Dag Ågren @WAHa_06x36@mastodon.social

Ok, I lied, I will make some videos of my Mastodon client and the animations I’ve been doing for it.

Here’s some toot browsing: https://mastodon.social/media/dkUgbMzMf7zdjOVH8G4

https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/1009897352323162113?s=21

Today’s books. I am not even a painter. https://mastodon.social/media/IuMwkzg1_mfILEm1vOE

And I know you really like HPMoR, @Gargron, but Yudkowsky is leading and enabling this and I can't see that he doesn't share responsibility.

This whole movement does need to be razed to the ground, and those it abused need acknowledgement and justice. This should stand as an example for the incredibly harmful effects of belief in your own superiority, no matter what the context.

So for the longest time I thought the LessWrong crowd, and its offshoots that I don't know much about, like "Effective Altruism" were just fairly harmless weirdos. But it seems I was very, very wrong to believe that.

I've been reading these Reddit and Twitter threads about the people who suffered horribly at their hands, and their incredibly dysfunctional responses: https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/8sjxm9/serious_twitter_thread_by_someone_detailing_their/

Today is a good internet day.

Rather than try to eliminate state, programming languages meant to be used to interface with humans should emphasise state, and try to give you better tools to handle it.

Today's fight I want to pick:

All interesting user-facing code is highly stateful. Any framework or paradigm that de-emphasises statefulness is a bad fit to write code that humans are meant to use.

Current mood: wow!! cool robot!!!

The hardest problem in computing:

There is more than one switch.

The second hardest problem in computing:

There is a switch on your screen. If you flick it, it changes a setting on a remote server.

I have this urge to try to tell the world all the things they are doing wrong in computer graphics, but if I started I would never stop.

There are so many things computer graphics programmers get wrong about how light or surfaces work, but the biggest one is believing the Phong model has anything to do with reality, or should be used for anything at all.

If there was a switch I could flick to erase all knowledge of the Phong illumination model from the world, I would flip it in a heartbeat.

Also,

Settings screen is getting there, slowly.

I just typoed "name" as "anem", and now I am thinking that that is a pretty good word that really should exist.

Is the cringe show on again?