As a ux designer, I like this, especially as it solves the problem of dragging mobile elements below the fold or off the visible screen view.
One suggestion I'd love to try out- let the user select multiple elements at once, and reorder the selected elements in the hovering state using conventional drag and drop mechanics. This might add complexity or might be a much more convenient way to deal with lists!
Or, dragging the element selected should allow a user to manually ‘place’ the item on screen.
I wouldn’t use this on desktop, though! Mice typically allow you to scroll and drag pretty easily.
Paper is heavier and bulkier, production is pretty resource intensive, recycling doesn't work all that well, it's not transparent, and you may have to line it with something else to make it hold up to moisture. It's better than plastic I guess but a non-fossil-sourced and easily biodegradable plastic would be kind of perfect for this, even if it was a little
less sturdy than the current mainstream options.
And then at some point you have to weigh the carbon cost of transporting the extra mass vs the impact of the plastic itself (I'm not making this up, it's a thing that came up when some cities started requiring the thicker, more durable plastic grocery bags)
> It would be, but plastic like that that is also suitable for use as a bag doesn't exist.
There is quite a bit of R&D in the biodegradable plastics space and the EU is banning more and more single use plastics so I'm hopeful that will change. One store around here piloted corn-based ones and while they weren't quite as sturdy and certainly very expensive, they worked ok-ish (and apparently biodegraded within years).
Yes, the current biodegradable plastics are, basically, PLA -- the same stuff commonly used for 3D printing.
And they are technically biodegradable, but won't do so in a reasonable period of time outside of industrial facilities. They're better on that count than more traditional plastic, but I'm not sure they're better enough to actually matter.
Hopefully, there will be some advance in the future but, as they say, the future isn't here yet!
To incentivize artists to create and distribute art. The way we conceive of art as an act of embodied novelty differentiates it from commodities which aim for predictable consistency. Lack of IP protection in our culture has made it impossible for 99.9% of artists to thrive economically. The US has chosen relative cultural poverty compared to other cultures that find non-market mechanisms to support artists.
As an artist starting out in the beginning of my career, I made a rationalized choice to never post my work online - in retrospect this seems to have been the right choice. My work is no AI’s whetstone.
Artist have always since classical times struggled to support themselves. I don’t think there is any system that would make this a viable career for the number of people who want to pursue it. Same with musicians.
It is a luxury career supported exclusively by surplus. There will always be demand for it, but it is highly elastic and heavily influenced by trends and skewed by the top end.
A social security system that supports all artists was put into operation since 1984 in my country of Finland, it's still functioning fine, the only struggle for artists here is substance abuse.
This is a is a fundamental change of how we relate to work and the economy. So I hope it catches on and I've seriously though about emigrating because of that. That weather though...
I think it doesn't go quite far enough though. I still believe a universal basic income would do better and be easier to administer.
It's essentially universal. They simply subtract income from it. About $10k/y. If you earn more than $150/mo, the excess is subtracted. The bureaucratic process is submitting an online form. Property owned (land, house, shares, w/e) may reduce it, I don't know, I don't own anything of substantial value.
Can you elaborate a little on how this works? I have many questions haha, how they verify someone is doing art, how it's not the same as a basic unemployment, whether there is a maximum amount of people who can be on this programme, if so how qualification works etc. It sounds very interesting
Sorry if I framed it confusingly, this isn't only for artists, it's for everyone. They don't care what you do, only how much money you make.
> how it's not the same as a basic unemployment
It pretty much is, though unemployment has more strings attached. Anything you get from unemployment is subtracted from social security, and vice versa. For unemployment the online form is simpler and money comes much quicker, but you have to attend unemployment office events and stuff.
> whether there is a maximum amount of people who can be on this programme
The true maximum is of course however much the system as a whole can support, through taxing people's income. My back-of-the-napkin math puts the cost of the whole program at about $1/mo per taxpayer. So all artists and bums combined. Might not include basic retirement, which is slightly less.
> how qualification works
It's based on income/assets. If you make less than $10k/y plus $150/mo, the program covers the difference for living expenses.
In practice, there are limits to how much they're willing to pay for things like rent and utilities. In my city the max rent is $560/mo. On this winter's coldest month they complained that my electricity bill was too high (electric heating), but still paid it in full when I complained back.
To qualify, you have to attach to your application all of your bank accounts' statements from the past 3 months, so they can see how much money you've got. When you get a bill, you send the bill and they cover it.
The social security program covers: rent, water, electricity, home insurance, Internet, healthcare, moving van, security deposit of new apartment. On top of that you get about $15/day for food and other stuff like clothes, cleaning products, what have you. In my experience food costs some $10/day to live comfortably so some $150/mo remains for everything else. Second hand clothing stores sell decent clothes for a few dollars a piece, sometimes less.
You can request additional funds for infrequent, dire needs, like a new bed, vaccuum cleaner, etc.
Feel free to ask more questions, I'm happy to elaborate :)
>Sorry if I framed it confusingly, this isn't only for artists, it's for everyone.
Ah, OK, that was what I was wondering. Some social security schemes for artists that I am aware of require proof that you are in fact an artist, which can be problematic.
By historical standards, most of what is sold today in developed countries is "surplus". The share of GDP that goes to art and entertainment is not constant as your historical comparison suggests. It is growing and will continue to grow. It will eventually outgrow most other industries.
Wherever you stand on copyrights, it would be a mistake to underestimate the central importance of this issue going forward.
Yes, we have a lot of things supported by surplus. All research is one example.
I don't think my comment implies that at all. I'm not convinced it'll ever grow that large though. See: Content is not king [1] for a good explanation of why.
I think it's natural that it grows now to levels never seen before.
What am I underestimating? I agree it is an important issue; my comment is orthogonal to it though.
I mean no aspersions when I say that. For example, all research would fall into that category as well. So does most of tech, but not all of it.
My point was that it's a career whose demand is dictated by fluctuations in the economy and trends. And can be almost completely shut down (in theory) if the situation dictates.
>Lack of IP protection in our culture has made it impossible for 99.9% of artists to thrive economically.
Can you explain this position? My understanding is most artists don't thrive economically because there's not much demand for the art they make. I'm not sure that's correct, but "lack of IP protections" seems even less likely for most artists. What protections do you think would help?
It seems to me that the current system primarily benefits corporations who acquire a vast library of IP and can afford to legally defend it all as necessary.
I agree that a different set of policies would result in more art being created and more artists who are able to support themselves doing art, but my immediate assumption of what that would look like is more like funding art educations and exhibitions (of various kinds).
And that may be a bit helpful, but still everything I've heard indicates that drawing manga is absolutely hellish for one's body and mind. Look at the famous schedule:
Yeah, the law may be more on their side, but overall it seems unless you're somebody on the level of Akira Toriyama you likely barely managed to retain your sanity while cranking out your world famous works, and even the famous ones suffer greatly during the process.
Historically, artists were independently wealthy (as were early scientists) or they lived off the patronage of the wealthy. Intellectual property and copyright laws allowed art to be a viable commercial venture without direct patronage.
Well, no, I mean if you want to get specific, IP and copyright (copyright specifically) created a structure for government to register and track written output. Our current conception of "the artist" is relatively new, and patronage models/gift economies strike me as...well, still pretty relevant despite IP. People seem to be focusing on the Artist and not the artist's intermediaries (publishers, for instance) and that IP was also meant to protect and promote industry, for which it has been successful (maybe too much).
I mean a good thought experiment here would be to replace "artists" with "entrepreneurs" or "founders" ("historically, [...] were independently wealthy" would expose some of the myths we attach to the idea of "self-made" which we rarely attach to artists and authors) here and rethink the history of Western commerce from that perspective.
> Lack of IP protection in our culture has made it impossible for 99.9% of artists to thrive economically.
You think we should have 1000x more artists than we do? I think there's another economic problem with that idea...
> The US has chosen relative cultural poverty compared to other cultures that find non-market mechanisms to support artists.
The USA has the largest market in the world for creative products and the most rich artists.
> My work is no AI’s whetstone.
Are you the same way with juniors? "I paid dearly to learn this technique - you should too!"
Aside from overtraining issues, the AI can't store your work anymore than you can store representations of everything you've trained on, it's vastly smaller than the sum of its training data. It distills out features and their combinations.
Some bigname artist is upset because he thinks he's the first one to put certain bat and lizard features on a dragon and that he now owns that entire sort of creature. Turns out though, that given an old picture of a dragon and that single sentence of mine that he could be copied by almost anyone. The only way to keep the AI from "copying" his work is to make sure that, even if not trained on his work, nobody asks it for those features. To satisfy these people it'll have to have a big red sign that says "Dragons are off limits, Bob owns them because you might put claws on the wings!".
I'm currently sitting on a home with a basement open with no heater, and trying to find a contractor to install an all-electric heat pump. I'd love to be your customer but I worked in hardware and just don't see you hitting delivery times, and I can't wait that long.
For those of us who can't wait, If you were to buy a ducted heat pump today, which brand would you go with? Who is the best of the worst?
Physics is working against everyone here, it’s just too hard to get a bright, sharp screen in the form factor, weight & style that can literally appeal to everyone. The processing power to obtain world lock is not trivial either.
In contrast, a watch is just a scaled down phone with skin sensors. Most of the building blocks already exist.
Sociology is another blocker. Our species has evolved to read each other’s eyes to identify attention and emotion. As soon as you block the eyes with a pair of darkened screens, you lose that ability to directly connect human to human in person. Sure there are individual used cases like biking they could be compelling, but they are niche applications.
This is a good salad of truth, but I think it misses the point. VR is not going to happen for a long time, but this high status product is mostly about demonstrating the possibilities of AR, which is happening all around us with existing technologies. Apple has concluded that it will be worth it to demonstrate how information superiority and affordance will work in a $3k headset before the lightweight glasses become feasible. The applications for this product (sports, research, conferencing, gaming, etc) won't depend on real world interaction.
Yes, but the basics of computing (text input, pointing, selecting) haven't been worked out for the new paradigm. Like you point out, how information superiority and affordance work even in standalone applications hasn't really been solved. Without tactile touch components, it's very hard to interact with spatial data (one of the reasons CAD is so hard to learn).
I'd suggest that we'll need another 'mother of all demos' that solve some of these HCI problems, not just the fit and finish upgrade that Apple typically offers.
My mother did this when her cancer got too bad. She was strong willed but in end, some of her last words were asking me to give her an OD of the morphine in her hospice kit.
If you go through hospice with someone please discuss the options before the end. I wish i had asked her for her wishes beforehand because when she was weak it was hard to know how lucid she was, and the grief clouds your judgement.
Euthanasia is much more common than usually admitted.
If someone is dying of cancer in age care, they're in great pain, in out of consciousness etc, it is quite common for an overdose of morphine to be delivered by a nurse once family have had a chance to visit.
The nurse will state something like "we delivered pain relief but their body couldn't take any more".
Not all situations are the same, but a lot of ways of dying are very painful. Many grieving families are often not in a position to make a decision or even really understand how to have a conversation about it.
I wish that as a society we could be broadly more open and realistic about this.
> If you go through hospice with someone please discuss the options before the end.
I'll expand on this and say that pretty much all adults should consider making a living will, or at least having discussions about what you want for end-of-life care if you're incapacitated. Do it for yourself, but also do it for your loved ones -- if they're ever in the position where they have to make those decisions for you, it's going to be hard enough for them already. At least knowing what your wishes are can help alleviate a lot of the stress in the moment, but also a lot of the guilt that can last much much longer.
My wife had cancer. She told me if she decides to leave the hospital I should accept her wish. I promised her that I would care for her as long I have the strength. We got oxycodone after the second surgery when we returned home. Half a year later she had complications, a third surgery got neccessary. Luckily the outcome was better. No remission up to today, three years later.
We don't have oxycodone anymore. When I told my wife today she could stop eating she seemed relieved. She said she wants to avoid hospital in case of a remission and would prefer to die at home. We had long discussions and they were useful. I as her husband know now what to do for her. I got her to write a declaration of her free will on a sheet of paper.
We are lucky today. We are still ready to let it go if neccessary.
Be careful what you wish for. AI capable of writing weird garbage nonsense content that looks truthful is coming down the pipeline, with a reward function built in for user engagement. In a world of effortless surreal content, authoritatively truthful answer will become more valuable. We're going to need encyclopedias again!
One suggestion I'd love to try out- let the user select multiple elements at once, and reorder the selected elements in the hovering state using conventional drag and drop mechanics. This might add complexity or might be a much more convenient way to deal with lists!
Or, dragging the element selected should allow a user to manually ‘place’ the item on screen.
I wouldn’t use this on desktop, though! Mice typically allow you to scroll and drag pretty easily.