YouTube premium delivers the content you select to consume to you without displaying ads in-platform. If you then use that ad-free platform to consume content that includes ads, that's on you.
Correct, if you choose to seek out content with ads, you will see ads. Would YouTube premium need to block you from viewing that content to meet your bar here?
This seems like an important insight. The other top comments are about what individuals can do to improve their situation. That's absolutely valuable advice, but is at its core a solution of the form of "this wouldn't be a problem if only everyone would just...", which is never actually a solution.
What you're describing here is an answer to the question "why aren't people 'just' being more social".
Certainly too, social media has played a big hand in this, but for many people, myself included, these activities feel high-risk, with a low probability of reward. Regardless of the correctness of the perceptions that have led to this feeling, the feeling exists and it is becoming more and more pervasive across society. And, like most problems centered on feelings, "have you tried not feeling that way?" is rarely, though not never, effective.
I actually have an interesting story here. For a couple of years I found a third place for myself in VRChat. It was great, I made friends, I spent time socializing for its own sake on a daily basis for hours. But something changed over time. I'll hop on now, look at each person on my friends list, look at private and public rooms I can join, and instead of being able to just jump in, the same feelings of "this is high-risk" that hold me back IRL result in me closing the game after ten minutes or so.
So what exactly happened? My theory is that, being a completely new "kind" of space, my brain didn't see the choices as "social" in the same way as IRL. But over time it relearned the same lessons in this new context, driving me away from social interaction.
Why? What are the unconscious lessons I learned, and why did I learn them? What have I unintentionally internalized that turned an enjoyable, effective, low-stakes virtual third place into an emotional slog that incentivizes self isolation in the same way IRL socializing does?
Can't speak specifically for this site, but these days many prove-you're-human tests have been added because of overzealous AI scraping eating server resources unnecessarily and to an unreasonable and excessive degree.
yeah, sure, if you want to take everything that any human does as "being human" "by definition." Then I guess it's human to eat spiders and bathe in your own shit. I think it would be more useful to at least consider the normal level of behavior.
Because of how much of a cornerstone python generally has been in AI circles, performance improvements have gotten a lot more attention in the past few years.
Sure, but that doesn't mean there's no ergonomic benefits to the surrounding code being faster. Plus there's just more eyes and attention on the ecosystem.
I think that might just be the original and it simply is symmetrical to that degree. I found a few more examples of "cryo-em center slices" and I've yet to find one that doesn't have really strong symmetry down to the small dot patterns.
Seems to me that breadboard coding would be a like a spreadsheet where dependencies between cells are visible at a glance and could be "rewired" in a way that's easier than hand editing the formula text
That matches what I managed to glean, though I didn't get much further.
It started making more sense though when I managed to fully understand the AST comparison that was being made. Specifically, this approach lets you do the LISPy "code is data" thing where you can construct your program within your program and then run it, but instead does it via "data is execution+control-flow". Thus gaining the benefits of static analysis on the constructed program since you wrote it all out in the "normal"/static order rather than the "nested"/dynamic view of a program that monads give.
At least that's the gist I got, though take it with a grain of salt, the article went very over my head at times.
> The fundamental thing in question here is what makes Beauty beautiful
GUIs are tools first and art second.
Any GUI that looks good, but gets in the way, or fails to make the task at hand easy is not a good GUI.
The books and research are about making GUIs functional in an effective way. No one is claiming that a GUI that follows all the principles will look good. However it will make the task at hand easier to perform than it otherwise would be.
The problem is when people in charge of GUIs focus exclusively on Graphic Design instead of UI design. They are different fields, with different goals that only sometimes overlap.
I don't disagree with much of what you said. Form and function have to be married harmoniously, which inherently increases beauty. When form decreases function, so does beauty dissipate. And I think GUIs have gone in that direction. They have not maintained the principles that would help bring proper balance.
Using this definition means Firefox is a contender in the browser wars, an independent will be a contender in the next Presidential election, and a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is a contender for your next car. Can we just leave out this contender nonsense and replace it with exotic choice?
reply