You could have stopped at dumbest. I believe I’m making a civil and reasonable comment.
Also, a black and white contrast is objectively more un-equivocal than a flurry of colors. For example, my mother, in her 80’s is a surprisingly safe driver for her age, but her visual acuity is just not the same as before, and at night she may have trouble with a rainbow.
As someone who deals with UX and the psychology of recognizing and distinguishing things, I can tell you that you know jack shit about the situation here, and working in a field close to ergonomics is evidently not the expertise you think it is.
I did not say I work in a field close to ergonomics, I said that my work INVOLVES ergonomics. Also, pretending that someone who “deals with UX” has any serious knowledge of ergonomics, is like a chiropractic saying they are an actual medical doctor, or that a software “engineer” is anything near a real engineer.
Oh, BTW, you are using the concept of UX incorrectly. Not all system -> human interfaces are UX. I’m not completely ignorant on the subject. Several years teaching programming at the university level + many more developing for the private sector does give me a certain base to talk about the subject.
the person speaking doesn’t get to decide how their tone is perceived. repeating “civil and reasonable” in the face of people who say you’re acting oppositely in some way is unlikely to change their opinion. even if it did, there is no way to phrase “painting a rainbow onto a sidewalk makes it less visible” in such a way that your tone makes up for the fact that the claim is absurd on its face. doubly so when you’re not providing traffic data to support the claim. also, ‘reasonable’ suggests you subscribe to some reasoning, but the ‘reasoning’ provided is “it’s not far fetched to think that casualties may occur.” okay well, color me skeptical. why do you believe that. i’ll give you civil for whatever you think that’s worth on its own though.
Have you read the comment? My reply does not allude to content, but to the insult. Part of my job is ergonomics. I’m stating a fact. That there has not been a casualty yet, does not invalidate my point.
you aren’t stating a fact, you’re speculating that colorful chalk on the crosswalk could contribute to an accident in some unspecified way. I’ve asked for what data could support your opinion (by way of observing its absence) and- you’ll correct me if i’m wrong here- you’ve just agreed that in almost the decade since the pulse shooting there have been exactly no incidents that can be traced back to this potentiallydangerous political statement that you 100% agree with. do i have this about right?
I have probably not explained myself well enough, or maybe you have not read, or understood correctly.
this potentially dangerous political statement that you 100% agree with
Here you clearly have a problem with reading comprehension.
Stating that something is safe because another event hasn’t happened yet, is a logical fallacy. It’s like stating that smoking isn’t harmful because your grampa smoked until his 80’s and didn’t die of cancer.
I assume the original memorial crosswalk had reflective paint used on its markings, if people are just using chalk or regular paint now it would end up reducing the reflective properties of crosswalks which would effect low light visibility. Im not sure if people have been doing this for other crosswalks but if that is the case the person you are responding to does actually have a bit of a point, we are better off just painting walls, steps, or making signs as they originally suggested, considering the state isnt just going to accept and standardize rainbow crosswalks under this administration. That also removes the hiding of motivation for the police from this being a safety act to being purely bigoted which is important. Don’t allow the fascists some reasonable cover to do what they do, force them to do it with their motivation on clear display.
The possibility that a random person would go to the lengths of adding micro-beads, or go to the trouble of procuring reflective pavement paint of the colors used seems a bit far-fetched to me. Could be, but unlikely in my view.
Yeah, like your point was reasonable, which is why i wanted to step in. I dont think that its tuning into reddit per say but I do think people are just getting extremely tired of this administrations rhetoric, which is completely understandable, but if we have any chance of fighting it we all need to be able to take a step back and view others with out the bickering or they win out easily and allow us to be fractured to easily. Plus your point of using other means for memorials or painting is better as it removes the administration’s ability to just act like this is being done for safety reasons and forces them to admit its out of bigotry. Eh I’m probably preaching to the choir by saying this to you. Hopefully we all can take the steps back when needed I know even I fall into the trap sometimes. Have a good day, though.
For any movement to cohere they have to fundamentally agree about the nature of reality. As long as you continue to insist that the artwork in this image displays some legitimate traffic risk, we’re not living in the same reality. until the day that you understand why i can’t pretend you didn’t just say two incompatible things about the nature of this erasure: that it’s an excuse to exercise bigotry and also a reasonable point about safety, we are not on the same side. it’s past time to figure out which reality you’re living in.
say what you will about conservatives, they struggle to see the world differently than how they are told to see it. They share a very firm consensus reality.
For any movement to cohere they have to fundamentally agree about the nature of reality. As long as you continue to insist that the artwork in this image displays some legitimate traffic risk, we’re not living in the same reality.
This has been described multiple times throughout this thread that describes why this can be a traffic risk. Without a reflective paint you impeed visibility in low light conditions, fog, night time, heavy rain, etc. Without the right paint you reduce friction in wet conditions that can cause accidents for those on motorcycles or bikes. Unfortunately this administration is clearly not going to repaint this memorial with the appropriate paint to facilitate that, which means its going to pose a risk unless those repainting it can use something appropriate. Its not the art itself that is a problem but the quality of paint used to make it. I have no problem with the memorial when its done right but to ignore that it does carry risk with its current implementation that people are using is being obtuse and means you are fundamentally ignoring parts of basic physics.
Like seriously no one is trying to applaud the conservatives efforts to erase this monument, we are only pointing out better ways to do this in the future. Like make your gripes make sense please because it seems you are to hung up to admit the reality that this memorial was implemented in a sub optimal way originally, there is no reason why we cant accept something wasnt done right the first time and strive for it to be done better next time. Like why continue to paint the crosswalk when people could be painting the sidewalk or using chalk on the sidewalk instead. that doesnt fuck with road safety and continues to keep a memorial in place. Like seriously, how is pointing something like that out incompatible with your reality?
You come across as a “well ackchyually” dipshit. You might think you are making a point, but think this one through, is it a good one in this context? Is it even a good one at all?
I’m replying to many posts. The aggressive ones pretty much disqualify themselves. “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent” is very applicable here. People don’t seem to read.
When a reply goes ad hominem, or insulting, it could be viewed as violence and it does disqualify the poster.
Graham’s Hierarchy of disagreements is pretty interesting.
You could have stopped at dumbest. I believe I’m making a civil and reasonable comment.
Also, a black and white contrast is objectively more un-equivocal than a flurry of colors. For example, my mother, in her 80’s is a surprisingly safe driver for her age, but her visual acuity is just not the same as before, and at night she may have trouble with a rainbow.
If you bothered to look at the way these are painted you would know this isn’t a problem.
As someone who deals with ergonomics as part of his job I KNOW there is a problem.
As someone who deals with UX and the psychology of recognizing and distinguishing things, I can tell you that you know jack shit about the situation here, and working in a field close to ergonomics is evidently not the expertise you think it is.
I did not say I work in a field close to ergonomics, I said that my work INVOLVES ergonomics. Also, pretending that someone who “deals with UX” has any serious knowledge of ergonomics, is like a chiropractic saying they are an actual medical doctor, or that a software “engineer” is anything near a real engineer.
The problem we’re talking about is a UX one. The ability to quickly distinguish a visual sign / interface.
And I’m both an actual electrical engineer and a software engineer, I understand the distinctions between the two very well.
But do please cite your ergonomic data showing that rainbow crosswalks are hard to see, or you can admit that you’re just baselessly pearl clutching.
Visibility of Targets. Werner Adrian. A classic and a reference on the subject.
Oh, BTW, you are using the concept of UX incorrectly. Not all system -> human interfaces are UX. I’m not completely ignorant on the subject. Several years teaching programming at the university level + many more developing for the private sector does give me a certain base to talk about the subject.
Yes, now apply the theory in that paper to a fucking rainbow with a white outline against a black background.
If you can’t bring yourself to admit that you were pearl clutching and making up nonexistent problems then just stop replying.
Why is your mom, at 80, driving around the part of town where there are nightclubs, alone, at night…?
the person speaking doesn’t get to decide how their tone is perceived. repeating “civil and reasonable” in the face of people who say you’re acting oppositely in some way is unlikely to change their opinion. even if it did, there is no way to phrase “painting a rainbow onto a sidewalk makes it less visible” in such a way that your tone makes up for the fact that the claim is absurd on its face. doubly so when you’re not providing traffic data to support the claim. also, ‘reasonable’ suggests you subscribe to some reasoning, but the ‘reasoning’ provided is “it’s not far fetched to think that casualties may occur.” okay well, color me skeptical. why do you believe that. i’ll give you civil for whatever you think that’s worth on its own though.
Have you read the comment? My reply does not allude to content, but to the insult. Part of my job is ergonomics. I’m stating a fact. That there has not been a casualty yet, does not invalidate my point.
you aren’t stating a fact, you’re speculating that colorful chalk on the crosswalk could contribute to an accident in some unspecified way. I’ve asked for what data could support your opinion (by way of observing its absence) and- you’ll correct me if i’m wrong here- you’ve just agreed that in almost the decade since the pulse shooting there have been exactly no incidents that can be traced back to this potentially dangerous political statement that you 100% agree with. do i have this about right?
I have probably not explained myself well enough, or maybe you have not read, or understood correctly.
Here you clearly have a problem with reading comprehension.
Stating that something is safe because another event hasn’t happened yet, is a logical fallacy. It’s like stating that smoking isn’t harmful because your grampa smoked until his 80’s and didn’t die of cancer.
no, you have this backwards and i’m not taking time out of my day to explain how to you.
Well, that’s a relief!
I assume the original memorial crosswalk had reflective paint used on its markings, if people are just using chalk or regular paint now it would end up reducing the reflective properties of crosswalks which would effect low light visibility. Im not sure if people have been doing this for other crosswalks but if that is the case the person you are responding to does actually have a bit of a point, we are better off just painting walls, steps, or making signs as they originally suggested, considering the state isnt just going to accept and standardize rainbow crosswalks under this administration. That also removes the hiding of motivation for the police from this being a safety act to being purely bigoted which is important. Don’t allow the fascists some reasonable cover to do what they do, force them to do it with their motivation on clear display.
The possibility that a random person would go to the lengths of adding micro-beads, or go to the trouble of procuring reflective pavement paint of the colors used seems a bit far-fetched to me. Could be, but unlikely in my view.
Yeah, like your point was reasonable, which is why i wanted to step in. I dont think that its tuning into reddit per say but I do think people are just getting extremely tired of this administrations rhetoric, which is completely understandable, but if we have any chance of fighting it we all need to be able to take a step back and view others with out the bickering or they win out easily and allow us to be fractured to easily. Plus your point of using other means for memorials or painting is better as it removes the administration’s ability to just act like this is being done for safety reasons and forces them to admit its out of bigotry. Eh I’m probably preaching to the choir by saying this to you. Hopefully we all can take the steps back when needed I know even I fall into the trap sometimes. Have a good day, though.
No, I’m sorry but no.
For any movement to cohere they have to fundamentally agree about the nature of reality. As long as you continue to insist that the artwork in this image displays some legitimate traffic risk, we’re not living in the same reality. until the day that you understand why i can’t pretend you didn’t just say two incompatible things about the nature of this erasure: that it’s an excuse to exercise bigotry and also a reasonable point about safety, we are not on the same side. it’s past time to figure out which reality you’re living in.
say what you will about conservatives, they struggle to see the world differently than how they are told to see it. They share a very firm consensus reality.
This has been described multiple times throughout this thread that describes why this can be a traffic risk. Without a reflective paint you impeed visibility in low light conditions, fog, night time, heavy rain, etc. Without the right paint you reduce friction in wet conditions that can cause accidents for those on motorcycles or bikes. Unfortunately this administration is clearly not going to repaint this memorial with the appropriate paint to facilitate that, which means its going to pose a risk unless those repainting it can use something appropriate. Its not the art itself that is a problem but the quality of paint used to make it. I have no problem with the memorial when its done right but to ignore that it does carry risk with its current implementation that people are using is being obtuse and means you are fundamentally ignoring parts of basic physics.
Like seriously no one is trying to applaud the conservatives efforts to erase this monument, we are only pointing out better ways to do this in the future. Like make your gripes make sense please because it seems you are to hung up to admit the reality that this memorial was implemented in a sub optimal way originally, there is no reason why we cant accept something wasnt done right the first time and strive for it to be done better next time. Like why continue to paint the crosswalk when people could be painting the sidewalk or using chalk on the sidewalk instead. that doesnt fuck with road safety and continues to keep a memorial in place. Like seriously, how is pointing something like that out incompatible with your reality?
You come across as a “well ackchyually” dipshit. You might think you are making a point, but think this one through, is it a good one in this context? Is it even a good one at all?
I think you may have anger issues. If that is the case (I’m not trained to diagnose) you may want to explore professional attention.
I rest my case.
It’s funny how they’re only replying to comments with a somewhat “aggressive” tone, to complain about the tone while ignoring the actual point.
I’m replying to many posts. The aggressive ones pretty much disqualify themselves. “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent” is very applicable here. People don’t seem to read.
‘people disagreeing with me on the internet is violence’ -assic isamov
When a reply goes ad hominem, or insulting, it could be viewed as violence and it does disqualify the poster. Graham’s Hierarchy of disagreements is pretty interesting.