Incidentally, it’s also a demonstration that you shouldn’t use high contrast in typography. When you start the test you can clearly see the lines of text retained on your retina.
The same with MacBooks in dark mode, once you turn around you can see large horizontal lines separated at regular intervals that are maybe due to the refresh rate of the screen (or something else, if someone knows)
In my experience these are after exposures from lines of text. They get blurred together into indistinct lines because your eye focus moves between words, superimposing them.
I don’t understand why you need the animation. If you point at the green background after staring the red one for a while, you can see a whole circle of the saturated color.
You clearly demonstrated that you don't need the animation. However, it's a convenient way to keep you staring in the same place and not have to do anything else to cause the effect.
I had the same interpretation and in fact there's some truth in it. I recently did procreate and realized how primitive AI is compared to human beings and how long it might take for it to catch up.
The rate of learning for infants is rapid, but unlike LLMs. Every day there are very small steps that eventually add up. The size and quantity of each step is often not that impressive, but the number of tries from first random attempt at something to consistent behaviour is impressively low.
> Glad to see Echarts getting the recognition it deserves.
Why is it so rarely mentioned in chart libraries comparisons? Its not even listed on the Wikipedia page for JavaScript chart libraries. I discovered it by chance through Apache Superset.
What I find infuriating is to see colors stripped from children’s toys and clothes, especially by Northern Europe brands. Those dull beige taupe tones might attract parents but I’m sure that they bring little joy and stimulation to children.
Serious question: how do you understand ABBA? Because I consider music listening a journey and songs that I dislike now might be my favorite ones in the future. But I really don’t know how it could lead me to like ABBA.
ABBA is one of the most iconic and beloved pop groups in history, whose songs are still enjoyed by a good chunk of the planet, 40+ years since they were first released. I'm not sure why it's baffling that you too could find something to enjoy about them, when so many people clearly have and still do.
No, it's perfectly reasonable to not like popular music. I was only responding to what I perceived to be amazement in your previous post that someone is claiming you might find a way to enjoy ABBA: I was claiming that, since a lot of people do enjoy it, it shouldn't be hard to imagine that you could find something to like one day.
Conversely, if you said you don't know how you could possibly enjoy, say, the Plastic Ono band (Yoko Ono's band), then it would be harder to suggest it's even possible (not to say that enjoying them, for anyone who does, is in any way wrong!).
My understanding is that they say "it seems pretty reasonable to think that ABBA is of good quality, given all that", and then "because it is good quality, then it doesn't seem completely implausible that you may end up liking it someday".
But again, you don't have to of course :-). But I agree that it feels more likely that you may end up enjoying quality music you don't like now than bad music you don't like now!
Is it ABBA in particular, or do you not like the style in general?
Because there is a difference between quality and preference. You can totally dislike the Mona Lisa, but in its style, it would be very hard to say that it is not high quality painting.
And that brings me to another point that I think goes against the philosophy of the featured article: music is acquired taste, if I can say. We generally don't like music we don't understand. Some styles are easier to get (maybe because the music is just easier, or because it's broadcasted everywhere you go), some are harder. I like a lot of different styles of music (from classical to metal through rap, pop and jazz, etc). But in each of those styles, I did not immediately like everything. Of course there is good and bad quality, that's one thing. But the other axis is what I could understand of the style.
In rap, I started with very melodic songs, and then I started to get the rhythm and flow, and then downright the culture and the meaning of what they would say. I still don't like everything, but vastly more than I used to.
In jazz, I liked big bands and "soft" stuff like this until I started studying jazz. I forced myself to listen to jazz styles I really did not enjoy, up to free jazz. I regularly listened to good quality songs (I had to trust my music professor about the quality, of course) in those styles for a few months. And after a while (and I can't say precisely when it happened), I started enjoying some of those, until I could enjoy songs in all of them. Again, I don't like everything, but by learning and getting used to new styles, I got to enjoy them as well.
Of course, in doing all that effort, I improved my musical expertise. So I am now more critical about quality, which I feel like I compensate by being more open to very different styles. By voluntarily staying ignorant, I doubt the author enjoys all styles of music. So maybe they don't ruin the low-quality music of the style they are used to, but on the other hand they miss the high quality music in all the styles they are not used to :-).
80 years are not so far in time for me as I recently realized that when I was born I was closer to the end of the war than my current age. That made me feel somehow more connected to that past event than to the present.
