the end.

It's much more fun to engage in the conversation actively.

I'm not saying control the conversation. Good conversationalists listen more than they speak.

But having fun in a conversation is engaging in it. Not replying paragraph after paragraph, in my opinion.

For me it is disrespectful to interrupt someone speaking, so that is why I find it "weird". But it is most probably a matter of preference. I don't think everyone should have discussions on my terms.

In the context of interviewer<-->interviewee, though, I think it is generally more interesting to listen to the interviewee than the interviewer. It seems to me that the whole premise of the interviewer<-->interviewee is for the interviewer to get the interviewee to talk.

Absolutely. People who don’t understand that an interview isn’t the same as a chat between buddies at the pub make terrible interviewers.

An interviewer’s job is to let the interviewee speak to the audience, even though the audience doesn’t get to directly ask questions.

In general nobody cares what the interviewer thinks, and we don’t want to hear them blab about themselves.

(This makes many “podcasts” unlistenable.)

I see it more like keeping track of things. Of, course we might get into the territory you are referring to once you see that you have all this data and you start manipulating your and other's behaviour based on this data.

However, the need for recording and documentation is as old as scribbles on a cave wall and some also really do need to document things to remember.

I must agree, though, with the wording. It is unfortunate but it probably does attract those who have an itch for efficiency.

Isn't one of the premises of modern engineering that you work within a regulatory framework to ensure safety for the public?

It seems to me that most software development is not engineering in this sense and I assume that we will get to that stage at some point, but right now things like public institutions being hacked, because their software security was not up to par, will happen.