XV was excellent, and had some features I've never seen anywhere else. For example, it had a control panel that would allow you to take part of the color space and map it uniformly to a different part of the color space, for example, turning all the reds (and just the reds) green.
When my kid, now almost 22, was very small, she would sit on my lap in front of the computer, with XV displaying a picture of Elmo. “Green Elmo!” she would demand. I would adjust the sliders to turn the reds green, and we would laugh uproariously at green Elmo. Next it would be “Purple Elmo!”, and we would laugh even harder.
That control panel was really great! Particularly for scanning, it was nice to be able to adjust some of the color curves slightly to correct the scanned image.
However, one thing I REALLY used that control panel for was greyscale images, you could adjust the curve so that things that were barely legible in the image suddenly popped way out. Almost like that trick of rubbing a pencil across a blank page to reveal what someone wrote on the page above it. Or smaller adjustments just to make a greyscale more uniform.
There's something so appealing about those fvwm window borders, aliased font, crisp graphics, and the simple and intuitive UI of xv. There's nothing jumping at you to get your attention, no ambiguous UI elements and dark patterns, just a well designed and functional GUI. We truly lost something along the way, as modern GUIs are rarely this user friendly.
Or it might mean they produce more valuable product and more of it and therefore need more devs to do it.
If a dev produces value for the company, and then the company can automate away the least valuable part of the dev's job, the dev is now more valuable. Why would tbe company get rid of them just at that moment?
Well, some will, because some companies are badly-run. Others will take advantage of the opportunity.
> Or it might mean they produce more valuable product and more of it and therefore need more devs to do it.
You're assuming unbounded demand for whatever product the company is producing. If demand for their product is bounded, having 1 dev produce the output of 5 devs means that the company is going to have devs simply sitting around doing nothing for most of the day.
> If a dev produces value for the company, and then the company can automate away the least valuable part of the dev's job, the dev is now more valuable.
I don't follow this argument - there is a practical limit to how much development a company requires. In the past they may have had a team of 10 to satisfy that limit. If the limit is satisfied by a team of 2 the company... does what exactly?
Every company I have ever worked for has wanted to produce more better stuff to sell for more money. Some couldn't because they were resource constrained.
Where are these businesses that only ever want to sell the same amount of the same stuff forever?
In companies I've worked for, Sales has often come to management saying things like:
* I couldn't sell our product because our competitor's has a certain feature. How soon can we have that feature?
* I can't make any new sales, but prospective customers keep telling me they need a solution for a similar problem. Could we expanded our product line?
* Some customers could be using a certain feature of our product, but they find it too confusing. What could we do about this?
* A big customer told me they have a problem our current product doesn't solve, so I told them we would be able to solve it by the beginning of next month
As you say, the sales department is the driver of development work, not vice versa.
I'm currently in the sales channel, and all customers say things like this, then back off the minute a quote is sent through. It's so common it's even easy to spot now:
1. When a manager at some client says "How much will it costs us for you to add $FOO to the product?" I don't even bother updating the sales forecast with the quote I send them.
2. When they say "How soon can we have this?", that's when I actually update the sales forecasts.
So if your sales guys are saying "Look, customer said they'd go with us if only we had $FOO", they're failing the Mom Test[1] - the person they spoke just didn't want to be too negative, didn't know how to say "No" to a charming and likeable person[2], etc.
Sales is a function of the demand in the market. When the demand is (for example) 200 units/m of something, doubling your output does not let you sell 400 units/m.
Also, it sounds that your argument is for software products only, which is a tiny part of the economy. I was really talking about companies that sell non-software products/services - their sales is not limited by software development, it's limited by their market reach.
Even if those companies doubled their developer headcount, it'll have pretty much zero impact on revenue.
I mean, look, I can see you're arguing in good faith here, so I'm trying to do the same, but IME productivity simply doesn't have any effect on revenue, all it can do is lower costs.
----------------
[1] This is such a short and valuable read, that I recommend it to everyone I meet who is trying to do sales.
[2] If you're not charming or likeable, then you shouldn't be in sales in the first place.
If you liked this, you will be delighted to learn about the “Triangle of U”: the common brassicas are not just tetraploid, they are Frankensteinian mashups of earlier diploid species with different numbers of chromosomes!
Yeah the family is pretty unique for not relying on mycorrhizal fungi but it does still rely on other fungi like Serendipita indica which is a basidiomycete fungus and acts as a facultative endophyte. Meaning it can live on its own in the soil but it can also develop inside plant roots and play many of the same roles mycorrhizal fungi play.
It's actually at the center of a lot of research attention right now for its potential to act as a booster for vegetables that DON'T make traditional mycorrhizal associations
Citrons, Pomelos, and True Manderins are the progenitor wild species that were hybridized to give us everything from clementines to grapefruit to key limes and more
There’s an interesting term from the book the Black Swan, an antilibrary, which gains value from books that haven’t been read, but are at hand. Essentially resources for new ideas.
“The writer Umberto Eco belongs to that small class of scholars who are encyclopedic, insightful, and nondull. He is the owner of a large personal library (containing thirty thousand books), and separates visitors into two categories: those who react with “Wow! Signore, professore dottore Eco, what a library you have ! How many of these books have you read?” and the others - a very small minority - who get the point that a private library is not an ego-boosting appendage but a research tool. Read books are far less valuable than unread ones. The library should contain as much of what you don’t know as your financial means, mortgage rates and the currently tight real-estate market allows you to put there. You will accumulate more knowledge and more books as you grow older, and the growing number of unread books on the shelves will look at you menancingly. Indeed, the more you know, the larger the rows of unread books. Let us call this collection of unread books an antilibrary.”
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
Hoarding/archiving/collecting is quite fun. I don't think it's a stretch to say he likely read more then the average person, and from his own collection too!
"It is foolish to think that you have to read all the books you buy, as it is foolish to criticize those who buy more books than they will ever be able to read. It would be like saying that you should use all the cutlery or glasses or screwdrivers or drill bits you bought before buying new ones.
"There are things in life that we need to always have plenty of supplies, even if we will only use a small portion.
"If, for example, we consider books as medicine, we understand that it is good to have many at home rather than a few: when you want to feel better, then you go to the 'medicine closet' and choose a book. Not a random one, but the right book for that moment. That's why you should always have a nutrition choice!
"Those who buy only one book, read only that one and then get rid of it. They simply apply the consumer mentality to books, that is, they consider them a consumer product, a good. Those who love books know that a book is anything but a commodity."
That's roughly on par with saying nobody needs the internet or a library at all.
Back the 1920s having a personal library was fairly common for people with more than two dimes, they had this thing called an 'Ex Libris' which roughly translates as 'from the books of'. This was a little piece of paper, often very nicely designed that you glued to the first page of a book and then you could borrow it freely and sooner or later it would find its way back to you.
This was the rough equivalent of wikipedia, only a lot slower and less convenient. Then encyclopedias (which existed for a long time) became larger and larger, I had one from the 18th century that got lost in a move but it was a work of art, so much effort had gone into making that. The encyclopedias of the newer ages were however far larger and covered more subjects. Ever year a new batch of pages or the occasional reprint was the norm. And then personal libraries went the way of the dodo. Every time one of my family members dies there is always the same question: what will happen to all the books. These people - and me too - spent a fortune on their books, untold tens of thousands over a lifetime. They were well read, not 'browsing' information but actually reading - and occasionally writing.
That library in the article is exceptional in one way: that it does not look like it was shared. But I can totally sympathize: some people are focused on the number of digits on their bank account, others derive their sense of wealth and accomplishment from their bookshelves. I don't own any books I have not read, but I do understand people buying books that they intend to read at some point but never get around to.
As these things go, I'd be happy have a million more book hoarders, even if they don't read them all, so they can be passed on to the next generation of booklovers, assuming they can still be found.
> As these things go, I'd be happy have a million more book hoarders, even if they don't read them all, so they can be passed on to the next generation of booklovers,
Exactly my sentiment!
Everything today has been tied down to making money or gaining name/fame. There is no concept of studying "knowledge for knowledge's sake". And yet everybody knows that it is precisely only the latter mindset which has enabled Humans to build all their grand civilizations and technologies.
The filibuster isn't part of the system; it's not even part of the law. It's just part of the rules that the Senate chose for their own internal procedures.
It's just another thing that means people don't face the consequences of their own actions. If the extremeness of the elected party is blocked by the filibuster then people are angry at things not changing and so go even more extreme.
A similar problem in the United States is the excessive amount of law making by the Judiciary. In most countries the Judicary doesn't' make law it just tells Parliament that they need to change the law. This again means the consequences of who you voted for are not faced.
The pressure builds till there's a breaking point.
I'm puzzled by this. Why hasn't there been, over the last fifty years, a huge amount of research into EM staining techniques and which materials were best under which circumstances? Edison supposedly tried 3000 different materials for light bulb filaments before settling on charred cotton thread. Why hasn't something similar been done in this area?
Or perhaps it _has_ been done and that's why nearly everyone uses uranyl acetate? And perhaps coffee was tried decades ago and found to be generally inferior?
Wow you know it’s a fun party when the first result needs to specify it’s _not_ radioactive
Oh I see - Uranyl Acetate is radioactive and this replaces it. Fun!
This seems like a friendly chemical too -
“ The chemical properties of Osmium Tetroxide are such that use and handling of the chemical is often considered daunting. Although its volatility and toxicity certainly makes it a dangerous chemical, but when following the proper procedure and taking the necessary precautions, Osmium Tetroxide can be used to its full potential with limited risk to the user.
This is more toxic than glutaraldehyde and has a higher vapour pressure. Particular care must be taken to avoid breathing the vapour or allowing it to affect the eyes. ”
Uranyl acetate for staining is typically depleted and unless you have regulatory issues I don't think the radiation is a big concern, especially when you compare to the very serious toxicity of OsO4 (vapors can react with your eyes and blind you).
Interesting and makes sense! I know nothing but what I read from the stain description haha. OsO4 seems incredibly nasty. So do a few other of the stains!
The Wikipedia article about the coauthor Mark Hempsell says:
“Hempsell got public audience as author of the book "A Sumerian Observation of the Köfels' Impact Event", with Alan Bond proposes a theory not accepted by the scientific community…”
The link posted in this thread by user arto calls the theory “pseudoscience”:
“Despite this new evidence, curiously in 2008 the impact hypothesis was revived by some pseudoscientists in connection to supposed observations of a meteorite by the Sumerians…”
Now it seems very suspicious that the article claims that the tablet is from 3123 BC, when it was excavated from the palace of Ashurbanipal (650 BC).
Ah, oh well. Was an interesting story. But I mainly shared this to remind myself of this incredible star map, or whatever it really is... Seems not easy to find bona fide information on it, maybe because it's untranslated/decoded except for this Kofels' story, which indeed appears to be out of the bounds of likelihood by 4000 years.
The tablet has been translated for the better part of a century. The problem is that many of the popular depictions of it don't give it's museum number or any other (correct) identifying information, often erroneously referring to it as a "Sumerian" object.
If you search for the museum number K. 8538 you'll find quite a bit (some still bad). That said, this article is wildly off-base.
Thanks for the landslide info! Good to have the proper knowledge. Shame there's no reliable stuff about the tablet. Maybe it hasn't been translated by a sane, competent professional
>> “[The tablet] is a copy of the night notebook of a Sumerian astronomer as he records the events in the sky before dawn on the 29 June 3123 BC”
I'm pretty sure clay tables, that had to be fired to preserve them, did not function as "notebooks". Scribes probably used either unbaked clay or wax tablets to take notes, and they would erase and overwrite them constantly like etch-a-sketch.
reply