If you are a fan for other reasons than the complaining it might be a problem for you if all his content, over time, has turned into complaining.
Personally, I have never seen anything other than complaining from him, so I'm not sure why you would be a fan and also have a problem with the amount of complaining (which afaik has always been close to 100% of the content).
> If somebody wants to have a YouTube channel where they just complain, why is that a problem?
Because the complaining isn’t as fair and balanced as he presents it. He likes the stir the pot and he spreads misinformation along the way.
It’s a problem because he has a wide audience of people who adopt the anger that he puts out and accept it as ground truth. It’s a smaller scale version of people who get their opinions from people like Joe Rogan, who fill their time with misinformed rants.
Instead of throwing around generalized and unspecific claims, can you (without googling) point out specific cases where he spread misinformation? Without correction?
There was a Veritasium video about these two modes. Survival mode is triggered not just by food scarcity, but also by extreme heat, extreme cold, and one other thing (I forgot).
But is it really worth fixing these things? What do you achieve by spending time and money to fix these details, other than making users slightly less annoyed by your design? Maybe these details are not fixed because they don’t really matter that much. Have you ever stopped using an app because a button or icon was slightly misaligned?
I think realistically it's more of a situation of why don't they just work correctly in the first place. It's not that everyone should spend extreme amounts of efforts for perfection it's that this is one of the most basic things that should just be correct out of the box.
It doesn't give me much confidence in the company's seriousness about quality. When I see these kinds of things in applications, my mind starts thinking, "OK, I wonder what else they half-assed?" Does the main functionality really work? If they can't even notice problems that you can literally see with your eyes, what important invisible things are broken, too? Should I really fork over hard-earned money for the premium version if they can't even get basic shit right?
I dunno. I found out that people who do care about how things look like, tend not to care about how they work and whether they are practical. And the other way round too. The slightly misaligned button is not "basic shit". It is useless shit.
And this works on company level too. The groups that spend a lot of time caring about visuals tend not to give a damm about much else.
I can see the difference between practical design and bad design. A misaligned button is usually the latter.
Those who just want the thing to work without much regard for the looks of it will tend to use whatever default their UI package comes with, with minimal styling, if at all. It is often not bad in terms of correctness. Defaults may not look great, but they are usually well designed and consistent.
If you have alignment problems, it is often because you tried to do something to the looks, but did it poorly.
I did not mean it as in difference between "practical design and bad design". I do agree there is usually tension between the two.
Simply, people who care about function wont notice misaligned button. And people who are notice misaligned button usually prioritize visual stuff over everything. That extends to managers and whole companies.
Pretty much no UI package will have everything aligned out of the box, it is not even possible. When you use them out of the box without tweaking, you either get misaligned things.
> Have you ever stopped using an app because a button or icon was slightly misaligned?
Maybe, maybe not, maybe it made me not use the app in the first place.
It is one of these little things that make the app look unprofessional. I have been a bit uncomfortable using banking apps with misaligned icons. It the designers can get away with misaligned icons, what can the core developers get away with? If a company is sloppy with their design, maybe they are sloppy with their security too.
People can easily see these visual details, they can't see the back-end but for the lack of information, they will assume it is made with the same care, that is, not much. And maybe they are right.
I think it comes down to which type of market you’re in. In some markets, like highly congested markets, design makes a big difference. It can be less important in more niche markets
Totally agree - I think that all the examples included in the article (including high-profile software from wealthy vendors) just show it's not THAT important to have everything pixel perfect aligned and meticulously crafted, it needs to be usable and somewhat good looking and that's enough.
It would be useful if Firefox recorded which configs the user changed. Imagine if you could view a chronological, tabular list of all configs that you changed. Name, default value, changed value, date.
Firefox has all of this except the date. `about:config` lists all config values, values in bold do not match their default or do not exist by default, values can be reverted with one click, and there's a checkbox to filter out unmodified items.
But does that include the personalized settings for a specific site?
I mean Tools menu -> Page Info -> Permissions
An example: the gong doesn't sounds when a game starts in lichess if you have autoplay disabled for sound. You need to allow that for the site. There are other configurations there like accepting cookies, etc.
about:preferences#privacy, scroll down a bit, it's under "Permissions". You can also adjust it when on the site, using the icon at the left of the URL bar.
Explain like I’m five: Why do these modern electric helicopters have many small rotors, but traditional helicopters have only one big horizontal rotor? If many small rotors is more efficient, why haven’t non-electric helicopters done it?
Almost certainly because electric motors can be directly coupled to each small rotor. It would be much harder to have individual engines directly mounted to small rotors, requiring additional weight and complexity), and there would be a mechanical complexity and efficiency loss if using a single engine to distribute torque to a number of different rotors through complex gearing and driveshaft mechanisms. Possible probably, but perhaps not lighter or more efficient.
More rotors aren’t more efficient: the more rotor area you have, the more efficient.
Whether you achieve that with 4 small rotors or 1 big rotor is immaterial.
The reason eVTOLs use many small rotors is because an eVTOLs only operate in vertical mode for a short period of takeoff and landing. They aim to be normal fixed wing aircraft for most of the flight!
A helicopter like big rotor would be inefficient- adding weight and drag during forward flight. Helicopters on the other hand, spend the entire flight in vertical mode, for which a big rotor is most efficient.
this stems from newtons second law, but is neglecting second order effects like interference
The modern electric multirotor drones (e.g., quad-, hexa-, octo-copters) are the result of computer controls allowing a configuration that is so unstable that no human could fly it to be actually implemented as aircraft that are much more agile, reliable, robust, and easier to fly (onboard or remotely) than helicopters. They also have a smaller footprint than a helicopter.
Integrating multirotor technology into a fixed-wing aircraft in a VTOL configuration allows for the small takeoff/landing footprint of a helicopter with the flight efficiency of a fixed-wing aircraft.
Not a helicopter, nor an expert in them, but modern electrical engines are significantly more efficient than traditional ICE motors. Also, the scalability of existing small-form quadcopters (etc) means it's much easier for companies to start from the ground up with that sort of tech, rather than developing a complicated rotor/contra rotor set up.
Basically, it would have been very difficult to go the contemporary route in decades gone by, whilst it doesn't quite make as much sense for the usage scenarios to go the traditional route.
My lay understanding is that more rotors are more efficient, but also more unstable due to a concept known as disc loading (the ratio of weight vs swept area of the blades). I'd guess the main reason we don't see more than two rotors on traditional helicopters is partly due to the complexity of transmitting power to multiple locations from a single engine (or having multiple engines), and partly because making such a system responsive enough for stable flight is hard. Electric motors neatly solve both problems.
? Why do these modern electric helicopters have many small rotors, but traditional helicopters have only one big horizontal rotor? If many small rotors is more efficient
so that it can easily maneuver around skyscrappers while beating city traffic and picking their customers
You can rotate them in such a way to use the lifting surfaces (wings) for efficiency during ranged flight while preserving VTOL capabilities. They're more redundant versions of the Osprey.
1. view the post on Facebook’s website
2. … menu > Embed
3. copy the link containing the date info (e.g. “6 hours ago”)