You chose your username here and in most other places.
You can even change it easily on many platforms.
Your username doesn't require you to show your ID and have your calls tapped and traced towards your person.
The problem I'm seeing here with the responses is that people are only thinking of "one move." That first move is creating a anonymous username. Yay. Easy. Now here's the problem. How do I share that while staying anonymous? What conditions do I need? If I can only have one username for all of Signal, does that create a bigger problem? There's a few more "moves" for you and these are what I'm looking for answers to.
I would only recommend Ripptoe if you’re already strength training or have a passion for the mechanics of strength exercises, because if it’s not immediately practical or a fascination, the book will likely bore you.
Opposite of my experience, helps you have the proper mechanical info to learn the basics, skipping marketing nonsense and mumbo jumbo. Knowing how to lift something heavy safely goes beyond the practice of strength training, it's a life skill.
also, this is going to make your address reputation plummet, if you enjoy convincing (often in exchange for a 30$+ commission) 100+ different blacklist operators that you're not a spammer please use this tool
I guess it's a good thing the web is built for users rather than designers, then, isn't it? Oh wait.
On a more serious note, screw all the font **ery. Settings → Language and Appearance → Advanced → untick Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above. Better to have some crappy websites glitch out a bit than get a headache from trying to read 200 different fonts in a day.
I switched to using ublock origin to do that, since I can quickly add an exception for a site. Some sites use fonts for icons. Most of them are still usable but just look a bit silly, but sometimes it's annoying to the point that I want to add an exception.
Yep that's how I so that, although in step 4 I don't have to click "more", I immediately have an icon with a capital A that toggles fonts at the bottom. But maybe I configured it to automatically expand something that is by default hidden behind a more button... I honestly don't remember.
I do think that sites should strive to "just work" with nice system fonts (and respect user agent settings), but this is just an obtuse answer.
You can ship your own fonts. Everyone and their dog uses one of two web browser engines. People want their websites to "look right". You can offer a fully specified look!
And there is always someone on XP who complains your website looks like crap because their defaults look like crap while every other website bundled it’s own fonts and inputs.
everything that I use computers for has been ultimately to produce aesthetics to my exacting standards a example of which is the 8 years taken from first sketch of my redesign for the company logo to first example of use. But I refuse to allow applications like Figma on my company computing assets. You probably wouldn't be hired if you used such things as part of your work flow anyway. Good design begins with pencil and paper and writing down the words describing what you are trying to accomplish. Art has its own internal function and architectural laws of physics and materials sciences. Great art is like cathedrals (of very well thought out bazaars) the culmination of not only one or more crucial leaders of the design, but the ecosystem of cultural heritage and interpretation and conversation and argument that you are communicating with the viewer. When your typical Figma dogmatic sees their font rendering to their knee jerk repulsion that's really being affronted to have their South Park Authority challenged, all I am seeing is the subtleties and nuances of a critic composition potentially becoming unstable rather in the manner a engineer sees weakening structures and worries about how long and effectively can the edifice perform it's intended task.
I was told so recently. But it wasn't even for the font loading. It was to load the animated transition to transit from nothing to the entry page.
So to instead of dropping (or at least thinking about optimizing) the loading transition the designer (with a straight face) proposed a loading bar for the loading of the loading animation.
I’m sure there’s a few exception, but why do anyone care about which font is used as long as the basics such as fixed or sans serif is applied correctly?
The answer is most likely branding, but I don’t recall landing on a company website and going: “That’s not the font from their design guidelines. This is unacceptable, I shall take my business elsewhere”
All this tweaking and hacking font loading is a vaste of time.
I gather from your comment that you don’t do frontend. I don’t either. I also think it’s a waste of time. But I think you and I are not the intended audience. I think frontend people are trying to design an experience for users. The same way you or I might be designing an architecture for the system. They want it to look and feel a certain way in order to provoke a response.
Branding is bit subtler than that — you’re not going to really say anything about Target’s consistent styling, versus Walmart’s fairly austere aesthetic, but you definitely get a different “feel” from each, before looking at their actual contents/stock.
I don’t know whether fonts are really that important to the total equation, but “not terrible enough to walk out the door” is generally a very low bar to meet when designing a thing.
Another example in the app space — you know enterprise apps will get the job done, but they’re downright unpleasant to use; from aesthetics to workflow efficiency, they just barely hover over “dealing with it isn’t worth the output”. But that’s generally not where you want things to sit as a design goal.
> Another example in the app space — you know enterprise apps will get the job done, but they’re downright unpleasant to use; from aesthetics to workflow efficiency, they just barely hover over “dealing with it isn’t worth the output”.
While this is a good point, i don't feel like a discussion about fonts is relevant here. For example, when working with Jira, i don't care about what font it uses, as long as it is legible (e.g. even whatever is the default sans-serif font would work), whereas what actually matters to me in such a context is the responsiveness of the UI and how well it works, UX over UI.
If Jira's interface is laggy and slow, or just cumbersome to use because their implementation of custom fields is weird, no font or logo choices will make any of that markedly better. In my eyes, how something looks is largely decoupled from how well it works - if Jira were a GTK/Win32 app with almost no styling, but worked faster than it currently does, i'd probably get more value out of it than i currently do, fancy UI or not.
(just using Jira as an example here, because their UI redesign did make things slower and got some backlash from users that was ultimately ignored, i bet the same applies to a lot of other software out there, e.g. how Flutter apps oftentimes break right click behaviour in browsers etc.)
I’m not sure I understand the point about enterprise apps, because that can go both ways. Custom company application tend to be the worst, because they apply all the company branding guidelines, rather than just applying to system defaults.
I’m not making the case that one being better than the other, or really trying to say anything about custom vs enterprise.
My main point is simply that there’s a significant gap between “it can be used” and “it can be used well” — and a designer’s primary job is to bridge that gap (generally the engineer in us takes us to “it can be used”). That (some? many? majority?) designers aren’t competent is a separate concern… but their abstract goals are fairly obvious and intuitive if difficult to specify concretely
And we understand this intuitively, because there are many apps in our section of the universe that fall under it can be used — back-office apps, enterprise apps, etc a constant offender (not say good ones don’t exist, or bad custom apps don’t exist, or bad designers/designs don’t exist… etc — but we’ve all probably encountered a good few that are astoundingly unpleasant to use)
yup, users then even feel violated because some "great" manager somewhere told devs to screw over users settings and for example force user to look at animations, which is like 100 times worse than fonts mentioned earlier.
I still don’t see how picking a custom font over a default one contributed much to communication. Sure, the font need to be legable, clear destinction between letters all that stuff, but the system fonts is most likely better than a custom one for those things anyway.
Design and art communicate. In fact, that's all they do.
Fonts are associated with different periods of time, different groups of people, different artistic and even philosophical movements. Picking a font can help communicate how you see yourself and what you are trying to achieve. A picture paints a thousand words.
A world without typography would be a poorer world.
Then why not share all typography with everyone under a license, that allows every OS maker to include all the fonts they want plus allowing users to choose what else to install and then only use system fonts? That way we can have it all, fast websites, without additional secret server side tracking, and the fonts of the system being used and the artist getting their message communicated. No need for any web font.
We can definitely agree on that. I would want every designer to be able to express themselves as they wish to, without forcing their vision on everyone.
I just don't want to download megabytes of fonts when visiting a website, sending an additional request to some Google servers. It will always remain blocked on my end. I hope we can somehow get to a solution, that allows each side their choices, instead of prefering one dictating how things are regardless of the other side's wishes. That means, if I choose to have all websites display their text in some font meant for dyslexia, I should have the possibility to do so, without the whole design breaking. If I enjoy monospaced fonts perhaps (although that is a stretch) even that. Or if I just want my plain and simple system fonts, I should be able to do that and still make use of the website like every other visitor.
At least this much I expect from a proper design. CSS these days is so powerful, I would expect web designers to know their tools, including what can be done with CSS3, their choices and the consequences for visitors.
I am not even a frontend developer mainly. I do all kinds of things, sometimes also frontend, but I prefer not to. Yet I have apparently informed myself more about what is possible with CSS and the right approach to responsive design, than what I see implemented in many websites. I feel that some basic knowledge about what CSS can do should be a minimum requirement for anyone touching frontend stuff. It makes me question, whether there ever has been a web designer giving proper thought about some websites and a person, who has tested these things like "What happens, if the webfont is not loaded?". Maybe the website is some quick and dirty output of some tool, and the actual person developing the website had no good knowledge about web development and their tools. Ultimately what does a website consist of? Mostly HTML, CSS and perhaps if needed some JS. Some static resources like images, OK. If one does not know these well, how does one expect to deliver good work?
Perhaps it is also that people are not given enough time to really make a good design and implement that with proper CSS. Design and implementation of it takes time. It is the reason, why there is a job or role called web designer, UX designer. Someone actually gets down to it and does a good job, that earns my respect. But not this "Oh you used a slightly different font, the design of this website cannot work properly any longer!"-crap.
i have tried to ask people a simple question. "why do you think you know fonts better than microsoft or apple?" not to even talk about linux for a moment here. do these multi trillion dollar companies making operating systems do a shit job at fonts that each and every website developer needs to use google fonts that increase dependency on third parties than using system default fonts?
I don't know the technical details of font implementations. But I do know on my low ppi monitor, Ubuntu fonts look far better than both Windows and MacOS.
How productive do you think it would be to open a bug report with Microsoft telling them that Segoe UI/Arial/etc. are hideous? Do you think they will change them for me and/or license some good looking fonts to bundle with Windows?
Complaining and not using them is the only real option.
do you have a specific problems with fonts in say gnome or kde team? they would be more responsive for sure.
besides, i refuse to accept that the billions microsoft and apple in particular spent on truetype/cleartype fonts or whatever the tech is, is so poor that you are forced to use something else. i... i mean how can that be.... do you have some proof of this?
>Complaining and not using them is the only real option.
so microsoft and apple will be in your opinion forever content with shipping "shitty fonts" as "defaults" which run on billions of devices, android comes with fonts that run on many billion devices and they ALL are using shitty defaults and these multi trillion dollar companies do not know better than your average hacker news reader. nice. i am in good company lads.
Not particularly a fan of custom fonts, but fonts are not one size fits all. Apple or Microsoft default fonts are designed for the general use case, and other fonts might be more suited in a different context. Whether that's worth the cost, that's a different question.
come on. i am not expecting to visit an art gallery when i browse the current website or your local news portal or a blog or youtube. do you really think each and every website "needs" to individually tailor fonts to their "exact millimeter position" or otherwise the result will be utter garbage?
>and other fonts might be more suited in a different context
that is why "general use case" is my point. can you point me a specific example of where my current default "noto sans 10 pt" in kde neon is NOT suited for a specific use case? i want to see that unless i use a developer decided font, i would be totally off base, i would miss the plot, i would read garbage, etc etc.
The "digital plaza" ownership and total control on one's own community is a literal 2.99 euro/month VPS running mastodon away.
Shitposting one's thoughts by arranging pixels on a public forum is NOT a necessity, it's a luxury. If you value it as a necessity consider funding your own for yourself and others you care about, it would end up costing about 7 euro/year if you find even just 4 other like-minded persons.
If there's a community that's going to hunt you down until they find the info they need in your ultraspecific, obscure, niche blog, it's metalheads.
Open a quick forum and work on it, build SEO articles, ask people to share articles on other pages, and grow your community double the one you had on FB instead of despairing and worrying about stupid upvotes. Best of luck
Websites which were like that didn't last long, and mostly were hosted on free webservers.
If you want to get rid of nostalgia please spend 60 whole minutes making sense of HTML+PHP5.6+jQuery copy pasted code. And make it IE6 compatible. And use tables for layout. And don't use stackoverflow, caniuse, or an IDE. You'll soon understand how we reached the current state of things.
t. Boomer that spends 8+ hours straightening PHP5.6 sghettis for a living, who still swears by FTPZilla and jQuery scripts.
Vanilla JS is quite nice these days, the only advantages jQuery has now is the fact that it's somewhat less verbose for DOM things and has support for old browsers.
// For example, instead of
$("#somebutton").click(() => alert("Hello"))
// You would do
document.querySelector("#somebutton").addEventListener("click", () => alert("Hello"));
// Instead of
$("#message").text("Important Message")
// You would do
document.querySelector("#message").textContent = "Important Message";
// Instead of
$("#things .thing").css("color", "red")
// You would do
for(let e of document.querySelectorAll("#things .thing")) e.style.color = "red";
// Instead of
await $.ajax("https://httpbin.org/get").then((_1, _2, {responseJSON}) => responseJSON)
// You would do
await fetch("https://httpbin.org/get").then(e => e.json())
I wholeheartedly disagree with this defeatist attitude, which is supposed to magically lead to change more than actually planning and actioning chance itself.
Nowhere in life change happens without trauma. Get good at trauma and you'll get good at life.
I suggest to learn one's own limits through suffering and systematically repeated failure. It's the only way to build not only a map of current yourself, but also a trail towards your future self.
Time is ticking, memento mori, the beatings will continue until morale improves.
I found that shocking to read. It's a million miles from my experience of life. That sounds horrible. Perhaps you've found it true, but please stop saying it like it's true for everyone, a fact of life. I can't even imagine how you could believe such a thing, well, it works for you or something, I guess. Also, saying that then complaining in the same breath that someone else is defeatist! is hard to swallow. That sounds a cold, hard world that you live in. Good luck. I don't think it's the only world, by any stretch, though. Although I'm sure I misunderstand you - that's a very foreign language to me, everything about it is strange. Beatings, suffering, trauma.. :-(
I think you're responding to the use of the word trauma. OP is correct, but perhaps OP should have used a different word.
We don't make progress unless we take risks and move outside of our comfort zone. Sometimes, those risks don't pay off, and the result is painful in some way. Maybe that pain is "traumatic", maybe not. Certainly, if the risks don't pay off, then we need to be willing to live with the painful result. This necessarily requires an understanding that pain is OK, and that accepting the risk of pain is a necessary part of growth.
A lot of people like to fantasize about being on the other side, about having already undergone that personal growth. Fantasy is easy, but it's not a replacement for the real thing, and engaging in too much fantasy will give you feelings of guilt and/or resentment for not actually being on the other side. There are two healthy directions to deal with this: you either give up on the fantasy and accept being where you are (i.e. what the article advocates), or you fully accept the costs and risks that are needed to get there, so that you can actually start on the journey to get there.
Moving outside of your comfort zone is not inherently painful. Sure it may be uncomfortable or scary but it certainly doesn't imply trauma. I interpreted OP's comments as trauma being the causative factor for change to occur, not that change results in trauma.
"Fully accepting the costs and risks needed to get there" sounds like you're preparing for a hike to the antarctic or something. Not all changes have to be this dire.
Deciding to get fit is not really a sacrifice. Rather, it is turning certain disciplines into habits. If you have enough leverage to force you to do that, there is no pain or trauma involved.
> "Fully accepting the costs and risks needed to get there" sounds like you're preparing for a hike to the antarctic or something. Not all changes have to be this dire. Deciding to get fit is not really a sacrifice. Rather, it is turning certain disciplines into habits.
I think you're downplaying what it's like for many people to start making fitness a larger part of their life. It might as well be a hike to the antarctic. In the beginning, the costs can seem very, very high, even if they get easier with time. What makes those costs bearable is a genuine acceptance of them, and what oftentimes triggers that genuine acceptance is a health scare that shows people what the alternative is.
Unless you have legitimate health issues that make exercise painful, the anticipated cost is a greater than the actual cost.
It is still unrealistic to say that they are “very very high” though. The main barriers imo are not the perceived cost of exercise but the lack of perceived benefits. Certainly a health scare can make exercise seem more appealing.
The benefits of exercise are only seen over time. In the short term, the benefits may not outweigh the efforts so those seeking instant gratification will find it difficult to justify expending the effort. I don’t think it’s the costs being “very very high” that prevent most people from exercising.
Thousands of ancestors did not fight for comfort only for me to whine and complain "more". Embrace the comfort zone, for a heavy price had been paid for it by humanity!
You both seem to be on opposite ends of a spectrum. I agree with OP in that living implies a certain amount of suffering… at some point, life stops giving you things and starts taking things away. That is an inevitable consequence of being alive, and it fucking hurts to loose your best friends, or your parents. But you still can choose for yourself what you make of that.
OP and commenter have experienced opposite ends. Commenter wants to make sure that one’s life experience isn’t extrapolated to everyone else’s and generalized. You can relate more with OP than commenter but they are your individual experiences. Doesn’t mean they’re uncommon. It could be that commenter’s experiences are rarer. Commenter’s ask is to not treat OP’s, yours or even their own life experiences as inevitable facts of life.
Thank you, yep. Also, I've had many awful things happen to me in life, don't get me wrong! (e.g. years of bullying at home and school, years of schizophrenia, homelessness/losing everything etc) My point was just that a lot of the changes I've made, in myself, my beliefs, self-beliefs, my actions etc happened absolutely "without trauma". In my 20s mostly I read a lot of self-help, psychology, spirituality etc books and put a lot of it into practice, which was work, but it wasn't traumatic at all. It was wonderful. I just know that "Nowhere in life change happens without trauma" is very far from true. (But possibly I totally misunderstand what they meant by that)
No. That happens since you are born, you leave the comfort of the uterus, then eventually you cannot suck more your mom's tits, a new baby comes in and you are not longer the smallest one, you have to go to kindergarten,etc, etc, all those are pretty challenging/traumatic events when adjusted by age and then the changes keep coming. By all means not all changes are bad or even difficult but constantly through life you will have plenty of them. One thing I have learned in life is that you need to control very carefully your comfort and pleasure, too little and life is miserable, too much and you become indulgent, weak willed, afraid of change and you stagnate. Most humans live in the "too comfortable" spectrum (this not only means being materially comfortable, it may mean not trying to change, playing it safe, not daring to do things), so one or two whips courtesy of life could work wonders.
The word "traumatic" did not used to mean "somewhat uncomfortable". And most of the ones you mentioned are not even uncomfortable for all kids. Plenty of kids just loose interest in breastfeeding, goes to kindergarten without major issue and is curios/happy/indifferent when siblings come.
Completely agree. Life's more intense parts that make all those sweet memories that one can be proud of for rest of ones life are well outside the comfort zone.
I see it daily in some of my former peers - literally frozen in space and time. By all means if that's your goal go for it, but when these folks are confronted with somebody more active, somebody who steps out of that comfort zone when needed (or cca lives there semi permanently) their reactions tell a different story.
When I was climbing Matterhorn, (or even Mont Blanc on skis in some places) there were certain times I was shitting myself from fear of the abyss and clear and present danger all around me. When I decided to get into paragliding, first solo flights were not so much different - 1km vertical drop just below your ass is something one can't prepare oneself beforehand. Those memories, and many many more are part of my core and will be there till I die, putting a slight smile on my face whenever I remember them or see the spot from afar.
Heck, being next to my wife when giving both births was not comfortable at all, seeing all that suffering and uncertainty and being able to do very little to alleviate it, but its one of those few moments that define me as a parent and human being.
Pushing into the danger zone leaves you open to getting hurt. Enough doing that, and eventually you will. Avoiding pain and avoiding risk is avoiding life.
Some are just handed everything they need yet still fail. I started out in life with advantages, although didn't realise it at the time. Went through a series of dead end jobs, a failed business, a few failed relationships, ended up on the street.
My real luck came along when someone gave me a chance to get back on my feet and start afresh with the benefit of all that experience and the knowledge of what can happen. I realised that, previously, I was just unmotivated to do what was necessary to achieve anything in life, I was coasting along and not really trying.
I do OK now, I work hard and make sacrifices, don't waste money and invest all my spare income. Not exactly rocket science, I just wish I had started sooner.
You are the defeatist: you seem to think people cannot get better without suffering.
The article just states that to actually be better, a good starter is to remove the useless comparison with an idealized future self, because it brings no good and it’s actually harmful.
That sucks. Compare that to squares who didn't get bullied, straight B student, listened to parents advice and guidance, didn't abuse substances, got a degree, did 9-5 and got a house from it. No trauma needed.
Very often, the desire to change arises from experiencing major pain (of which trauma is one kind).
But this is not always the case. The impetus for change spans the spectrum of human emotions including dissatisfaction, pleasure seeking, existentialist realizations and envy/peer influence.
Trauma is definitely not a pre-requisite for change. It may be the most observable external cause to the effect, but that doesn't mean it is more useful than the rest.
The people I know who reinvent themselves the most are those driven by joie de vivre and a sense of self-expression.
Most sibling comments are already pointing out how sad this idea is, but I’ll add this: apparently you to refuse accept that acceptance can “magically” lead to change. On the other hand, I claim that acceptance (of reality) is the Only way to change! For a (deep down) very simple reason: if you want to change reality, you have to start from reality. This means accepting it. Living in an imagined world leads to no change.
This is (one of) the core ideas of buddhism-related philosophies. I suggest you give those a chance!
>Nothing in life happens without trauma. That’s Not True. If you accept reality and see that some change is Right, you Do it. No trauma. This is a Fact, and again, dealing with facts and accepting what is true is very liberating.
And look man, I’m in a pretty confused situation myself right now, but we all trying to figure out what’s best!
