Arguably lots of UIs getting worse with every iteration of redesign.
- Windows GUI went downhill from Windows 7 (or even XP) with every release.
- Outlook went from good over fair to annoying so that I finally replaced it as my personal client.
These are not the only examples I could name but they are the most prominent.
I think the main problem is that both technical staff and UX designers both trying to make something "new" or "fancy" which is in most cases the opposite of something usable. E.g. Aero was fancy but it took away that my active window had one signal color header bar and all others were tamed. Now all windows are colorful and yelling at me at the same time. Orientation is gone.
And after that UIs got even more "fancy".
Step 13 ("Nobody's happy but nobody hates it") is the plateau when everybody is to tired to keep on fighting - a compromise, not the state of the GUI reached anything acceptable. It is not fancy enough anymore for developers and UX designers to be proud of but at the same time and is still annoyingly bad for the users.
About Outlook: Are you talking about the Win32 desktop client or the M365 web app? If the desktop client, what has gotten so much worse? And is there a better alternative to the Exchange calendar? I have not seen one in my experience at mega corps.
> Why would smart people care about denim vs. trousers?
Mostly it's about the sponsors. It's much more difficult to get sponsors for an event if the participants are dressed like they slept in their clothes. That's why organizers try to impose minimal standards on dresscodes.
Jeans and sneakers are maybe debatable, but players showed up with cargo pants, shorts or tank tops on other events.
In the FIDE regulation for that event jeans were explicitly mentioned as not allowed. FIDE would have made a fool out of themselves when allowing Magnus to wear the jeans.
Not sure I agree. Chess has moved towards a much younger audience over the last 5 years, and is incredibly popular now. Gets 10s of thousands of viewers on Twitch, for example & there are many players that could be seen as modern day celebrities in their own right.
FIDE needs to embrace the younger generation that think the game is cool. Ancient dress codes are a distraction.
Not only still. It increasingly belongs to old people. Old people have capital, young people salaries. Capital has grown faster than salaries for a while, and ai should make the difference even bigger.
There’s quite a difference between casual clothes and dressing indecently. IMO jeans are fine as long as they’re inconspicuous (such as raggy jeans with holes in them or worn in such a way that the buttocks are showing) for such an event. Swimsuits are for a different type of event where if you’re showing up in trousers they would disqualify you.
Other environments manage more casual dress codes without too much difficulty. I can’t wear a swimsuit to the office but I can wear jeans. No-one seems especially confused about where the line is.
Having never read any formal dress code rules for any office, hospital, or place of worship I've been inside in my life, I've never gotten kicked out for wearing the wrong thing, and I've also never seen someone wearing a swimsuit in any of those places. This isn't some uniquely problem that only chess tournaments have, and it's not nearly as hard to solve as you're making it out to be.
> It's much more difficult to get sponsors for an event if the participants are dressed like they slept in their clothes.
Anyone who considers jeans to look like "clothes someone would sleep in" is immediately dubious in my book. Jeans are so extraordinarily uncomfortable to sleep in that I don't think I've ever intentionally done that in my life.
Many jeans today are not the stiff and sturdy work clothes they used to be. They have the appearance of it, but are actually made of a relatively thin, stretchy fabric that is more comfortable, and much less durable.
It seems rather harder to get sponsors when you can no longer attract the best player in the world to your tournaments. That they made much more of a fool out of themselves by holding "world championships" without attracting the undisputed best player in the world to them.
This looks to me like a case where FIDE got greedy and forgot to balance the talents interests with the sponsors.
> Mostly it's about the sponsors. It's much more difficult to get sponsors for an event if the participants are dressed like they slept in their clothes.
Would be interesting if they can get mattress companies or apparel companies that have good comfy clothes as sponsors. Why not play chess on a firm mattress?
We'll see how easy it gets to get them when Magnus is playing at some parallel tournament, though. Nakamura, for instance, has already made a point about that.
id think the venue more than the sponsors. the media sponsor being the norway public broadcast to specifically put magnus on tv means theyve ticked off at least one sponsor by disqualifying him
Before OOP became popular the usage of global variables was discouraged in procedural languages because it was the cause of many bugs and errors.
In OOP global state variables were renamed to instance variables and are now widely used. The problem why it was discouraged beforehand did not went away by renaming but is now spread all over the place.
Here in Germany you can see how this argument evolves. For the Green party everything which disagrees with their position is declared nowadays rated as "hate speech" because the only conceivable reason for disagreeing with the green is people hate them.
But then you'd have other problems that come with using another paradigm, since there's no silver bullet, and no paradigm that handles all problems better than other paradigms. Probably popular languages tend to be multi-paradigm.
That's not really true. Structured programming completely supplanted the paradigm that predated it. I think it's pretty close to a consensus now that null values are a mistake. Same with manual memory management.
Programming paradigms meaning imperative, functional, logical, OOP, stack-based, array-based, that sort of thing.
Widely used languages like C++, Javascript, Python allow for a mix of those approaches. If one programming paradigm was best, we'd expect languages like Haskell, Prolog or APL to be popular instead.
The contemporary "multi-paradigm" style is influenced by the many paradigms which preceded it, but for all the elements it borrows, there are elements it leaves behind, too. Implementation inheritance is often left out of newer languages (see Rust, Go). I don't think it makes sense to view new langauges and styles as the sum of all preceding paradigms. It's an evolutionary process, rather than accretive. We keep the good bits and discard the rest.
I don't think this is a very reliable test, and it even verges on misleading, as there is a degree of complexity that may lead people who do not have aphantasia to believe that they do have the condition. I think this line of thinking with your "test" has been what has led some people in the comments to say that they believe that the condition may just be a result of miscommunication on what mental visualization entails, since they believe that those who claim to have aphantasia believe that they have the condition due to not meeting a threshold of visualization.
However, it appears that for people who actually have the condition, visualization never gets to any specificity. One could be unable to answer a single one of the questions on your test, yet that does not necessarily mean they have aphantasia, as aphantasia is not the lack of detail in visualization, but the lack of any visualization at all. Some people who have aphantasia have attested in these comments that they cannot picture anything in their minds at all. Many of them attest that they don't even visualize when dreaming.
I like this test because it’s not your answer, it’s your reaction to the question that matters. If you read this and think “uhh is that a trick question?” then you probably have aphantasia.
My initial reaction to reading this the first time was to go reread the story more closely to find the answer. But the answer isn’t in the story. For many people the answer is just a truth that exists when they hear the story and are asked the question. If it’s not you likely have aphantasia.
Maybe you are just very lazy at filling in the details of the scenery? A questionnaire based approach doesn't sound very objective to me. A condition with the only "realiable" diagnostic being the VVIQ test, is not a condition at all.
Even replace "circle" with "straight line." I think tests like above (balls, people, details) miss the point that in actual aphantasia you literally visualize nothing
I think this hits closer to the mark. For any given description, if a person is able to visualize anything at all, then they don't have the condition. If they do have the condition, then they apparently can't visualize anything.
- Inner Speech:
Inner speech is the experience of speaking words in the person's own voice, with the same vocal characteristics (timbre; rate; inflection for commas, question marks, etc.; pauses; accents; stutters; etc.) as the person's own external speech, but with no external (real) noise. In its pure form, the experience of inner speech is identical to that of external speech except that the mouth does not move and no external production of sound is produced.
- Partially Worded Speech: Partially worded speech is the experience of speaking in one's own inner voice, except that some substantial number of the words that are being spoken are absent from awareness. Thus the person has the sense of speaking, and is directly aware of the vocal characteristics of that speaking: rate, inflection, timbre, rhythm, and so on. Furthermore, many of the words that are being spoken are present directly to awareness, precisely as in inner speech. However, some of the words are absent from the stream of speech. Space is "reserved" for these words, as if the words will be added at some later time.
- Unworded Speech: Unworded speech is the experience of speaking in one's own inner voice, except that there is no experience of the words themselves. Thus the person has the sense of speaking, and is directly aware of the vocal characteristics of that speaking: rate, inflection, timbre, rhythm, and so on
- Worded Thinking:: Worded thinking is the experience of thinking in particular distinct words, but those words are not being (innerly or externally) spoken, heard, seen, or voiced in any other way.
- Unsymbolized Thinking: Unsymbolized thinking is the experience of thinking some particular, definite thought without the awareness of that thought's being represented in words, images, or any other symbols.
Unsymbolized is a weird choice of term. I specifically mostly think without words and cannot form "realistic photo" images in my head, but I am most definitely using symbols.
If I have to make a considered choice from multiple alternatives, I can imagine[1] them as undescribable objects (not anything matching the real world) imbued with all their meanings, and I can observe their properties such as one is cheaper and the other takes longer as if they were properties like weight or color, and I can mentally rearrange them around in a virtual space. These things are clearly symbols representing the alternatives.
[1]: Visualize seems like the wrong word. These things might not have actual shapes, colors, etc. Spatialize?
Is this a good metric? For a potential drug consumer it is more relevant which health/social risk is involved if taking a certain drug once/sometimes/regularly.
Alcohol causes 5.3% of deaths globally. While at an individual level alcohol is only unhealthy on average, as a society its impact is pretty significant. While some drugs are definitely worse at an individual level, access and criminality should mean they're less of an issue. If we're going by purely individual risk not taking into account other factors then 14-Methoxymetopon is 10,000 times stronger than fentanyl.
reddit has the worst dark pattern in this case... I think most people think they need an email address to signup... yet you can just click next and skip email input... I have about 40 reddit accounts with no emails associated with them... first one was probably created 15 years ago, and last one yesterday
- Windows GUI went downhill from Windows 7 (or even XP) with every release.
- Outlook went from good over fair to annoying so that I finally replaced it as my personal client.
These are not the only examples I could name but they are the most prominent. I think the main problem is that both technical staff and UX designers both trying to make something "new" or "fancy" which is in most cases the opposite of something usable. E.g. Aero was fancy but it took away that my active window had one signal color header bar and all others were tamed. Now all windows are colorful and yelling at me at the same time. Orientation is gone.
And after that UIs got even more "fancy".
Step 13 ("Nobody's happy but nobody hates it") is the plateau when everybody is to tired to keep on fighting - a compromise, not the state of the GUI reached anything acceptable. It is not fancy enough anymore for developers and UX designers to be proud of but at the same time and is still annoyingly bad for the users.