Maybe I’ll get some hate for this, but years ago when I worked at a civil engineering firm this was the default image viewer IT had mapped every image file to open with - it was a nightmare! Every coworker I had (myself included) would constantly complain about the number of times they had to change to [literally anything else]. There were three distinct things I remember we all hated: 1. The image never opened full size, the window was always small and you had to manually drag the window frame to make it viewable. 2. It didn’t “zoom in” when you used your mouse wheel correctly, it would instead cycle through all of the images open in the folder you were working in. 3. When you clicked the arrows at the top to flip through a group of photos in the folder you were in (I recall the keyboard arrow keys not working for this, too), once you reached the end it would go to a black “fake” image, that you then couldn’t arrow back. It didn’t just cycle through the images, you had to close the window and reopen the image you were on.
Needless to say, I have zero fond memories of this program. Maybe these were nuances of our particular setup (many other such cases at that firm, sadly), but…eh, whatever. There’s better out there.
Dysfunction in the IT of civil engineering (and similar) professions is fairly common. I remember this exact phenomenon too - of Irfanview's default UI controls not suiting what the staff were used to. And the staff didn't need The Most Powerful Tool Under The Sun, they just wanted to view and zoom and browse, and a few other tools, using the keypresses and mouse movements they were used to from previous software.
And Irfanview could do those things in it's sleep with both hands tied, with a few simple config changes. But the dysfunction - often rooted in the minimal, grudging acknowledgement given to IT by (non-IT) old professions - led to a lot of half-assed setups where staff butted their heads against obstacles that were often a mere few clicks away from improvement, if only they'd known to put their attention there. But of course, they were too busy being civil engineers.
And if I may shoehorn another point in here : it's not as though AutoCAD and other such industry software comes with ready default settings. If you used those straight out of the box with no customisation for your own situation, you'd be in deep trouble.
Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, and I'm not here to defend you against downvoters, but from my perspective it's an uninformed opinion. All of the "issues" you identified are really just preferences and the dev was kind enough to let you configure the app as you'd like. It would be impossible for the dev to create a set of custom settings that every user finds perfect, so your other comment about "hostile defaults" comes across as entitled
The app is incredibly good. It does everything you could want, it's less than 10MB, blazing fast and easy to use. Super configurable. I used to have to fight with IT to have it installed or find a way to run some portable version just to have it at work.
I can't speak for others, but I think if you had spent a little bit more time trying to figure out the solution to the issues you identify, you would have found the answer, but somehow you are instead blaming the dev, which is what IMHO warrants downvotes.
I'm with you. To me IrfanView always felt incredibly archaic and chaotic, and I never wanted to wade through its 5 billion settings to "fix" it for me. But I guess some people just care more about UX while others just want as many features as possible, and I'm glad it's there for the latter camp.
Agreed that the Irfanview default settings are questionable in some cases. And I personally find the UI hard to work with because nothing is ever where I expect it to be, with the important display option settings buried in a nested menu.
But it is highly configurable, and I think you're catching grief because it really doesn't sound like you or your colleagues made any attempt to take advantage of that.
Could you provide some examples of what you think these hypothetical AI’s are going to give/grant/allow these hypothetical governments that warrants the usage of enough energy they’ll actually starve people to achieve? What “competition” are these governments going to be in to necessitate this?
Comments like this are becoming far more common it seems amongst the tech community, to me anyway, that I really want an answer of what this hypothetical god-like entity is going to enable that also somehow will only be limited to a select group of people/nation/whatever and not spread throughout the rest of the world. It’s a weird dichotomy wherein “AGI” will somehow solve climate change, enable cold fusion, end human aging, spread us to the stars, but also inflict mass death, use all of the global energy if unchecked, and now, starve humans to achieve those things.
Market forces; If the AI company can pay $20 for a thing, but human people can only pay $5 for a thing, who are you going to sell to? Now, energy isn't fungible, I can't feed a bushel of wheat to my computer, nor can I drink gasoline, so I don't buy it, but that's the theory.
It doesn’t really matter what it is so long as there is competition between entities and by not competing/winning you are in some way penalised. Competition is the driver that compels us towards total war or total economy. It is digital natural selection that will drive all to the maximum possible point of ruin.
I think “backbone” in this context is a stand-in for “integrity” and/or “honor”. I think the fact that they can “buy, sell, and eliminate people and governments as they see fit” is the obvious proof that they don’t possess any real integrity, dignity, or honor for themselves or other people - so, no, they don’t have “backbone”. Power, wealth, sure. But not backbone.
> all the popular explanations stop just short of really grappling with the real weirdness of the theorem.
No offense, but if I’m reading your comment correctly you’re making it out that nobody familiar with the proof has ever considered what “truth” really is. That’s…well, there’s a saying amongst physicists that, “you’re not even wrong.” The semantics of language and math have a copious amount of literature behind them. Not to mention that even asking the question is, forgive me, a tad juvenile.
Also, recursively applying known unknowns back into the statement (? If I understood that correctly) is itself incomplete: how could a system be “complete” if there are unknowns?
Forgive me if it seems I, too, have ventured into the cranky side of the discourse.
This comes across as a really aggressive comment for no real reason.
A lot of people find too much free time distressing. Even with a lot of projects to pursue, or come up with, it can be difficult to focus on any particular one for the simple fact that the mind can be preoccupied with the constant weighing of opportunity costs, and become stagnant (only now with even more anxiety about opportunity being wasted).
Sometimes people reveal things about themselves because they’re looking for the validation only others commiserating can bring. Unfortunately this often invites needless criticism.
Finding free time undirected by an authority figure as distressing, should in my opinion should be seen as a mental health failure. It is however beneficial to our society, so generally encouraged.
Friend, there are better ways to say what you're attempting to say without coming off as an overwhelmingly insufferable douche. I think, at least, since hell, I honestly can't even tell what your point is because instead of focusing on clarity, you've instead focused on being mean for the sake of being mean.
A really nice write up! I’m a professional land surveyor and it was interesting reading an outsiders perspective; for the most part you really nailed it!
Thanks for the feedback! I'd be glad to hear anything I missed on, or ideas for improvement, since this kind of thing is very much a seat of the pants learning experience :D
(Current) Geodesist and Professional Land Surveyor (formerly employed as; license retained) here chiming in. While I appreciate the sentiment that we will never go out of business, I’d like to proffer a couple points related to this statement and the more technical one that followed (they’re integrally linked). While tectonic plates do move more than one might assume, it is actually those same surveyors who model this movement utilizing Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) (and other technologies) that are strategically placed and constantly collecting positional data - the National Geodetic Survey, in my opinion, is one of the most remarkable and important scientific agencies the USA maintains. Land surveying measurements rely upon the datum’s and (soon) projections NGS publishes, which indeed does account for these movements, provided the user correctly applies the velocity movement and temporal changes to the epoch desired. However, it is less this movement that keeps surveyors employed and far more their legal expertise that does. Land Surveyors are the front line maintainers, interpreters, and, in a sense, the creators/subdividers of the cadastral system responsible for private property. So long as their are (on-the-ground) boundary disputes over land and title, a surveyor will be needed. Coordinates may one day be the controlling aspect of those boundaries, but unfortunately that is not for the land surveyors to decide (I digress…a simple comment on this forum could never account for the nuances needed in that discussion).
Also, apologies, but a correction: a multi-station DOES incorporate GNSS along with a theodolite (and Electronic Distance Measurer, which, when all three are combined is marketed as a “multi station”). I believe you meant a Total Station is more precise, which is a combination theodolite/EDM, excluding GNSS, and which does, locally, produce more precise standalone measurements though at the cost of being limited to direct line of sight. Each plays an integral part of survey field work and their application.
Thanks for your high quality response to my mediocre posting. I think our current maps are like a patchwork quilt made up of patches of high precision / high accuracy data sewn to high accuracy / low precision basemaps. Surveyors will use a ‘Horizontal/Vertical Datum of the day’ to keep things relevant to maps but in reality, their scope of work ends at xy = 5000,5000 and that’s it (relative coordinates). Most people I’ve met aren’t keeping up with NOAA. But nothing will come close to the bearings and distances (error of closure) to what a totalstation can generate in their arsenal. In the end, a Civil Engineer or GIS tech will be creating that mosaic out of the surveyor data and store it in a retrievable format for county records. The data is stored but there’s still a never reconcilable difference between survey data and mapping data.
Thus TotalStations with GNSS seem oxymoronic to me just as a GPS with a laser range finder is. There is a huge opportunity (for those interested) to build a surveyor-grade worldmap.
The devices can ship with an embedded hardware security module that holds a private key. The private key has its public key whitelisted by Rolex, and can be used to sign a message transferring the ownership to the current owner's public key. If you can do this transfer action, the device is legitimate. Of course you'd need to check that the public keys/addresses match Rolex's.
Synchronisation is the hard part. I suppose there are a few different ways to do it. One way would be to use a hardware that holds a private key in a secure chip, and whoever has access to the physical watch can sign a message with that key to point to an arbitrary address. This can then be submitted to the blockchain.
Confirmation is easy, as the blockchain takes care of that. It would be emitted by a verifiable/trusted public key. If the address is not Rolex's address, the item is fake.
Needless to say, I have zero fond memories of this program. Maybe these were nuances of our particular setup (many other such cases at that firm, sadly), but…eh, whatever. There’s better out there.