I hate it in UX because it's so "geometric" -- works well for a logo, but not body text, so it's just a bizarre choice for UX. Unlike Roboto which continues to be great for that. (Google Sans is fine as display text though -- headings, logo, etc.)

But my understanding was that Google wanted to differentiate its first-party apps from other Android apps with a proprietary Google font.

But now they're opening that font up for everyone to use, so Google's apps will no longer look uniquely Google-branded.

I'm so confused what the heck is going on over there in Mountain View.

Stuff that we can deduce in math with common sense, geometric intuition, etc. can be incredibly difficult to formalize so that a machine can do it.

"...etc. can be incredibly difficult to formalize so that a machine can do it." ?

1. do it = search for a proof

2. do it = verify a purported proof?

I don't understand what you're confused about.

The white and black levels of the UX are supposed to stay in SDR. That's a feature not a bug.

If you mean the interface isn't bright enough, that's intended behavior.

If the black point is somehow raised, then that's bizarre and definitely unintended behavior. And I honestly can't even imagine what could be causing that to happen. It does seem like that it would have to be a serious macOS bug.

You should post a photo of your monitor, comparing a black #000 image in Preview with a pitch-black frame from a video. People edit HDR video on Macs, and I've never heard of this happening before.

Just showing a single screenshot of it in its intended use would go a long way.

I clicked on one of the charts and had no idea if the font itself was bitmap, or if it had just been rendered at a tiny size without antialiasing.

Given it’s a last resort font, I think it doesn’t make too much sense for print (unless you’re printing something that could be in any possible language).

If you left your tribe without being accepted into another (whether through marriage or some kinds of previous personal alliances you'd made), life would be pretty rough if you survived at all.

Sure tribes would split sometimes when they got too big or disagreements split them. But that's not about the individual level. That's akin to nation-state secession today.

There's no evidence that people were just regularly packing things up and going off and joining whatever neighboring tribe they wanted to, whenever they wanted to. And this is the type of thing where the book has come under such heavy criticism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything#Methodo...

In starting to read through some of the criticism's of the book just now, I was reminded of the seasonal hunting parties where many smaller groups would band together for better kills. That's what I mean with "tribal fluidity".

And by freedom of movement, the impression that I had coming away from the listen was that there were many ways in which someone could find themselves in a role where the could migrate through several communities and still live. looking at things again presently, I stumbled across https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopewell_tradition, which I think illustrates what I was trying to convey. "Border sovereignty" doesn't make much sense to me as a concept in that world... i think things were much more fluid. There weren't border checkpoints throughout prehistory.

And you're absolutely right that tribes could join forces to accomplish objectives. And the Hopewell tradition is mainly about trade and cultural dissemination -- of course trade involves traveling with goods to other tribes.

But none of that changes my point. Even if tribes allied for a purposes, they still had their distinct geographic areas. If if people traveled to other tribes to exchange goods, they were just visitors traveling through.

"Border sovereignty" was absolutely real, just as it is in primates. There weren't literal manned border "checkpoints", but you can be sure that as soon as a tribe got wind of a stranger approaching, they'd immediately investigate and either allow them in (if e.g. someone friendly temporarily traveling through) or send them back in the opposite direction with force if necessary. The idea that the norm was that some stranger could just waltz in with their family and they'd be welcomed to stay and share the land is not supported by evidence.

(Even though that's definitely the anarchist ideology that Graeber was trying to push in his book, because that's exactly where he gets criticized for ignoring most of the evidence and cherry-picking examples.)

> they'd immediately investigate and either allow them in (if e.g. someone friendly temporarily traveling through) or send them back in the opposite direction with force if necessary.

Was there never the case that they investigated, saw that the strangers were floating down a river on the border of "their territory" and simply let them pass through unmolested? That doesn't happen today, and my intuition is that was simply so much space in the americas before recorded history that it happened often then.

I didn't say that the nationalism and border sovereignty that exist in 2025 are exactly what prehistoric humans practiced. That would obviously be absurd.

What I said was:

> Tribes generally lived in specific areas, and would go to war with other tribes if those tribes tried to expand into their turf. Or would go to war to expand their turf. That's basically the early version of nationalism and borders, with the tribe as the nation

In other words, we have the same instincts operating whether it's with a group of 300 people or 300,000,000. People occupy a geographic area and call it theirs and control who can live there. Many primates do the same.

And is your case of someone traveling down a river trying to contradict me? My example was of that being allowed if they weren't threatening. And the modern equivalent would be something like like a transit visa or connecting international airports.

I really don't know what you're arguing. We're not talking about people traveling anyways, the subject is whether tribes would just let random people come in and share their land. They didn't. They had a concept of group sovereignty, the same idea as national sovereignty, and of land they occupied.

If you want to insist that modern national sovereignty and borders drawn on maps are completely and utterly unrelated to tribal sovereignty and tribal borders -- if you don't see the obvious similarity, the same human group instinct and human territorial instinct -- then I really don't know what to tell you.

But the more complex it is, the more complex the relational representation becomes. JSON responses from some API's could easily require 8 new tables to store the data in, with lots of arbitrary new primary keys and lots of foreign key constraints, your queries will be full of JOIN's that need proper indexing set up...

Oftentimes it's just not worth it, especially if your queries are relatively simple, but you still need to store the full JSON in case you need the data in the future.

Obviously storing JSON in a relational database feels a bit like a Frankenstein monster. But at the end of the day, it's really just about what's simplest to maintain and provides the necessary performance.

And the whole point of the article is how easy it is to set up indexes on JSON.

And no <meta name="robots"> in the HTML either.

What URL are you seeing that on? And what tool are you using to detect that?

Edit: cURL similarly shows no such header for me:

  curl -s -D - -o /dev/null https://journal.james-zhan.com/google-de-indexed-my-entire-bear-blog-and-i-dont-know-why/

And it takes so long to keep backspacing to delete it, or move the cursor to make a surgical edit. The WORST.

Then whenever I dictate "Alexander" it shows up as "(Alexander)" in parentheses. Drives me mad.

Someone just has to look really hard at the code and find the bug. Surely the relevant code can't be that long?