It reads like the intention was that turning the parameter (0/1) command into an integer parameter, where the previous value enabled = 1 should behave reasonably close to the old behaviour. 1 deciseconds is arguably close enough to instant. If the parameter were measured in seconds, the command would always have to wait a whole second before executing, with no room for smaller delays.
No, smaller delays <1s are also a misdesign here. Have we all forgotten we're reacting to typos? It's an error condition. It's ok that the user feels it and is inconvenienced. They did something wrong.
Do some think that 900ms, or 800, or some other sub-second value is really what we need for this error condition? Instead of, you know, not creating errors?
We had this debate internally at GitButler. Deci versus deca (and now deka, which appears to also be a legit spelling). My assumption was that 1 full second may have felt too long, but who really knows.
I understand, I meant I tried to say the word “decisecond” out loud and we debated if that was a real word or if I was attempting to say “deca” which was understandable.
That cartoon meme with the dog sitting with a cup of coffee or whatever and telling himself "This is fine", while everything is on fire, is probably the best way to describe how things felt at nokia back then.
Can you explain why every good phone that Nokia released during the period was killed instantly?
To this day I've not seen a phone that felt more responsive than the Nokia N9, which also looked amazing. Yet it was killed pretty much the second it was released.
This PDF does not read like "this is fine". I find the initial analysis in here to be on point. Of course it does not print "we are doomed" in bold letters on the front page, but management should have taken the points raised in this presentation very seriously. Do you know if Nokia appointed a "head of UI e.g. not tied to BG or platform" back then?
I believe it lol, in the presentation you can see they are still moving forward with the sms focused windowing design while the iphone was introducing the touch screen.
Now of course I’m looking at it retrospectively but still
Me too. Once the 'Burning Platform' memo was released on the intranet everyone stopped giving a fuck, and were hanging around waiting for redundancy payments.
Soon after Jo Harlow came to give a presentation that was held in The Oval cricket ground. I remember a couple of her statements drew subdued laughter from those attending. I felt a little sorry for her.
I'm really curious! In hindsight, we can always point to when a pivot should have happened earlier, but on the other hand, we all know orgs that have pivoted too early or to a trend they shouldn't have, and then suffered.
Do you remember any specifics arguments or conflicts about strategy?
There is even conversation going on about Svalbard on Twitter. I think a lot of people just realized hos close that is to Greenland and then if Greenland then why not Svalbard.
> It makes it harder to accept the statement "Trans women are women", for example.
This is a statement about social identity rather than biology. Transgender people have little or no interest in opening their gray matter or genitals to public scrutiny. It's about respecting the feelings and choices of the individual.
Consider this analogy: suppose that we refused to call people "Christians" who self-identify as Christian but nonetheless ignore or even act in contraction to the teachings of Jesus Christ? As far as I can tell, this would apply to the majority of so-called Christians in the United States. (I personally refer to these people as "Old Testament Christians".)
The statement is a motte and bailey. "Trans women are women" meaning "this person wants to wear a dress so you should accept their social identity" is the motte. "Trans women are women" meaning "this person with the advantage of male puberty must be allowed to punch women in the face in boxing or else you're transphobic" is the bailey.
Your analogy fails because there aren't biological differences between people of different faiths. There are real biological differences between males and females, now detectable to the earliest life stages. Surgery and hormones won't change that, so we should drop the "Trans women are women" rhetoric, because the statement is false. It also enables bad behavior like trying to force lesbians to like dick, lest they be called transphobic.
It would be much more productive to come up with a new pithy statement meaning "be nice to people even if you think they're weird".
Note that these are both social issues, not biological issues, and it's possible to have different opinions about the two. There's certainly no biological imperative to have separate sports for men and women; that's simply a social convention. If we look only at men, those who are taller typically have a huge athletic advantage over those who are shorter. Why don't we have separate pro basketball leagues for tall guys and short guys? Even the "shorter" NBA players, usually guards, are almost always taller than the average male. As a shorter than average male myself, I'm dwarfed not only by NBA players but also by WNBA players. Where do I get my fair shot? ;-)
> Your analogy fails because there aren't biological differences between people of different faiths.
As I already said in my previous comment, this is a social issue, not a biological issue. I also elaborated on this in another comment in this same thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42674247
> It also enables bad behavior like trying to force lesbians to like dick, lest they be called transphobic.
I have no idea what you're talking about or where you're getting this stuff.
> The biological issue is that men competing against women will cause very real biological injuries.
Uh... this is quite a bizarre statement, given that you previously brought up boxing, in which the entire point is to cause very real biological injuries to your opponent. If you hadn't noticed, in all sports, men competing against men causes very real biological injuries, as does women competing against women.
> Saying that women shouldn't get to compete in the Olympics is fine, you should just be honest about it.
I wasn't making any suggestions, merely pointing out that the current divisions are arbitrary social conventions that could be changed. I honestly have no strong opinions about sporting rules, and I was joking about the need for a basketball league to accommodate me. I've played tennis but not basketball.
> I admire your innocence. Search for "genital preference transphobic" or the like to see an example
You can always find examples of any opinion in the world on any subject, but if they're not commonly propounded or representative of the public debate, then they're largely irrelevant. You can't validly repudiate a position by pointing out the most extreme advocates of the position, otherwise you would repudiate every position.
[EDIT:] It was probably a mistake for me to get sidetracked arguing about sports. The weirdest thing about your "motte and bailey" argument is the implication that the worst thing about acknowledging the self-identity of transgender women would be its effect on sporting competition. Whereas transgender people themselves appear to be much more worried about things like violence against them, discrimination against them in the workplace, housing, and health care, and general social disrespect, refusal to accept their very existence. I think that sports is largely a red herring.
> That entirely depends on whether one considers "woman" and "man" to be social identities that anyone of either sex can choose to adopt.
Yes, but debates over the meaning or usage of words are social/philosophical/political issues, not biological issues.
> Many people don't accept that belief, for a variety of reasons, such as viewing that belief as being based upon sexist stereotyping of women and men.
This claim seems questionable. As far as I can tell, the origin of the opposition is mainly religious, and it has come to be political as a consequence of the religious leanings of political parties.
> Instead, they understand "woman" and "man" to be the words used to describe, respectively, female and male people who have reached adulthood.
Yes, but it's unclear how a study of brain matter would change anyone's mind. After all, their definition of female and male always depended on genitals rather than brain composition.
The fixation on genitals in this discourse is weird. It's an argument that tries to say "if you don't agree with me, you're a pervert that just thinks about genitals".
Men vs women can be clearly distinguished in many different ways while keeping their clothes on. Why bother trying to push a narrative that is obviously false? Is it an Emperor's New Clothes situation?
> The fixation on genitals in this discourse is weird.
It doesn't come from me. It comes from the people who demand purely biological definitions of "man" and "woman".
> It's an argument that tries to say "if you don't agree with me, you're a pervert that just thinks about genitals".
I didn't say anything about perversion.
> Men vs women can be clearly distinguished in many different ways while keeping their clothes on.
Highly inaccurately. For some damn reason, I've been called "ma'am" way too often, for example by grocery and retail store employees. I guess it's because of my height, which is shorter than average. (I don't have long hair, in case you're wondering.) Anyway, it really pisses me off, massive disrespect.
For many (most maybe?) calling someone a women is not based on a social identity but rather a physical property someone has. It's not like calling someone a skater, or nerd. But more like calling someone brown skinned or blue eyed.
This is the core of the disagreement argument of the two "camps". What does it mean to call someone a man or a woman.
Or maybe it may be related to trans people having a brain structure more similar to the other sex at birth. The article talks about the median results, it doesn't state that all new born male brains have those features, but that the median brain have them.
Having some brain measurements that are more similar to the opposite sex correlates with homosexuality, not trans.
The initial studies on this didn't control for sexuality and mostly used subjects who were both homosexual and transsexual. In later studies that also measured sexuality, no correlation of sex atypical brain measurements with trans was found, only with homosexuality.
Could you link to these studies, please? I made a quick Google search and I found quite the opposite, two studies from 2021 and 2022 supporting brain differences on trans people from their biological sex brain. I find quite hard to believe that correlation between sexual attraction and brain structures.
I think maybe you've understood. The study doesn't say that all birth-assigned male brains are larger than all birth-assigned female brains. There's still variety within the group, with lots of girls with larger brains than lots of boys.
Actually in recent years, there are many people who argue exactly that.
Their claim being that taking medication to suppress testosterone and boost estrogen, as well as having various cosmetic surgeries (castration, inversion of penis, bone/cartilage/soft tissue reshaping of facial features), gives these males a "female body".
Some of these males even claim to no longer be trans as a result of these surgical and pharmaceutical interventions, referring to themselves as "cis women".
The man is a drug addict, so I dont think you can expect much coherence there. Clearly demonstrated also by that guy also who analyzed his tweets, who could even extract data like the downward tolerance spiral musk was in.
