Just want to acknowledge the joy of this endeavor. A running documentation of your failures is a great idea that I fully support.
[kad_youtube url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtieBc3KptU” ]
When I first saw one of his videos I was wondering how sick an effect was achieved, though I never asked–thanks to all who did for me.
[kad_youtube url=”https://youtu.be/Q_rQbXlmgHI” maxwidth=480 ]
On the one hand: of course it does. On the other hand: pretty terrifying.
So if Google favours one candidate in an election, its impact on undecided voters could easily decide the election’s outcome.
Aaron “tenderlove” Patterson http://usesthis.com/interviews/aaron.patterson/
Firefox has an extremely nice feature that I like for web development: if you hit ‘ (single quote) it will bring up a search box, but the search box only searches through links on the page. Then you can hit enter to navigate to that link. That way I can avoid using my mouse.
I didn’t know about this, but I’m certainly interested as it’s a useful feature I’d previously installed plugins to deal with.
I don’t think I agree with the unsupported conclusion, but the video is interesting and generally well done―and the examples are fun.
[kad_youtube url=”https://youtu.be/783hwpJTjlo” ]
[kad_youtube url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv0sizg3Vz0″ ]
Watching this makes me feel somewhat nostalgic about the days when copies were hard. Also, it seems so important to document this transition from old to new ways of doing things (and all the drama and challenges inherent to the change). It also reminds me of this clever video showing the changing nature of how we get things done.
[kad_youtube url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qMNg4S42C4″ ]
This next video does a good job of contextualizing the transition of real tools to icons―revealing the meaning behind the terms and symbols some of us have never had any direct experience with in our designing lives.
[kad_youtube url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-XrRQf7BPM” ]
The idea that it took 24 hours to get a line of marketing type back to apply to a design sounds insane to me because I never had to deal with it personally, though I’m certain there are inefficiencies I’ll look back on in 20 years and reflect with a similar sense of knowledge, disbelief, and present gratefulness.
I’m confident there is evidence to the contrary, but the phase that is in my mind at the moment is the following:
It’s never been easier to do what you want to do than it is right now.
Do your work.
I can only say that you should watch this and enjoy it. It’s a beautiful video.
My latest ten months working on G’MIC http://opensource.graphics/latest-ten-months-working-on-gmic/
Some really great music here and—bonus—it’s cc-by licensed. Heard the music in this video. (Ah! The internet!)
This is my vote for best post of 2014. What a fascinating look at structure via data analysis. The entire article is such a refreshing surprise. It explores the structural arcs in TV and Movie scripts across screen time (by breaking episodes into 6 or 12 even chunks) and then creates a single, multidimentional, visual graph of each show or movie’s movement through those topics across individual screen time. This sort of confirms Aristotle’s dominance in popular storytelling.
What is this saying? That in the grand corpus of tens of thousands of hours of studio-approved, investor-funded, union-written scripts, two major trends stand out: one set of directional trends, advancing continuously through the course of the film, and one cyclical, through which the language returns back to its origins.
That outcome is to be expected, though it is interesting to see the data produce such conclusive evidence directly from a scriptural level of word clusters. There is a new twist, however, that makes this research particularly interesting:
But although [each individual show] trace[s] out arcs, they do it in their portion of the plot arc space ... The portions of plot-arc space they land in correspond to genre: the crime shows live in an area something like the early middle of a show, while science fiction camps out after the end of the end. … So that clustering is interesting enough: but the omnipresence of the curves suggests that they all follow the same path through space in some way, regardless of where they start
This graph is a wonderfully welcome visual analysis of plot structure that adds to my understanding of how traditional structure functions. I wonder how one would modify this for use in dramatic scripts, particularly across languages and time periods. Where, for instance, would the absurdists lie on the chart using this sort of analysis. It is regarded as a genre but it’s defining features are not typically understood to be topical but structural. Circular plot structure—a hallmark of absurdism—is understood to end where it began, but where does it go? I’ve often heard Beckett’s Godot described as “nothing happens,” but that is not a fair assessment of the script or production, it illuminates how strongly we expect Aristotelian structure. And what of postmodernism? Are there any defining topical features there? Are there strains of postmodernism? Is topical-textual analysis the best way of evaluating those scripts? Are the scripts the element that makes the production postmodern?
Dr. Schmidt’s post made me smile. It provokes so many new questions. This type of research is extremely interesting. Now go and read!
It’s pure in-camera trickery…EUREKA! — suddenly we had our approach.
The often overlooked approach. This was a fun read with lovely images.
I hope artists will pause and realize that misplaced blame and oversimplification of the issues could set us back. Physical album sales are not the long-term solution (case in point: the laptop I’m typing on doesn’t have a CD drive)…
…and he’s not even trying to be funny.
…humans are bright enough to think our way out the problems we think ourselves into.
This article pointed me toward the book Superintelligence which pointed me toward a quote from a shorter document by the author from which I’ve quoted below. Anyone wondering what to gift me this Christmas can look into the linked book above. I enjoy being terrified by other people’s thoughts.
Two things are striking from the below quote:
- The future of humanity could be decided by algorithms—iterated through countless other machine-iterated algorithms—beginning with something being coded today (hopefully without any bugs or typos).
- The implication that superintelligence would eradicate human invention.
The first point is terrifying. I’d like to believe that if such a superintelligence is brought forth it would be smart enough to fix any bugs or major design flaws in the original. Of course I assume that what a superintelligence wants and what mere human intelligences want will differ in profound ways. What then?
The second point is—I believe—wrong (assuming we’re using the word ‘invention’ similarly). Unless humanity has been exterminated by this superintelligence then invention will not cease. The more fictional forms of invention (e.g. art) should flourish. I strongly believe that humans are a necessary component in art. Creation, reception, critique, categorization, and other components require human beings.
Superintelligence, if/when it materializes, will spur a Renaissance in human artistic production.<that’s what I think anyway>
Superintelligence would be the last invention biological man would ever need to make, since, by definition, it would be much better at inventing than we are. All sorts of theoretically possible technologies could be developed quickly by superintelligence — advanced molecular manufacturing, medical nanotechnology, human enhancement technologies, uploading, weapons of all kinds, lifelike virtual realities, self‐replicating space‐colonizing robotic probes, and more. It would also be super‐effective at creating plans and strategies, working out philosophical problems, persuading and manipulating, and much else beside.
It is an open question whether the consequences would be for the better or the worse. The potential upside is clearly enormous; but the downside includes existential risk. Humanityʹs future might one day depend on the initial conditions we create, in particular on whether we successfully design the system (e.g., the seed AIʹs goal architecture) in such a way as to make it ʺhuman‐friendlyʺ — in the best possible interpretation of that term.
via Nick Bostrom.
ToDo list: added.
I prefer to use encrypted email. My public key fingerprint is 4FF3 AA1B D29E 1638 32DE C765 9433 5F88 9A36 7709. Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide.
What a great idea.
“I don’t have anything against Yelp. The idea is fantastic, but the blackmailing thing is ferocious,” says Cerretini. “I think I should be the one deciding if I’m on the site or not. At least I can be there on my terms. The only power they have is they make you reliable to them. So, I’m going to be one of the most unreliable restaurants.”
“I want to be the worst restaurant there is in the Bay Area,” he says. “I think this is the best business move I have made in years.”
♥ — 5 Useful Articles is great.
While on an expedition in Indonesia, a nature photographer’s equipment is hijacked by a roving band of artistic monkeys. One of them snaps a photograph of herself. The photographer recovers his camera and posts the picture to the internet. A designer creates a 3D model based on the picture, and uses a 3D printer to make this.
The designer also uploads the file of the model (monkeyselfie.ztl) to Thingiverse. Parker downloads and edits the file, mounting the monkey’s head onto a centaur’s body of his own creation. Can the designer sue Parker? Assume any litigation takes place in the Second Circuit.
I wrote a program that transforms literary and philosophical texts into patent applications. In short, it reframes texts as inventions or machines.
This is just plain awesome software art. Just look at this patent by Kafka! If a visual artist out there doesn’t start creating the visual figures for these wonderful patents I’m going to have to pick up a drawing aparatus and do it myself.