After reading the top-left block of text titled "Optimizing Webkit & Safari for Spedometer 3.0", what the fuck am I supposed to read next? Am I meant to go recursively column by column, or try to scrutinize pixels to determine which of the blocks are further up than the others, skipping haphazardly left and right across the page? A visual aid: https://imgur.com/a/0wHMmBG
Columnar layout is FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN on media that doesn't have two fixed-size axes. Web layouts leave one axis free to expand as far as necessary to fit the content, so there is no sane algorithm for laying out arbitrary content this way. Either you end up with items ordered confusingly, or you end up having to scroll up and down repeatedly across the whole damn page, which can be arbitrarily long. Either option is terrible. Don't even get me started on how poorly this interacts with "infinite scroll".
Well not all content is meant to be read in order. A layout like this is good for content where you want to incentivise users to read in whichever order you like. So if the order is confusing you, chances are there wasn't meant to be any order at all. E.g. if you search google images google guesses some relevant order for you, but it is layed out in a dense way so you can scan with your eyes and decide which thing is most relevant for you. Whether you scan the screen left-right, top-down, randomly, bottom up, or ehatever is totally your choice.
Using such a layout for a novel or something like this would be really bad UX. But using it for an image gallery? Or a series of random articles that aren't priorized? Why not?
> Columnar layout is FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN on media that doesn't have two fixed-size axes.
You can use plain old CSS columns (which don't have the automated "masonry" packing behavior of this new Grid layout, they just display content sequentially) and scroll them horizontally. But horizontal scrolling is cumbersome with most input devices, so this new "packed" columnar layout is a good way of coping with the awkwardness of vertical scrolled fixed-width lanes.
What a weird comment. You read whatever you want next, ever read a newspaper? You scan it all and pick the article you are interested in, then read that. I don't understand these comments, they work perfectly well in real life (and fixed size is arbitrary, I can make a super wide or super long newspaper too, the axis size does not affect this sort of layout, see infinite scroll for example, as there is only a fixed amount of content on the screen at any given time).
> You scan it all and pick the article you are interested in
Okay. What order am I supposed to scan in so I don't lose my place and accidentally skip a block? Scanning column by column gets me cut off partial boxes that I'll have to remember to check again later, while scanning side to side forces me to keep track of each individual block I've already looked at, as opposed to a single pointer to "this is how far I've scanned". Alternatively, I can scan roughly left to right, top to bottom and just live with missing some blocks. That's not ideal either, because hopefully if you didn't think I'd like to look at all of them you wouldn't have included them on the page.
You're right that you can make a newspaper that's really inconvenient to read, but you wouldn't, because the failure case you'd end up with is CSS Grid Lanes.
This is so funny that I'm not even sure what to say. You can ask your exact questions about a newspaper but somehow 99% of people manage to read them just fine. I think it's just a you problem that you are looking for an exact algorithm on how to scan a page with multiple sizes of content; in reality, people just look over it all and keep track of what they have or haven't looked at all in their heads.
In a newspaper the answer is simple. You linearly scan the leftmost column to the bottom of the page, then the next column, then the next, and so on until you get to the end of the page. At no point do you ever need to keep track of anything other than "this is how far I've gotten" to make sure you haven't missed anything. Columnar layout make sense in newspapers because both axes are fixed in size, so all you ever do is one long linear scan with wraparound.
If one axis is fixed, and it is in the case of grid lanes (it's not a fully pannable infinite canvas like Figma after all), you just keep reading the content that's on the current screen, then you scroll. I really don't see how it's any different to, for example as I mentioned previously, a long newspaper with many pages; each "page" is one "screen" worth, analogously. It's like infinite scroll, either vertically or horizontally, where instead of just one item in the list, you have a few. And if we're being really pedantic, Figma users do perfectly fine keeping the context of the content in their minds even in an infinitely pannable canvas. And also, generally newspaper readers do not do what you say, scanning column by column, they instead glance their eyes over all of the headlines then pick which one looks good then they read the article attached to that, it is a free form process.
So again, I will contend that this is not a problem for the average reader. I really cannot see where the difficulty you seem to say lies.
Lots of things. “Could I have some sugar, please; two frappy mochachos? one with almond milk; can you explain what all these options are, please; what the hell is mushroom powder?” In today’s coffee shops this can lead to hours of complex social interaction at the counter, enriching our lives and ultimately extending our lifespans. — sorry, couldn’t resist. In seriousness, I actually find this conversation interesting. Some coffee shops do have quite a social culture around them, though I think they’re outliers on whole. Here in Spain it’s a mix, but in some it is like everyone’s friends with the barista.
This sounds right – likely tests to gather information. What gets through, what doesn't, what's successful, what isn't. I think the ultimate goal would be to influence the platform (I don't have showdead enabled, so I'm assuming OP's observations are accurate).
It does initially look like a stupid and Insanely Facile fashion statement, I agree, but I think the iPod sock v2 could be one of the most practical and cleverly designed products Apple has ever released.
It's clearly intended to be used as bait for phone snatchers. That iPhone dangling loose a foot below your arm in free air is just too tempting… no thief can resist. But, then! You start swinging that motherf*cker, and your iPhone becomes a deadly weapon before any potential thief has time to think.
Third parties are sure to fill the market with the most obvious additions, e.g. metal spikes, studs, mildly poison-laced hooks. I assume there will also be training courses scheduled in Apple Stores around the world to clarify this accessory's purpose — not to mention, to teach proper technique and the ethical considerations of when to stop striking with the iPhone Pocket to avoid manslaughter charges in your region.
This is a move by Apple to subtly promote armed, deceptive martial arts as self-defence. To promote the Bushido spirit as a practical coping mechanism in these stressful times, and to empower its users in everyday situations. I for one think it's Insanely Great, and right on that bold frontier of innovation and Thinking Different that Apple built its reputation on.
Nope. See this article in the Economist, "Grand Theft Global".[1]
What happens to the stolen phones? They're shipped in bulk to Huaqiangbei market in Shenzhen, there to be taken apart, reset, repaired, parts replaced, and resold to people in China who can't afford new phones.
The amusing thing is that the phones were probably originally built in Shenzhen.
IMO the issue is we won't be able to adequately answer this question before we first clearly describe what we mean of conscious thinking applied to ourselves. First we'd need to clearly define our own consciousness and what we mean by our own "conscious thinking" in a much, much clearer way than we currently do.
If we ever reach that point, I think we'd be able to fruitfully apply it to AI, etc., to assess.
Unfortunately we haven't been obstructed from answering this question about ourselves for centuries or millennia, but have failed to do so, so it's unlikely to happen suddenly now. Unless we use AIs to first solve that problem of defining our own consciousness, before applying it back on them. Which would be a deeply problematic order, since nobody would trust a breakthrough in the understanding of consciousness that came from AI, that is then potentially used to put them in the same class and define them as either thinking things or conscious things.
Kind of a shame we didn't get our own consciousness worked out before AI came along. Then again, wasn't for the lack of trying… Philosophy commanded the attention of great thinkers for a long time.
Do you mean some Russians used Ukraine as a money laundering middleman, specifically through corruption of politicians and elites in the system there? Because it sounds like it. Before the "conflict" (invasion) happened.
I'll leave your imagination to judge who used ukraine as money laundering machine. To have some supplementary data for that, we can look where the money entering ukraine come from for say last 5 years. You can easily find how much was coming from russia and compare it with flow from say EU. You should be capable of drawing your own conclusions after.
