>> > It's just designers trying to justify their own salary.
>> Seems a little unfair.
Not when you've been using computers for 35 years and have seen it migrate from flat to nice to gratuitous and now back to flat.
The original bevels on buttons were a nice indicator that it was in fact a thing you could push. Lots of subtle cues were added in the late 90's and UI probably reached a high point. Then the graphics hardware got awesome and compositing with lots of effects became possible. These were used because they looked neat at first glance. Designers wanted to stand out and went crazy with bling. Then there was backlash, and now the trend is toward flat, simple, and frankly - in many cases - ugly UI. The pendulum is swinging too far back the other way IMHO. But not to worry, it will go back in time and we'll eventually have another high point. Probably better than the previous high since touch and swipe and all kinds of new things will be properly part of the picture.
Got it, thanks. The other guy did say: "Not when you've been using computers for 35 years and have seen it migrate from flat to nice to gratuitous and now back to flat."
Are you a newbie to the Internet? Been living under a rock? What do you want me to do cite each example with what Social Justice Warriors say they want?
I'm not new to the internet, but you are definitely new to HN. Well-reasoned and supported arguments are valued here, not baseless and fragmented conspiracy theories.
Individuals have agendas and are attacking people due to their ideology. Look at the thread you are in. PG was attacked by people over something he never said. They didn't do it for no reason, they did it because they saw a chance to draw blood for their twisted cause. Where's the wild conspiracy again? It's not a conspiracy. It's a group of very public, transparent, active, and vocal people who are creating divisive rifts in the tech world. They are post modernists who believe in patriarchy theory and think the only way that they can destroy all of the social constructs is by forcefully enforcing public punishment for thought-crimes. Or something. It gets kind of silly.
Consider the two previous needlessly dramatic tragedies caused by the SJWs:
Donglegate - humor is problematic, and worth getting a guy fired over.
Nodegate - empathy doesn't extend to having empathy over cultural differences of people who do not understand why people would care about pronouns, which drove off one of the top contributors.
There will for sure be more to come!
>Well-reasoned and supported arguments are valued here, not baseless and fragmented conspiracy theories.
My argument is that SJWs are a terrible blight on tech as well as everywhere else. They hurt everyone and help no one. If you disagree with something I stated then tell me and I'll show you examples of people who hold that belief, and actively champion it in the tech world. Unless that's not what you are after. In which case what you do think my thesis is?
Yeah, dude, totally all of the people linked to and discussed in http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction are fake! I didn't link to it to show that there are examples of people who believe the things I listed on. Come on who would believe people were so crazy.
Are you serious? I linked to TIA because they showcase the crazies. I'm not criticizing TIA, but linking to them because they very plainly detail what I was talking about in earlier posts.
Sorry, deleted because I was going to check out of this, but you replied.
I'm glad you finally found yourself a primary source, however that still doesn't prove your thesis that this particular incident is an example of what you are talking about.
OK. You could have said that before. I could have linked to the people who were attacking PG for the misquote, and showing how they fall in line with the examples of what people want.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, go click around the SJW corners of the Internet a bit. There are tons of people who think this way. It's prevalent enough that I'd not blame anyone for not providing a bibliography.
When describing the radical views of others, it should seem obvious that a link to their 'manifesto' or something would be necessary. Suggesting that 'the info is out there' is a piss poor excuse for a weak argument.
Seeing a polarized culture, hating it and joining an equally polarized culture seems to be a bit counter-intuitive. I think it's pretty clear that his TRP views are coloring his description of his enemies.
Seems a little unfair.