Well, you see. Those in charge want that apple there. Because when push comes to shove that apple will also kill activists, protestors and political opponents without asking questions or refusing orders. He will keep fellow apples in check and keep them from speaking up as well. They like that apple.
This is because tech bros only read pop-psy without any regard for context or nuance. So they read a bit about Flow state and ranking for gamification, and as usual they just botched it. Most ranking is typically calibrated for engagement, not fun. Mind you, they are two different characteristics. If you graphed difficulty and skill, flow is a band, not a point, of difficulty, in the middle. The idea is that when you are challenged slightly over your skill, there is something in you brain that stimulates you to keep going under the promise that overcoming the challenge will be rewarding. Too high and people rage quit, too low and people get bored. The problem is that they want maximum engagement and for that the difficulty has to be on the higher end of the band. A frustrated person will return, a bored one most likely won't.
They also want to keep people engaged with random and variable reinforcement. The other psychological theory that drives game design, much how behavioral scientist cheat pigeons to keep them engaged pulling a lever or pushing a button. Mix both theories poorly together and you get the awful implementation we see on multiplayer. People are tricked into believing that just because their brain chemicals are screaming at them to keep doing something, it means they are having fun. But that is obviously not true, just nobody ever occurred that those pigeons might be having a awful time. Ask most people on ranked MP or grinding for builds on MMOs if they are having fun and they have no idea why you're asking them. It has nothing to do with fun, they just want the carrot being dangled in front of their nose.
I just don't do online MP anymore because of this. 99% of the time, I'm not having fun. Now if I want to play with my friends or other people, we play tabletop board games. Infinitely more fun and far more satisfying than any online game ever.
I thought that Kagi would have way more users. That blog was an interesting read. If that is their financial management, they're doomed to fail. The founder also seems somehow worse than Brave's. But it does give me a chance to mention something I've been thinking about for the past 6 months.
There's right now a massive trend towards co-opting in tech. Where startups and corporations use current trends in the tech savvy consumer to push products and services that ultimately actually go against the trend. Privacy, security, federation, climate change, open source. But just like most con men, it's all performative, not substantial. They are trying to get fast to the wallet, then run for the hills with it. It reminds me of common greenwashing from oil companies, I call it privacywashing. In the end they still get to keep your data, and push anti-consumer tech like blockchain scams and fraudulent AI.
Ostriv, it is made by a single Ukrainian developer. Been working on it since before the war. Nothing brings about as much of a sense of tranquility and peace. Just you and your slowly growing and living XVIII c. village.
It wouldn't have, apparently. An optometrist friend says that sort of thing only makes slightly worse the things that were already going to happen to your eyes. Like, if you are nearsighted and didn't exercise your eyes looking at far away stuff enough, your eyesight will be slightly more myopic. But you were going to be nearsighted anyway. Like, people were awfully nearsighted way before the invention of the television and sedentary indoor lifestyles. We just hadn't invented optometry yet to note it.
OK, in terms you understand. The criticism "GIMP is not like Photoshop" is crap advice, its shit and your shitty attitude is offensive and insulting to the hard work of devs. Go keep sucking the adobe boot since you seem to like the taste of dirt on leather so much. "Just clone Photoshop" is a meme useless attitude to have.
See, the thing with this argument is that, however much I agree with the basic idea, it's still not useful. We can agree, sure, that overall the UI and UX (two different things) on GIMP is not as subjectively good as Photoshop. But saying, it's easier, it's faster, it's whatever, still does not help at all. It's still all just vibes and impressions, it's not actionable.
“The default UI is not like Photoshop” is inactionable. It's different from the opinions I left on this thread. That GIMP need to have a way to save and reload layouts, that's an specific feedback, concise, concrete and actionable. I also agree that some workflows take too many clicks, maybe have simplified tools to do common actions. That is also actionable, specific, concrete.
Your comment offers nothing to go on with. It even manages to ignore and bypass my criticism, it doesn't address the “Industry standard” bias and privilege. Because when pros try GIMP the response “It doesn't work the way I expected and are used to, so I don't like it” is a garbage feedback. The only thing you are offering is “clone photoshop”, and that's just not what the project has ever been about, or will ever be about. So the conversation is fruitless.
You missed the point of my post. You're right in that you are left with amateurs as an audience. But, and it is a big but, the amateurs aren't comparing you to Photoshop, they are comparing you to the UX friendly app they have on their phone (no matter if they say otherwise). Yet the pro won't ever give GIMP any chance because it doesn't carry the “industry standard” label and the privilege that comes with it. When people are learning graphic design or photoediting they are mandated to learn Photoshop. Either by a rigid teaching system or the cultural environment prevalent amongst the people with strong passion to learn on their own. The result is that a lot of UX and UI quirks and headaches (which photoshop does have, let's not lie to ourselves here) are overlooked or just accepted as the norm. Humans can adapt to a lot of fuckery and bad design, that doesn't make it good UX. GIMP does not have the label, leniency or benefit of the doubt from anyone. Just read this thread, people complaining and whining about the default layout. No one has addressed the things that GIMP does better UX wise or when ways to overcome its shortcoming are mentioned people react with hostility and denial. Most even admit that they have never used GIMP or that they have no business anywhere near an image editor. But here we are, discussing the opinions of the peanut gallery based on feefees and second hand vibes.
It's there for convenience. Easy is a very subjective term in this context. Everyone has a different concept of what is easy on a computer. The fact that drag and drop has two, completely differentiated but equally instantly available verbs, is already above and beyond the amount of options other software packages offer.
All I want is to GIMP to save tabs layout as workspaces. That is enough. Part of GIMP hate is based on 15 year old complaints. Just like people still complains today about stuff of Linux that has been resolved for decades. It's just memery that has stuck around.
There are issues with GIMP, but none are about the stuff most people meme about in social media. Every tool has room to grow, but GIMP UI suffers from the “too amateur to know what's wrong” loud majority effect. Imagine someone who has no concept of music appreciation in their lives sits at the front of a grand organ. Then proceeds to complain that the pedals get in the way of sitting on the stool and that he founds the three keyboards redundant and unintuitive. This notion is valid, from his point of view. But it informs nothing about the usability of that particular instrument for a professional organ player.
The same thing tends to happen with several software packages, specially the open source ones. Since they don't have the industry standard tag, they don't get any leniency when it comes to learning their features and capabilities. Then, when the amateur checks them out, they don't compare it to the industry standard (which does have a leniency license) but compare it to the simplified, accessible for everyone and strip down apps. These people don't have the foresight to understand that this tool is capable of way more than their reference point, and the initial friction is an indicator of their inexperience, not of the tool's quality or potential.
The amateur is more comfortable sitting in front of a Casio learner piano. And we shouldn't lend much credence to their feedback about the ergonomics or key feel of a Steinway concert grand.
You can click the tool, configure it, then hit tab to work on the image. Then tab again to click on the new tool, tab, work on the image. It's a nice and simple workflow. I don't know what to tell you, it's not rocket surgery. I mean, you're the one trying to do image work on a tiny ass screen. I'm giving you a neat trick that worked perfectly for me. Sorry it is not good enough for you, I guess.
Depends on the country, but usually a "background check" is nothing more than paying a lawyer to check if you have ever been convicted, accused or investigated for a crime. Prosecutors have an archive and a office of records to collect and share that public information. This is why clearing records are important in courts and settlements. It's a big mark to say the person is actually alright and won't be found in the records if searched, as they were cleared. Other than that it is usually just a phone call to a previous employer to ask if you were an asshole there.