zaphod

Better Call Saul is also spectacular. In fact, I might go so far as to claim it's better than BB...

If somebody wanted to draw animated kiddie porn they could still do that. How far would you go until you ban crayons

It's genuinely impressive how completely you missed my point.

How about another analogy: US federal law allows people to own individual firearms, but not grenades.

But they're both things that kill people, right? Why would they be treated differently?

Hint: it's about scale.

The same is true of pipe bombs. But anyone can make a pipe bomb. Genie is out of the bottle, right? So why are there laws regulating manufacture and ownership of them? Hmm...

And how many times have you made this comment, only to have it pointed out that there is a big fucking difference between a human manually creating fake images via Photoshop at human speed using human skills, versus automating the process so it can be done en masse at the push of a button?

Because that's a really big fucking difference.

Think: musket versus gatling gun. Yeah, they both shoot bullets, but that's about where the similarity ends.

Is the genie out of the bottle at this point? Probably.

But to claim this doesn't represent a massive shift because Photoshop? Sorry but that's at best naive, and it's starting to get exhausting seeing this "argument" trotted out repeatedly by AI apologists.

Oh, no worries, just figured I'd add that extra little bit of detail as it's a useful hook into a lot of other git concepts.

For folks unaware, the technical git term, here, is a 'ref'. Everything that points to a commit is a ref, whether it's HEAD, the tip of a branch, or a tag. If the git manpage mentions a 'ref' that's what it's talking about.

If you have an Android phone I can't recommend Genius Scan enough. Fast, accurate, lots of features. I use it with syncthing by exporting the files to a folder that's configured to sync the paperless input folder.

Just want to say thank you! Paperless is one of the first things I recommend to anyone considering self hosting their infra. Amazing piece of work!

There are more beginners then there are experts, so in the absence of research a beginner UI is a safer bet.

If you're in the business of creating high quality UX, and you're building a UI without even the most basic research--understanding your target user--you've already failed.

And yes, if you definite "beginner" to be someone with expert training and experience, then yes an expert UI would be better for that "beginner". What a strange way to define "beginner" though.

If I'm building a product that's targeting software developers, a "beginner" has a very different definition than if I'm targeting grade school children, and the UX considerations will be vastly different.

This is, like, first principles of product development stuff, here.

Unless you've actually done the user research, you have no idea if a "beginner friendly UX is a safer bet" . It's just a guess. Sometimes it's a good guess. Sometimes it's not. The correct answer is always "it depends".

Hell, whether or not a form full of fields is or isn't "beginner" friendly is even debatable given the world "beginner" is context-specific. Without knowing who that user is, their background, their training, and the work context, you have no way of knowing for sure. You just have a bunch of assumptions you're making.

As for the rest, human data entry that cannot be automated is incredibly common, regardless of your personal feelings about it. If you've walked into a government office, healthcare setting, legal setting, etc, and had someone ask you a bunch of questions, you might be surprised to hear that the odds are very good that human was punching your answers into a computer.

Without knowing what the user is actually doing, that's impossible to know. If the user has to input all those fields on a regular basis, then that one screen is the superior UX.