As a small-business utility vehicle designed specifically to be wrapped in advertising, I thought it was brilliant. For other uses, eh.
208 karma · joined May 24, 2010
Yes they would, and neither of the existing scaling methods works robustly on regular phone sizes, so this is a particularly exciting opportunity.
Also there is an under-recognized problem with touch target sizes. For most touch targets, the common minimums are OK but not great for many people with large fingers and/or minor tremor. With a 1.31 zoom (I did more precise math) you get ~1.7x total increase in pixels in touch targets. Some may read their messages, etc on the outside screen, then flip to expanded for the tricky interactivity.
Let me know if you'd like to chat about use of your system to help enforce proper use of semantics and ARIA in web UI. It looks good.
See, the idea with the semantic web, and the ARIA markup equivalents, is that things should have names, roles, values, and states. Devs frequently mess up role/keyboard interaction agreement (example: role=menu means a list will drop on Enter keypress, and arrow keys will change the active element), and with ensuring that state info (aria-expanded, aria-invalid, etc.) is updated when it should be.
Then I checked the Antithesis website. They don't even have focus state styling on any of the interactive elements. sigh
I'm really having trouble grasping the true breadth of this problem in the wild. How much of it am I not seeing because the mods filter it out first? How much is faulty signal detection from readers?
He has a blog, which I think is particularly relevant to this conversation: https://www.patreon.com/c/GreenWizard/posts?vanity=GreenWiza...
IMO his writing style is quite melodramatic. I have asked myself, how much of that is his perhaps overly compensatory tendency to project an articulate voice, and how much of it is applied by his AI tools?
The last time I saw Anton in person I asked him about his writing process, and he said something like, "I just draft it and then ask ChatGPT to make it sound professional or whatever." So after thinking about it for a while, I have decided that this is his preferred voice, so I'll accept it as his voice.
IMO it is not for you to decide how people recast their own voice. Once you adopt that dogma, you're committed to denying other people's experience of discrimination (through the lens of disability's symptoms). Whether or not you participate in that other type of biased discrimination is irrelevant.
On most days I am resistant to stereotypes about "the welfare state" eroding incentives for entrepreneurism and innovation. But if you're going to wave it in my face like that, I might have to reconsider.
Really? I can't tell if you're joking, so I'll take it at face value.
See, I associate the earliest famous (I thought) expression of that concern with Plato, and before today I couldn't remember any other associated details enough to articulate them with confidence. ChatGPT tells me, using the above quote without the citation as a prompt, that it was in Plato in his dialogue Phaedrus, and offers additional succinct contextual information and a better quote from that work. I probably first learned to associate that complaint about writing with Plato in college, and probably got it from C.D.C. Reeve, who was a philosophy professor and expert on Plato at the college I attended. But I feel no need to cite any of Reeve's works when dropping that vague reference. If I were to use any of Reeve's original thoughts related to analysis of Plato, then a reference would be merited.
It seems to me that there are different layers of abstraction of knowledge and memory, and LLMs mostly capture and very effectively synthesize knowledge at layers of abstraction that are above that of grammar checkers and below that of plagiarism in most cases. It's true that it is the nature of many of today's biggest transformers that they do in some cases produce output that qualifies as plagiarism by conventional standards. Every instance of that plagiarism is problematic, and should be a primary focus of innovation going forward. But in this conversation no one seems to acknowledge that the bar has been moved. The machine looked upon the library, and produced some output, therefore we should assume it is all theft? I am not persuaded.