It looks really good. Like, really good.
I have one thing that throws me, though: if you keep drawing over the same section, you don't get more coverage. It always looks like the first pass.
But I'm so surprised at how well this works to emulate chalk.
For me a huge challenge is that I grew older (college years) in an environment where people were strongly convinced that opinions and tastes can only be right or wrong. If someone liked something else than the group, they just didn't see the truth. It was exhausting and also meant that "finding friends" basically meant trying to find someone who likes and values exactly the same things as you.
I learned pretty late that you can get along very well with people who have vastly different taste and as long as your ideals are not directly contradicting, it still works.
So I guess my suggestion is: don't artificially limit your pool of potential friends by looking for the perfect match. No need to find your soul-copy. Someone with whom concersation flows is just fine.
> I learned pretty late that you can get along very well with people who have vastly different taste and as long as your ideals are not directly contradicting, it still works.
Depending on how extreme the ideals are you mention, I get along swimmingly with people who are diametrically inverted to my personal beliefs. Idgaf what they think, and idgaf what they think about what I think.
Common ground doesn’t need to be qualified by “well we agree that chess is awesome, but you’re a (political party) affiliate, so fuck you!”
They usually do Translation live, so I'd be very surprised if they didn't offer them in the stream as well. They always offer English and I think some talks have been live-transcribed, too, for people with hearing disabilities, but that might be automated by now.
Personally I think it's good you are not forced to present in English. I know enough people who are not comfortable enough with English to present in it. There are also some niche topics that have a focus on Germany. For these sometimes German brings a bit of nuance/local flair that you can't really translate. For these I'm happy that German is available as the original and then the translators will do their best to provide an English second best.
To some degree I find it inevitable that conferences situated in countries that are not native English speaking will have some program points in the local language. As long as they offer help with understanding the content, I don't see an issue with this, regardless of how big/influential they are.
One reason is religion. That aside, people are afraid that this could be abused. People could choose this purelyto avoid additional cost to their relatives.
It could be used as an excuse why more costly options to avoid pain and suffering in old people might not be covered by insurance anymore.
People could be talked into it for various reasons.
Canada is a good example of a country where I think the base to make it work in a positive way is given. Their insurance covers a lot of treatments for basically everyone. The country cares about its citizens in a way that makes you believe they won't use euthanasia as a cop out to avoid paying for medical care.
If these circumstances are not given, euthanasia can easily be seen as an easy way to get rid of people who are too expensive for society or too cumbersome to take care of.
> People could choose this purelyto avoid additional cost to their relatives.
Why is this a bad thing? If there's a choice between giving $100,000 to my descendants and using it to keep me intubated in a hospital bed for an extra 6 months, I find the former preferable by far. If someone else doesn't, that's fine, but I find comments like this both annoying and creepily authoritarian in saying that the correct choice is obvious and so they're going to make the decision for me.
Not the op but I guess the idea is that questions of life and death should not primarily be economical questions. You are free to disagree, of course, and there is, at some level, economical considerations for all medical treatments. But at least I'm my country is there a sharp divide; an individual should receive the best available treatment without economical considerations. What treatments that are available for various conditions (not individuals!), however, are decided by comparing cost and utility.
There is also an argument that can be made about the meaning of economy is to make lives better, but the opposite is not true
> Not the op but I guess the idea is that questions of life and death should not primarily be economical questions.
Sure, but as an American life and death is already an economical question *above all else*. The quality of medical care that I receive is already directly linked to how much money is in my bank account and how much my employer is willing to pay for a medical plan.
End of life care in the US is designed with the primary goal of vacuuming every asset out of you and then letting you die once it's gone. It seems unethical to say "sorry, you don't get to opt out of this. Everyone's got to go through the whole process."
That's mostly tangential to my argument though. In many people's lives, there comes a point where you can spend arbitrarily large sums of money to postpone death, but only in a form that I, for myself, don't consider all that valuable: I would be willing to be bedridden, intubated, and barely-conscious as a temporary condition if it meant a full recovery for more life later. But as a holding pattern before death, which is what it usually is, I'd rather not, and I personally would like to spend that money in other ways.
Note that this applies even in cases where all the costs are paid by taxpayers. If the state is making me an offer saying, "we'd like to spend $100,000 to keep you barely-conscious for a few months", that might be more generous in some sense than offing me, but I'd still rather they just give that $100,000 to my kids.
I think that's the point? The title is grabbing for attention, but the point of laws to choose assisted dying is basically always that people with terminal conditions often are in such pain that they choose a peaceful death over extending the pain.
You can read this title in an alarming way or just the same in a way that says "the law is working and people actually want this option".
I read this as "answer within the hour when preparing an exhibition". If you are in full swing to get an exhibition up and running and this is the time you decide to throw yourself into deep focus work, you are probably hard to work with. I would also assume if some artist told the author "look I know we open on Tuesday, but this Friday we have my kid's birthday so from 4 to 8 I won't be easy to reach", this would probably just be silently dropped from the cou ting of how fast they respond.
On the other hand, without warning going dark for 4 work day hours a few days before exhibition would look terrible if any serious question came up.
So I don't think it's literally responding within the hour, but it comes pretty dang close. You have to keep in mind that being an artist creating art and being an artist setting up an exhibition are basically two different jobs and if you end up doing them in parallel at the same time, that's your problem right there.
I read it like so too. I don’t typically respond to emails immediately unless I have my email application open (which I rarely do as I do enjoy time to do deep work). But in the lead up to a big event there is no way I would go radio silent, unless I’m unconscious in the hospital.
Since when is email expected to be answered immediately??? Anything urgent means a phone call, or a text message. Emails are either for cya reasons (but then my urgency is not necessarily your urgency) or just big stuff needing time - to write, to compose, to think, to analyse. So email answering time is a wrong metric by definition.
How long does setting up an exhibition take, and what kind of hours are you expecting? 4-8 are workday hours?
And what kind of question needs to be answered that fast, but wasn't important enough to be asked several days earlier? My feeling is that there should be very few such questions, few enough that each artist can safely take half a day if they get one.
Setting up an exhibition can take many days, and the hours can be extreme. There is limited time between when the previous show goes down, and when the next show goes up.
It's crunch time for the artist, and what exactly is involved will depend upon the show. This is the time when the artist's concept for the show meets physical reality, and since things involve the physical world, there are all sorts of things that can go wrong.
At this point the artist is essentially a project manager. They are coordinating with other people to fulfill their own vision. If those other people need a question answered before they can proceed, then those people are going to be blocked until the responds.
It's simply not polite to let people sit on their asses for a half day waiting for a response.
> If those other people need a question answered before they can proceed, then those people are going to be blocked until the responds.
This is where I'm not seeing it. It sounds like the gallery employee we're talking about is working with several artists at once. Which gives them plenty of things to do.
And if the hours are long, then 4 of them are significantly less than half a day.
A day and a half is slow even in software, and software doesn't have things like the example given of wanting a wall put up then asking for it to be taken down again.
Sure, software does have bad communicators who change their minds, but revert is relatively easy.
We're talking about half a day, not a day and a half. Or really, less than half a day.
> and software doesn't have things like the example given of wanting a wall put up then asking for it to be taken down again.
The wall example was taking place over "weeks". If there is still an urgent question about wall-building a few days out then it sounds like someone waited much too long and that's the real problem, not the extra four hours.
If everyone is there to set up your exhibition at a certain agreed upon time, then you should be engaged and answering any questions immediately if not sooner, regardless of how long it takes to set up the exhibition.
Certain agreed upon time? Yes, of course. You should probably be there for most of it too.
But once you're covering multiple days, no, a single person should not be expected to respond lightning fast the entire time. And the several day scenario is what the comment I replied to talked about.
It's the same in Europe with the 5-stars-is-normal scale.
In my personal experience it's the app that fosters it. Many companies who ask for reviews follow up anything below 5 stars or 10/10 with "how can we improve?" Or some similar questions. This is friction they generate for me as a user if I rate anything below top tier.
Personally for me 5 stars or 10/10 would be service that is so good I couldn't even tell you how to do it. I couldn't tell you how to improve to that state unless the business in question is something I'm very familiar with. Still I sometimes find myself handing out 5 stars because otherwise I have to find something to complain about and I just can't think of anything.
So that is what has made 5 stars for me go from "mind blowingly outstanding" to "nothing to complain".
The problem really is that one single metric is insufficient to grade all restaurants. 5* at a fine dining place at £150/cover is quite different to 5* at gastropub, is quite different at a chain restaurant. You can't expect to grade or interpret all restaurants on the same scale. I just interpret the star rating as overall subjective experience, which is mostly a delta from expectations.
Agreed. I live in Europe and have the same experience.
Europeans tend to use the same review apps as Americans, so it could lead to the same problems (expectations at least). We do the same things with other review systems like Airbnb.
I've only been a user of tabelog as a person looking for a meal, not a reviewer. So I'm not sure the experience they have.
I agree with the author a little bit but overall I think she's mainly being selfish and ego-centric.
What I agree with: We have built ourselves a society where it is far too easy to fall into a secluded lifestyle. That's not a problem for everyone but it does supercharge depression and anxiety. Both of these lead to you thinking that being left alone is good for you when actually looking at any research about them is not the case in the absolute majority of cases. Both get worse with lower amount of social contact and extrusion structure in your life. In the past the pressure to go outside and have some structure was much higher and thus depression and anxiety probably had more of a grave period where people around you had a chance of realizing you were getting worse and you had a chance of still pulling yourself out of it enough to get help early. Today the behavior of someone who is just really happy alone and somebody who is spiralling into depression becomes ever harder for me to tell apart.
The rest of the article to me just reads like "but I'm an extrovert and I liked it better the way it was before". Yeah, sorry not sorry? If your friends take more effort to get them to do a pub tour these days maybe they just weren't as much into pub tours as you are? Yes, the pandemic changed our society from catering mainly to extroverts to one that now makes it much easier to be not cut off entirely while taking time for yourself as an introvert. If you don't want your introvert friends to be able to have that, you're the problem in that picture.
> If your friends take more effort to get them to do a pub tour these days maybe they just weren't as much into pub tours as you are
I got the strong impression that the author wasn't always as much of an extrovert as they believe. Tons of people go out all the time and it sounds like they need to get new friends after outgrowing the old ones.
> We have built ourselves a society where it is far too easy to fall into a secluded lifestyle
This should be one of the the prime problem of every government. It's a hard thing to solve, but is the root cause of a lot of other, more better recognised societal issues.
So going by what they aimed for in building the laser: No. The nominal power and wave length of all of these appliances is less harming to the eye than going outside on a sunny day and forgetting your sun glasses.
The issue here I guess are malfunctions or rather cheap products with bad calibration. For total safety you'd have to get someone to measure input and output of the laser.
I'd love to reassure you about something like low input power, but at the end of the day with cheap products you don't know. If a higher powered laser was cheaper at the time of production, the extra milliwatts would probably be negligible compared to overall power consumption of the robot.
So the lidar is unlikely to immediately cause eye damage at a glimpse, but if your kid likes to chase the robot and thus might look into it for longer periods of time, maybe look into options of checking the laser's actual input power.
Keep in mind that LIDAR is moving lasers too, which are allowed to be higher power but should have an interlock that turns the laser off when it stops moving.
I'll leave the extrapolation on how that could go wrong to you.
