Ironically, that notation, which I just discovered, confuses me more than anything else.
Logs clicked for me when someone online said "amongst all the definitions we have for logs, the most useful and less taught is that log() is just a power". At that exact instant, it's like if years of arcane and foreign language just disappeared in front of my eyes to leave only obviousness and poetry.
I don't understand the comment about it just being a power, but, for me, knowing that it's filling in the third vertice on the triangle with exponents at the top, and n on the other is what makes it work for me - I now know in my head when I am looking for the log of n, I am looking for the exponent that would turn the log into n.
I don't go looking for the exact log, I only look for whole numbers when I am calculating the value in my mind.
But it makes sense when I am looking for the log2 of 8 to know that the answer is "what exponent will make 2 into 8"? and that's "3"
This seems interesting. I've been thinking lately of re-installing a tilling WM on my daily driver because I have a wide screen and I spend more time rearranging and searching for windows than doing actual things on it. Also, it seems that all that screen estate could be put to better use with a tilling WM. Guess I'll give Niri a try, maybe it will fit my needs.
Same here, I was actually reading the comments to see if someone had the same reaction. I'm not even much older than them, but enough that I look at 20 yo people as if they were inexperienced children.
This being said, time for my daily nitpicking: 7÷0.35=20, not ~21. Although I agree that 20 ≈ 21.
Tip of you find yourself having to break a car window and you don't have this kind of tool: supposedly, you can remove your headrest and hit the window in a corner with the metal rods to break it.
I don't have the luxury of being able to try, nor have I ever had the necessity to try, so take this with a grain of salt. But if there's any truth in there, better to know about it than feeling helpless.
I almost never use the Play Store (I have my apps and haven't installed new ones for some years) so I didn't notice this, but I just tested and confirm this feels freaking dumb.
I followed some introductory course to UX a few years ago, and this seems to go against the very essence of what I remember of it, which is mainly "put things where the user expects them, officialize the desire paths"...
Am I the only one abashed by the fact that the reverse engine trigger is a slider on the touch screen? That's probably the last control I would have thought about putting on the touch screen.
It's a control you only need when the car is turned on and standing still. The rest of the time it's just taking up space/material/attention. Sounds pretty suitable for a touch screen to me, though I'd probably be mystified for some time stepping into an unfamiliar car that does this.
I can count on more than one hand the times where I had to reverse quickly because my current position was putting myself or others at risk, either because of my fault or because of careless drivers fault.
All in all, it's a control that helps you maneuver a 2 tons vehicle, like your wheel, your gas pedal and your brake pedal.
I personally think this kind of control should never depend on a flimsy touchscreen that can break or bug more easily than a mechanical control (although I agree it's less important that the wheel and pedals).
You can always slow to a stop with your hazards on.
I rail against touch and ambiguous controls in safety critical applications more than most, but continuing to drive when you can't see properly is akin to get-there-itis.
> You can always slow to a stop with your hazards on.
With low visibility slowing down in the middle of the road is not save either though, given that those behind you don't expect it, and that few people keep sufficient distance. Same with standing on the side in such conditions.
In the described situation I think the best option is to be able and use the right buttons quickly, sticking to the original subject of the discussion. The option that would let you safely keep going with the flow is the best one I would say, under the given conditions.
Even if a million scenarios and alternatives can be thought of, what's the point of derailing a discussion focused on a particular subject? We only have a few hundred comments of room here, I think there is more value in keeping the focus.
The discussion isnt derailed, it branched off. The point is to bring up an adjacent point.
And while the ideal scenario is of course that no problem arises, and second being that the problem is swiftly and efficiently resolved.. given those scenarios do not occur, and you have to decide between "keep going without seeing the road" and "putting hazards on and slowly coming to a complete stop", the latter definitely seems more reasonable in every way.
Of course specific scenarios where stopping will be less safe can be thought up, but statistically speaking, I dont see how an uncontrolled multi-ton moving object would be more safe that a stationary one.
> In the described situation I think the best option is to be able and use the right buttons quickly, sticking to the original subject of the discussion.
Yes, obviously, but poorly designed or failed equipment does not absolve you of your responsibility to drive safely.
> Even if a million scenarios and alternatives can be thought of, what's the point of derailing a discussion focused on a particular subject?
The topic is road safety and the point is both pertinent and revealing. The attitude in your comment and others are highlighting basic failures in driver training, independent of the equipment design.
Honestly, I think you should reflect on your attitude here before you end up a road traffic statistic.
Nothing you've said is valid or solves the problem any better than what they originally said. The problem has already happened and remains a problem regardless what the driver attempts to do about it at that point.
You are already operating the vehicle in traffic in bad conditions for yourself and everyone else, and still need to be able to operate the vehicle and still need to be able to see no matter which of the possible reactions you believe is least-risk at that particular time.
Whether you judge that the least-risk response is to turn on hazards and slow down or even stop right in the road where other drivers who you can not see are not expecting it, whether you can find a place to pull over and see it clearly enough to be absolutely sure there is not a child standing there, or to make no changes to current behavior at all so that you are the most predictable to everyone else, you still need to be able to operate the vehicle and see the road and other vehicles in order to do any of those. None of your suggestions gets around that, even coming to a full stop with hazards on.
Your theory also depends on other drivers to see you and your hazards. Where is the hazard control? This whole discussion is about poor controls.
Even if they did exactly what you who were not there presumes to declare they should have done, it doesn't change anything. It doesn't change the problem or solve the problem or work around the problem.
It actually does solve the problem safely and effectively. The fact you don't recognise this is a driver training failure.
I mean this in the most charitable way possible - you should refrain from driving until you rectify this issue, either through self reflection or remedial training. Until then, you are a danger to yourself and others.
>> Yes, obviously, but poorly designed or failed equipment does not absolve you of your responsibility to drive safely.
I agree with you on this -- but that is not how people behave. Just because people should behave that way, doesnt mean they do. People have a natural inclination to try and fix the problem by giving up a bit of attention -- that is bad for all of us who are affected by these decisions -- and this means -- fix the design.
If drivers feel compelled to take their eyes off the road for extended periods to locate critical controls, it doesn’t matter if they could have made other choices. The safe choice should be easy or it’s a bad user interface.
You could, and hear me out because I know it could be super difficult to do…move one arm a little bit and wipe away some of the fogging so you can see where you are going to pull over…
Why are people so exceptional lazy that they would put other people at risk while they wait for a machine to do something for them, rather than reaching up and wiping away some of the condensation so they can safely operate the vehicle? Are people really this astonishingly incompetent?
A child could die from cancer or from falling while playing, and no vaccination or blood thinner can prevent this. I can understand op's reference to providence in not having to face these tragedies.
Yeah, but his kid died of measles, and his other kid got hit by a car (something that is actually also solvable with technology).
Literally every problem discussed in the article was solvable or mitigatable with science or technology, except the political problem of fascism, which was effectively solved by 20 mm cannon fire from Dahl's Spitfire fighter plane.
