It's not just that you need to get used to gestures, it's that they are not discoverable at all, and that they can be awkward to perform with mobility issues, old hands, short fingers, etc. It's easy to make the wrong gesture, eg. the phone detects a swipe down instead of left to right, more so if you are holding it in one hand, so it's finicky and frustrating to have to rely on it as the only way of doing a common action. Why is it so wrong to have a simple navigation bar, it doesn't take up any more space than the hideous notch at the top?
> Surely our camera gear is exponentially better now
They are better, but not exponentially. You can't beat physics, film cameras can still compete in terms of dynamic range and resolution, the optical elements haven't changed that much. The 1972 photo was taken on medium format film, which is twice the size of the sensor area in the modern one, which means more photons and less noise. The recent image was take at a really high ISO, which adds to the noisiness.
I use a Peterson strobe tuner on my smartphone, it's really good.
I've also coded my own strobe tuner to learn more, unfortunately no mobile version yet.
Sometimes I want to strike up a conversation but get no reaction or even a dismissive glance and get ignored. It feels like the universe has a script and I went off track.
yes, but is it a good foundation for relationships, after the spell is broken you maybe end up with someone who is not really compatible and the limerant starts resenting their former limerant object.
First, there should be maps and plans for all mine fields to know the exact position. But this war was insidious, and mines were planted without any method.
For me in the 90s it was the satellite dish and VHS that opened up the world in terms of content, music channels, movies, etc, channels like Cartoon Network, MTV, Viva & Viva Zwei, and so on. And then the internet for me came in '97 or '98.
There are cross platform concerns as well. If the option is to build 3-4 separate apps in different languages and with different UI toolkits to support all the major devices and operating systems, or use the web and be 80% there in terms of basic functionality, and also have better branding, I think the choice is not surprising.
In line with "the web was a mistake" I think the idea that you can create cross platform software is an equally big mistake.
You can do the core functionality of your product as cross platform, to some extend, but once you hit the interaction with the OS and especially the UI libraries of the OS, I think you'd get better software if you just accept that you'll need to write multiple application.
We see this on mobile, there's just two target platform really, yet companies don't even want to do that.
The choice isn't surprising, in a world where companies are more concerned with saving and branding, compared to creating good products.
>You can do the core functionality of your product as cross platform, to some extend, but once you hit the interaction with the OS and especially the UI libraries of the OS, I think you'd get better software if you just accept that you'll need to write multiple application.
Or you can use a VM, which is essentially what a modern browser is anyway. I wrote and maintained a Java app for many years with seamless cross platform development. The browser is the right architecture. It's the implementation that's painful, mostly for historical reasons.
But using a browser (or a VM) buys into the fallacy that your customers across different platforms (Windows, Mac, etc) want the same product. They’re already distinguished by choosing a different platform! They have different aesthetics, different usability expectations, different priorities around accessibility and discover ability. You can produce an application (or web app) that is mediocre for all of them, but to provide a good product requires taking advantage of these distinctions — a good application will be different for different platforms, whether or not the toolkit is different.
I've only done one platform gui work (python) but I'd guess this is stuff that is ripe for transpiling since a lot of gui code is just reusing the same boilerplate everyone is using to get the same ui patters everyone is using. Like if I make something in tkinter seems like it should be pretty straightforward to write a tool that can translate all my function calls as I've structured them into a chunk of Swift that would draw the same size window same buttons etc.
We get into transpiling and we essentially start to rebuild yet another cross platform framework. Starts with "read this filetype and turn it into this layout" and it ends up with "we'll make sure this can deploy on X,Y,Z,W..."
It'd be nice if companies could just play nice and agree on a standard interface. That's the one good thing the web managed to do. It's just stuck to what's ultimately 3 decades of tech debt from a prototype document reader made in a few weeks.
>It'd be nice if companies could just play nice and agree on a standard interface
They basically do though. Every cross platform native ported app I've used the GUI is the same layout. Well, except on macos the menu ribbon is on the topbar and windows it has its own ribbon layer in the application window. But that is it. All these frameworks already have feature parity with another. It is expected that they have these same functions and ui paradigms. Here's your button function. Here is where you specify window dimensions. This function opens a file browser. This one takes in user input to the textbox. I mean it is all pretty standardized and limited what you can expect to do in ui already.
There is a lot of stuff you can get done with the standard library alone of various languages that play nice on all major platforms. People tend to reach for whatever stack of dependencies is popular at the time, however.
Cross platform GUI libraries suck. Ever used a GTK app under Windows? It looks terrible, renders terrible, doesn't support HiDPI. Qt Widgets still have weird bugs when you connect or disconnect displays it rerenders UIs twice the size. None of those kinds of bugs exist for apps written in Microsoft's UI frameworks and browsers.
The problem with cross platform UI is that it is antithetical to the purpose of an OS-native UI in its reason of existence. Cross platform tries to unify the UX while native UI tries to differentiate the UX. Native UI wants unique incompatible behavior.
So the cross platform UI frameworks that try to use the actual OS components always end up with terrible visual bugs due to unifying things that don't want to be unified. Or worse many "cross platform" UI frameworks try to mimic the its developer's favorite OS. I have seen way too many Android apps that has "cross platform" frameworks that draw iOS UI elements.
The best way to do cross platform applications with a GUI (I specifically avoid cross platform UI) is defining a yet another platform above a very basic common layer. This is what Web had done. What a browser asks from an OS is a rectangle (a graphics buffer) and the fonts to draw a webpage. Nothing else. Entire drawing functionality and the behavior is redefined from scratch. This is the advantage of Web and this is why Electron works so well for applications deployed in multiple OSes.
I have created and used them. They didn't look terrible on windows.
>What a browser asks from an OS is a rectangle (a graphics buffer) and the fonts to draw a webpage. Nothing else. Entire drawing functionality and the behavior is redefined from scratch. This is the advantage of Web..
I think that is exactly what Gtk does (and may be even Qt also) too..
I think it is just there there is not much funding going to those projects. Web on the other hand, being an ad-delivery platform, the sellers really want your browsers to work and look good...
There's loads of funding. But the ones funding Qt and GTK aren't parties interested in things like cohesion or design standards. They just needed a way to deliver their product to the user in a faster way than maintaining 2-3 OS platform apps. Wanting that shipping velocity by its nature sacrifices the above elements.
The remnants of the dotcom era for web definitely helped shape it in a more design contentious way, in comparison. Those standards are created and pushed a few layers above that in which cross platform UI's work in.
Here is Bleachbit, a GTK3-based disk cleanup utility. It is a blurry mess and GTK3 Window headers are completely out of style and behavior with Windows.
> I think that is exactly what Gtk does (and may be even Qt also) too..
The problem is they half-ass it. Qt only does it with QML. Qt Widgets is half-half and it is a mess.
Overall these do not invalidate my point though. If you want a truly cross-platform application GUI, you need to rewrite the GUI for each OS. Or you give up and write one GUI that's running on its own platform.
> I think it is just there there is not much funding going to those projects. Web on the other hand, being an ad-delivery platform, the sellers really want your browsers to work and look good...
Indeed, Google employs some of the smartest software developers and ones with really niche skills like Behdad Esfahbod who created the best or the second best font rendering library out there. However, Qt has a company behind (a very very incompetent one, not just the library but operating a business). I have seen many commercial libraries too, they are all various shades of terrible.
What you see as difference here is the GNOME3 look. You can create classical GUIs just fine with Gtk. Sure it's still not Win32, but they look and feel often more native then modern Microsoft apps.
People often trip up on similar questions, anything to do with simple math. You know when they go out in the street and ask random people if 5 machines can produce 5 parts in 5 minutes, how long will it take for 100 machines.
Unlike the car question, where you can assume the car is at home and so the most probable answer is to drive, with the machines it gets complicated. Since the question doesn't specify if each machine makes one part or if they depend on each other (which is pretty common for parts production). If they are in series and the time to first part is different than time to produce 5 parts, the answer for 100 machines would be the time to produce the first part. Where if each machine is independent and takes 5 minutes to produce single part, the time would be 5 minutes.
Theory of mind won’t help you answering this question. It is obviously an underspecified question (at least in any contexts where you are not actively designing/thinking about some specific industrial process). As such theory of mind indicates that the person asking you is either not aware that they are asking an underspecified question, or are out to get you with a trick. In the first case it is better to ask clarifying question. In the second case your choosen answer depend on your temperament. You can play along with them, or answer an intentionally ridiculous answer, or just kick them in the shin to stop them messing with you.
There is nothing “mathematical” about any of this though.
>As such theory of mind indicates that the person asking you is either not aware that they are asking an underspecified question, or are out to get you with a trick.
Context would be key here. If this were a question on a grade school word problem test then just say 100, as it is as specified as it needs to be. If it's a Facebook post that says "We asked 1000 people this and only 1 got it right!" then it's probably some trick question.
If you think it's not specified enough for a grade school question, then I would challenge you to come up with a version that's specified rigorously enough for any sufficiently picky interviewee. (Hint: This is not possible)
>There is nothing “mathematical” about any of this though.
Finding the correct approach to solve a problem specified in English is a mathematical skill.
> If this were a question on a grade school word problem test then just say 100
Let me repeat the question again: "If 5 machines can produce 5 parts in 5 minutes, how long will it take for 100 machines?" Do you think that by adding 95 more machines they will suddenly produce the same 5 parts 95 minutes slower?
What kind of machine have you encountered where buying more of them the ones you already had started working worse?
> then I would challenge you to come up with a version that's specified rigorously enough for any sufficiently picky interviewee.
This is nonsense. The question is under specified. You don't demonstrate that something is underspecified by formulating a different well specified question. You demonstrate it by showing that there are multiple different potentially correct answers, and one can't know which one is the right one without obtaining some information not present in the question.
Let me show you that demonstration. If the machines are for example FDM printers each printing on their own a benchy each, then the correct answer is 5 minutes. The additional printers will just sit idle because you can't divide-and-conquer the process of 3d printing an object.
If the machines are spray paint applying robots, and the parts to be painted are giant girders then it is very well possible that the additional 95 paint guns make the task of painting the 5 girders quasi-instantaneous. Because they would surround the part and be done with 1 squirt of paint from each paint gun. This classic video demonstrates the concept: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vGWoV-8lteA
This is why the question is under specified. Because both 1ms and 5 minutes are possibly correct answers depending on what kind of machine is the "machine". And when that is the case the correct answer is neither 1ms nor 5 minutes, but "please, tell me more. There isn't enough information in the question to answer it."
Note: I'm struggling to imagine a possible machine where the correct answer is 100 minutes. But I'm sure you can tell what kind of machine you were thinking of.
It's not theory of mind, it's an understanding of how trick questions are structured and how to answer one. Pretty useless knowledge after high school - no wonder AI companies didn't bother training their models for that
It's not a trick question. It has a simple answer. It's literally impossible to specify a question about real world objects without some degree of prior knowledge about both the contents of the question and the expectation of the questioner coming into play.
The obvious answer here is 100 minutes because it's impossible to perfectly encapsulate every real life factor. What happens if a gamma ray burst destroys the machines? What happens if the machine operators go on strike? Etc, etc. The answer is 100.
There are different kind of statements. Do you mean in a defined time interval or on average? Men are stronger than women. Does that mean there is no woman who is stronger then a man? You can't drive over 50 here. Does that mean it's physically impossible?
Well, these type of questions are looking for intelligent assumptions. Similar to IQ tests, you are supposed to understand patterns and make educated guesses.
reply