> The general public doesn’t perceive serif typefaces as professional and authoritative, a priori, before prioritizing their use in formal settings. Instead, people first observe that government, academia, and corporate workplaces disproportionately use serif faces — or are trained to use them — and only then infer that serifs must mean professionalism and authority.
A difficult to stomach claim followed up with evidence that I think supports the opposite than the author intended: the font being in used in The Times of London, which is indeed authoritative and professional despite it being written on cheap paper.
On another note, I would throw up if I had to read legal documents all day in a sans-serif font.
I too stopped when I read that sentence. It's like saying someone can't tell the difference in professionalism between someone in a well tailored three piece suit vs. a sweater and jeans until they've been taught.
Ornateness itself is associated with being attentive to detail and likely more wealthy.
And even if you take them at their word, it's a distinction without a difference. Serif is known to be more professional.
But! As many have pointed out, and he does about TNR in the article: the default font for documents tends to suggest apathy. That argument against TNR is just as strong for Calibri. And there are far better looking, more functional fonts than either of these two.
Completely agree. This statement is immediately disproven by the authors following points. Eg pointing out that the supreme court, and other authoritative bodies exclusively use serif fonts...
Of course there is no "a priori", the general public doesn't know what a letter is "a priori" until they are taught. At the same time they are taught which fonts are formal and authoritative and which are not.
Everyone knows Comic Sans is not appropriate for a legal brief. No matter if that is "a priori" or not.
Before I watched this I would default to thinking about most distributions as normal. It's really fun to think about whatever "game" you are playing - wether you are building a business or trying to win a carnival game - and consider if the results follow a normal distribution or a power law?
> As a technologist I want to solve problems effectively (by bringing about the desired, correct result), efficiently (with minimal waste) and without harm (to people or the environment).
I agree with the first two points, but as others have commented the environmental claim here is just not compelling. Starting up your computer is technically creating environmental waste. By his metrics solving technical problems ethically is impossible.
Perfect harmlessness is impossible. Thus, we cannot differentiate between harms, nor should we try.
This a stupid thing to profess and I do not believe you would defend it if pressed.
It's probably unethical to solve a problem you could do yourself in 5 minutes at the energy cost of a packet of crisps by using.....lets say....a kilogram of coal. Or two kilos or whatever. But you can't see the cost so it seems free. You might see the money but we haven't linked this to environmental cost yet.
I'm making a game that's inspired by the niche but adored "The Last of Us Factions", the multiplayer as part of the first Last of Us (only available on Playstation). I got a gaming PC a couple years ago and haven't been able to find anything quite like it.
Making it with the Rust game engine, Bevy and really enjoying it so far. Using Blender for making assets. I'm maybe a dumbass for making it as my first game, but I just don't really get excited by smaller projects.
Overall I've found modern games to be (1) overstimulating and (2) have algorithms in the background to keep me engaged that I don't trust (see: free to play model)
This raises a very interesting philosophical question - what do our lives look like if every single inconvenience disappears? Something tells me we would be just as miserable (or happy) as when we had those inconveniences.
On the other hand, would the removal of these inconveniences allow for the highest calling of humanity - I argue creativity - to flourish to the fullest? My gut reaction is once again that inconveniences are actually a very important resistance to creativity, like how you need gritty sand paper to create smooth wood.
You can buy an expensive robot, or maybe you can meditate and be mindful that inconveniences play an important role in the meaning of your life. I am of course speaking of the household use here - I think the debate is likely different for a business setting.
We will never run out of small inconveniences. Today's world would look impossibly convenient and easy to anyone from 100 years ago, let alone 1000 or 10,000. Yet we still perceive hardships. Humanoid robot servants won't change human nature.
Besides, servants are nothing new. They're rare in the US but common in some other countries, and the people who grow up with them are maybe somewhat different but not radically changed IMO.
A few months ago a read an article written by a woman who has dated a few men from extremely wealthy families. The article was about why you are dumb if you plan to "marry rich".
One reason that caught my attention was how she described the behavior of these people, who have the world at their fingertips, who have never really known hardship, and in turn have full blown meltdowns about the most trivial annoyances. What car will we drive on our trip?! The salmon cracker appetizers are too salty to be served! They stocked the wrong oat milk in the mini-fridge!
Almost like the need to get upset over inconveniences is ingrained, and when there is a lack of real ones, your brain just latches onto whatever it can to let the "freakout" out.
> Besides, servants are nothing new. They're rare in the US but common in some other countries
Right, although "servants" conjures up rich people with full time staff.
A better comparison to the humanoid robot some people here are dreaming of to do their household chores is a country like India where it's common for middle class people to hire multiple different people to come do chores, daily or weekly, such as cooking, laundry, cleaning, yardwork, etc. These are cheap services.
In the US, probably most people here on YC News (higher paid tech workers?) could afford to have lawn mowing service, weekly maid service, laundry pick-up/drop-off service (or bring to laundry yourself), and either eat out all the time, or UberEats etc. It's not clear that having a robot to do these tasks would be cheaper or preferable.
I moved to CA a decade ago to join a robotics company.
I've since acquired a wife, house and dog. Wife loves to cook, and would love a 2nd dog that didn't choose me. I am a sucker for DIY. If I were in an apartment still, with no pets... i.e. lots less chores to do (hooray hybrid work!)... I'd be seriously considering roles at Figure, which is 100% in-office instead. (their office is a sub 10 minute walk from my last apartment)
How long that work satisfaction would last... very up for debate though!
A difficult to stomach claim followed up with evidence that I think supports the opposite than the author intended: the font being in used in The Times of London, which is indeed authoritative and professional despite it being written on cheap paper.
On another note, I would throw up if I had to read legal documents all day in a sans-serif font.
reply