You're getting some mild heat in sibling comments here. Jonathan Haidt's book The Anxious Generation goes into a lot of detail on this exact point about parental responsibility.
There are others that touch on personal vs. societal responsibility too and the difficulties with parental/personal moderation and change (Stolen Focus by Johann Hari and Dopamine Nation by Anna Lembke off the top of my head).
There is an enormous amount of nuance that goes into answering your questions and addressing your assumptions that HN is probably not a great medium for, if you're serious about understanding the answers.
Liquid Glass is the obvious regression in the room for me.
Windows 11. The "EOL" of Windows 10 could also be considered a UX choice.
I also recently upgraded from an iPhone 13 mini to a 17, and I'm still not used to the larger screen size. Phones that can fit comfortably in your hand and pockets are in short supply.
AI-"enhanced" Autocorrect can be a nightmare, especially when you're talking about niche topics, or different languages.
Infinite scroll and addiction-as-product-design is a scourge on many.
Previously non-algorithmic news sources that now algorithmically feed you headlines.
Lots of websites have a slightly-but-noticeably degraded experience on Firefox.
The Internet at large without uBlock Origin.
-----
Most of these are not design "choices" though, they are profit motivated. Good and/or humanist design often tends to be at odds with profit these days because attention is currently primary vector of exploitation for companies.
"More Usage" != "Good Design", but people do like to be employed and receive a paycheck, myself included.
This article seems to be more of a rant about bad critical analysis, rather than whether video games are art. Or even a misunderstanding of the purpose of critical analysis.
> And so, good art game criticism can only be understood by those who have no need of it; a hand may point at the moon, but once you see the moon, you no longer need to look at the hand.
This seems to be the primary point of the article, rather than anything specific to video games. The author argues that art can be created in any medium, but there is a difference between whether critical analysis of the content is transformative in its own right.
> An artful video game cannot be described, because it is not a description but a transformation.
While the author goes on to say that "passive" art forms tend not to have this property, they offer only a few counter examples without touching on a whole library of classic literature that scholars are still arguing about hundreds of years later.
> Game art criticism only works when it conveys the transformativeness on the player (ie. reviewer/critic) ... Given the commercial realities, perhaps this cannot be fixed, and we must accept that timely reviews are ultimately the “Cliff Notes” of games.
Also true for "passive" media.
Critical analysis is not supposed to be a replacement for first-hand experience of any "art" in any medium.
Yeah I found this article quite sloppy and disjointed, and frankly just wrong.
> they offer only a few counter examples without touching on a whole library of classic literature that scholars are still arguing about hundreds of years later.
Basically, the article is "other kinds of art have property A while video games have property B" over and over by cherry-picking examples and ignoring the multitude counter-examples.
You're being downvoted, but I tend to agree that communication is not the part of science you want to "innovate" on. The purpose of (scientific) communication is to be understood, not to be novel.
The science you're writing about is hopefully extremely novel of course.
In general I've found "innovating on the wrong thing" is surprisingly common, especially from people who are bored and/or hungry for promotions, etc.
They're not putting emojis in peer review papers in Science and Nature or poster presentations at ASCO; they're putting them in emails, teams chats and meeting minutes.
Believe it or not researchers enjoy humor around sometimes. There's a global shortage of a specific DAKO antibody we need for biopsy analysis right now and on a call with 50 people one of our chief scientists deadpans, "it's because I stopped making it in my basement."
I do believe it, and am glad for it. The paper indicates clinical notes and patient communications, though, not internal messages. Which means I've been talking past you the whole time anyway, my bad.
He himself admits it's a complicated situation, and argues both his own and Sanger's position.
Combined with the context provided by all the parent comments here, it's quite difficult to argue good faith given the interview was also specifically on the book tour. There are many different and actually productive ways the interview could have talked about the conflict between Wales and Sanger.
I would love to see photos like these from Australia too one day. We have so much inhospitable land that would be perfect for solar and wind farms. Suncable is trying to do this on a small(er than China) scale. We are just too politically confused and too deep in the belief that mining is the only thing we can do here.
> I would love to see photos like these from Australia too one day.
You may never see them. Not because we aren't adding renewables, but because South Australia was at about 80% renewable last year (average, not peak) so if you were going to get those sort of pictures anywhere in Australia, you would be getting them from SA now.
You probably don't see them because while the countries are about the same size in land area, but China has 50 times the population so it needs about 50 times more power.
This is true, and I'm a big fan of SA leading the charge, having grown up there.
However, we could also build out more green energy technology to become a large energy exporter. (You could argue we are kind of that now, with the amount of coal we export.)
Especially given we have strong but complicated geopolitical ties to both China and the USA, it feels like guaranteeing our own energy sovereignty, plus gaining the ability to export power directly, would be a strong political as well as environmental move.
I only just learned about SunCable. I think using our vast swathes of empty, sun-drenched land to provide power to our Southeast Asian allies is a great idea.
I was just saying this to my colleagues after seeing these. Decades of political sabotage has done significant damage to our transition to renewables. I'm hopeful (perhaps a bit too wishful) that we'll see more of a push for renewables in the coming election cycles, but I'm staying realistic as the last 20 years of climate debate has been frankly shameful. At least rooftop solar is so ubiquitous.
I'm hopeful that the advent of the Teals might generate some momentum here. I believe there are some very large wind farms in progress across NSW too, which is good news. Home solar / battery installations also seem to be on the rise in low density areas (I don't have hard data to back that up though).
I'd also love to see solar panels on top of every Bunnings, Westfield, and other warehouses/complexes, as well as above every outdoor carpark, which would have the added bonus of preventing hand roasting in summer.
I don't really think about this much, but your comment made me wonder:
If we do find another earth-like planet within travel distance (impossible afaik but let's suspend disbelief for a moment), how do we determine whether it's worth colonising? And how to we measure it?
"The resources on this planet will last 15.6B person-years which means if we send 5 million people there over time, we will have to prepare for their evacuation in ??? years"?
Obviously totally moot if Earth's resources aren't going to last that long, but just had that thought bubble up.
The "bigger problem" is that it is insufficient to observe the life carrying capacity of a planet for a few decades and conclude that it is stable long term.
For example, the host star could have variability measured in thousands or millions of years that would render the planet inhospitable to humans but not the indigenous life, which would have been adapted to these cycles.
Similarly, the planet could experience regular asteroid impacts due to passing through a recently broken up rock that intersects its orbital path.
Some of these risks can be eliminated through careful study, but this would require something like a century of painstaking geology, thorough astronomic surveys of its neighbourhood, a full fossil record, etc...
reply