I have actually met people who vehemently insist that when they "space out" they aren't deep in thought, they are literally off -- not thinking at all.
It's pretty astonishing how much variation there is in people's inner minds. Some can imagine spatial relationships in great detail. Some can't even imagine a simple stick figure, but can instead remember long lists of information.
I usually hate the lazy and dismissive "what's the difference between this and x" comments, but as a UX/Design focused UI developer, I think I'm part of the target market for this. But this looks very similar to FramerX without some of the things I love most about FramerX.
It looks like all the input/output is proprietary Drama stuff. Framer lets me paste in content designed in Sketch, or import production components we've already built in React. The end result of a FramerX project can be exported as a static webpage you can do whatever you want with (host, A/B test, embed).
A designer can start designing a component in FramerX, and I can later add the logic while retaining their styles/animations/interactions. Then we can pull that completed component into our component library, which can then be used in production and imported into other FramerX projects.
I can't critique anything they show on their website, and the results look great (any attempt to make interaction design easier is a godsend), but right out the gate as a web guy it seems like a big disadvantage even if it outshined FramerX as a general interactive prototyper.
Anecdotal but most companies I’ve worked with that use Slack,
1. Don’t give devs company phones (and no one should ring my personal cell)
2. Have remote people they communicate with frequently (ask the remote people how slack has included/enabled them more than ever)
3. Only use email for non-urgent, one-way, or external messaging (although bringing high-value 3rd parties into Slack has been great in my experience)
No matter your concerns about Slack, once you’re in a company using it you have no choice but to embed yourself completely.
"It’s for this reason that I didn’t ask Salameh to tell me about his crimes. The harm he caused should not be forgotten, but it must be held apart. Under international law, the right to be free from torture is inalienable and absolute—and that protects all of us."
If you’re interested in the history of stuff like this be sure to look into Beaver and Krause (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_%26_Krause). If you recognize the THX sound then you’ll also probably recognize the last 30 seconds of Spaced (https://youtu.be/2xKO3KAtDZ0). They started off as early Moog salesmen showing off equipment and ended up introducing many famous musicians like George Harrison, the Doors, and the Byrds to electronic music. They also scored for movies such as The Graduate, In Cold Blood, Point Blank and Rosemary's Baby. True pioneers in the space and good music to boot.
I know this sounds like a meme at this point, but when the "partisan" dividing line is science denial and twitter flame wars with foreign leaders... "reality has a well-known liberal bias” - Stephen Colbert
You do know you're quoting an American left-wing comedy show host, right? It's a great quote, but it's not exactly a good argument.
I think you can definitely get correct and incorrect facts, but doesn't it break down when insults at one group are allowed, but insults at the other group aren't? That seems like just being an asshole.
And from what I can tell, both of your political parties are in full science denial. Republicans deny climate change, and Democrats deny XY chromosomes determining sex. Well, "not all Democrats" and "not all Republicans", obviously.
That is a gross false equivalence. Gender, not sex. No democrat will deny that your XX/XY chromosome differentiates you for sexual reproduction. Gender on the other hand, which is what you're referring to, refers specifically to social roles. Also even if somehow that was the case, how would the superficial incorrect labeling of sex be comparable to the denial of human caused catastrophic destruction of the environment?
It's not really about equivalence. It's about insulting some other political affiliation for something your political affiliation is guilty of. And the key word is insulting: you're not trying to change anyone's mind. You're just out to condemn and belittle. It's very ugly as seen from my perspective, and the downvotes for pointing it out are ugly too. Especially when you can't downvote away people with disagree with you and expect it to help your cause. And even more so when I don't even disagree with your politics, just the broken partisanship involved.
Your type of tribal thinking is a cancer that will cause much hardship for your country in future.
You drew the insane equivalence! You can’t turn around after being called out and say it’s not about that.
People don’t dunk on you because you have a different political affiliation — they do it because you regularly deny the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and then blame conspiracy theories and tribalism for the completely predictable responses you receive.
> Your type of tribal thinking is a cancer that will cause much hardship for your country in future.
You wrote this same thing in reply to another poster before realized he’s not from the States and deleting it. Glad you found another spot to dump it!
One is a measure of mental aptitude. The other is a physical thing that proves you are a constituent entitled to all privileges of citizenship, including voting. This analogy makes no sense to me, can you explain it better?
I've never understood this sort of reasoning. Requiring an ID has nothing to do with race. It turns out that the percentage of people that have an ID varies by race - and this makes requiring an ID a form of racial disenfranchisement?
Requiring IDs and then denying IDs to a particular race would be racial disenfranchisement. Simply requiring an ID isn't.
And in the end, I think it makes a lot of sense for an ID to be required in order to place a vote.
Because there are barriers, and expensive fees for many, intentional or not. The article above gives a couple stories of the issues people face trying to get ID for voting.
Until everyone can automatically and without cost obtain an ID for voting, these are new versions of poll taxes.
Free, universal, automatic ID would totally be the technically-correct-is-the-best-kind-of-correct answer. Which is to say, it's wrong, because the issue is not "voter fraud", the issue is "voters who aren't conservative," because when one erects barriers to voting, conservatives (who tend to be white and more affluent, as a rule, in the areas where these shenanigans are going on) will turn out and everybody else won't.
A politician who campaigns for that will be beset upon by the right wing as it heaves into a fit over they're spying on us, they're trying to track us. Because in actually solving the nonexistent problem, they threaten the true reason for the problem being posed.
Lowering the barrier to entry causes screams from that same contingent, just the same as "here's an ID, for free, right now". I know this, because I have been (peripherally) involved with folks trying to push such systems and the pushback from the drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub crew is real and it is strong.
My "talking point", such as it is, is that one political party is actively disinterested in democracy (while the other is more or less ambivalent), and that nobody in that actively-disinterested party is going to let the ambivalent party make this happen. Because it empowers them for it to not happen. It's not rocket science.
> Requiring an ID has nothing to do with race. It turns out that the percentage of people that have an ID varies by race - and this makes requiring an ID a form of racial disenfranchisement?
Yes. The argument is pretty straightforward: explicitly mentioning race would be blatantly illegal, so legislators are targeting a variable that correlates with race and using that as a proxy instead. Old-school disenfranchisement laws did much the same thing, using the voting eligibility of one's grandfather as the condition for exemption from poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on (whence we get the term "grandfather clause").
so if requiring an id has nothing to do with race then what does it have to do with? cases of voter fraud where someone impersonates someone else are very rare. Are there more people out there would want to vote so badly that they will impersonate someone else (but not make up a fake id to do so) or are there more eligible voters without ids?
