Masonry grid layout was one of a few interviewing pair programming tests I would give to frontend engineers. I need to see how this works under the hood!
Didn't really come off as design-y or antithetical form and definitely not manipulating lol, maybe a little poetic or artsy fartsy. Agree that it's important and deep.
Same. It looks like the author is playing with poetry to me. They're clearly playing with the stanza with the similar lines and the contrasting lines. Yeah, it's amateur, but who cares? It tracks with the message.
If anything I think the GP's comment is an example of a thin desire. Being nitpicky/petty to justify internalizing and actually reading the post. There's no lines to read between here, it's plain as day. We are addicted to dismissing things because it's gratifying and easy. It's trivial to find errors or complaints about anything, but it's difficult to actually critique. I'd argue in our thin desires we've conflated the two. It's cargo cult intellectualism. Complaints look similar to critiques in form but they lack the substance, the depth.
i think there are internationally recognized lawful terminology that several institutions and countries recognize that permit the use of "act of war" and "terrorism". but at any given time a country _does_ act of war/terrorism, they likely would deny claims of terrorism if it was recognized as terrorism by said institutions.
But UX does not matter when experiencing art. OP is entitled to feel nit picky and pissy and a critic because of the normal way they experience the web. It does not mean his critique matters.
UX may not matter to you when experiencing art, but it certainly matters to me when experiencing art. A lack of care for whether or not the art is actually accessible to its audience makes it indistinguishable from the pretentious “avant garde” slop that exists primarily to allow “art dealers” to launder money.
Even worse, this website is less analogous to the art itself and more analogous to an art gallery, which means that now my perception of the art being showcased is now unfairly negative through no fault of the actual art on display. If I'm trying to view some painting at the Louvre only for the curator to jump in front of me and say “Wait! Do you really want to view that painting or do you want a notecard saying where it is?”, damn straight am I going to be annoyed as all hell at such antics, and it's going to ruin my experience through no fault of the actual artist.
... UX is the only thing that matters when experiencing art.
More to the point, though, in this case the art is purporting to be a functional website, so we're absolutely allowed to critique it on the grounds of being bad at that.
Not the first time Japan has done something like this[1] and I honestly welcome it. It's not a strict rule, gives people flexibility to at least talk about it and disagree with little consequence. Another severely online commenter mentions protecting peoples privacy and exploitative practices but we're wayyy beyond those types of conversations. Limiting online-ness in a gentle way that's not gonna piss off a bunch of people and get the feels for it seems to be a very Japanese thing to do.
Based on the wikipedia aurora article it sounds like the lower atmosphere has a more mixed bag of gasses, so it glows white, while in the upper atmosphere atomic oxygen(note that oxygen lower down is all diatomic and glows green) is able to showcase it's characteristic red glow.
But now I am wondering about the green(oxygen?) and yellow(sodium?) atmospheric bands visable. The green one is interesting because it may tear apart my atomic oxygen theory. why would a green diatomic band be above the red atomic sprite flare?
PecosHank on YouTube has a great video on TLEs and how to photograph them from the ground. I think the green is oxygen and the red is nitrogen, same as in the aurora.
Does partly wrong imply they can both be partly right?
Regardless, within the current system (which is not based on theory and based on reality), we combine these elements, and neither seem to directly benefit certain industries depending on who you're looking at. If it does, these policies may not benefit everyone.
reply