Ross Scott

Hey, a pixel art theme could be pretty awesome for the OS. I'm a fan of that style. When editing the video, I found myself wishing my OS looked like I was living in the racing game world at the end.

For Linux people, none of these are the perfect look or anything, but here are some example of Linux themes where I liked a lot of what was going on. I think they could use some cleaner lines, but I liked some of the shading, textures, fonts, icons, etc. In general, I want to avoid pure white, but aim for some lighter shades, plus a few normal ones with a focus on readability. I'm open to other ideas too, but I wasn't able to find anything like this in modern Linux themes. Everything felt flat and / or way too much white or black.

Christ, I can't even use my own forums formatting properly. I tried using the quote tags and everything went to hell, so please excuse the awkward formatting instead: jacquie48th There's a utility that's similar to that called waifu2x. Althought it was made originially for anime-style images, it should also work for photos. I'll give it a shot sometime, thanks. Im_CIA: Many people don't use computers for "work", and those who do, use excel. For software developers/engineers (computers ARE work), hostile GUIs don't pose as big of problem since most of the time they work in a specific scope that can be fine-tuned. True power users are a dying breed. Yeah, for me, computers are a means to an end. I'm willing to put the time in to get it working how I want to, but then I want to not have to deal with that again for years at a time if I can. Also, your desktop is a perfect example of the problem I notice visually with a lot of themes. Your terminal windows look pretty slick, dark theme, but readable colors, looking nice. Then BAM your web page is bright as hell in comparison and just overpowers the rest of it. My solution was to go for something in between, but maybe forcing everything to be dark on the web with plugins could work too. hj You, Ross, yourself, complained about "learning all the hotkeys", the very same principle applies to mouse gestures, learning how to use console et cetera. It's a fair point about me complaining about learning the hotkeys, that maybe was a cheapshot on my part, however it's ALSO coupled with that not being an ergonomically great system. So we're talking about memorization, but it ALSO not feeling great once it's memorized! hj Windows 8 wasn't hated because it was slower or because it has tablet interface, biggest reason was because they drastically changed things there. This is true, HOWEVER, Metro ALSO LITERALLY COULD NOT DO ALL THE FUNCTIONS the regular UI could! I don't think there was a Metro version of device manager, for example. So even if you liked it, it was OBJECTIVELY NOT AS FUNCTIONAL. It was like my example in the video where I tried to change the resolution in a VM using the GUI and it was LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE. No wonder those users prefer the CLI then! If I hand you a new interface, but then it can only do 60% of what your old one did, of course you're going to hate it. It's the same story with Windows 8. It's true the public fights change. However, if something is far and away BETTER, then a lot of people can end up coming around over time. For example, I don't see a lot of people going back to typewriters over computers these days. Regardless, it's possible to have OPTIONS, so the people who do want change can have it, while the holdouts can keep using what they're used to. Don't hand me false dichotomies man, I get enough of that from Microsoft. hj However if we really focus on efficiency and forgo the "easy to understand" and other things, I'm afraid we'll have to also forget the mouse. I'm not saying the mouse is great, but for some things, the keyboard is WORSE. I tried to point out some examples in that video, how would you rapidly select specific files from a line-up like I did in the video with just the keyboard? How about rapidly changing DOSBOX profile settings on-the-fly (not preconfigured)? I mean if you explain in detail how that is JUST AS FAST with the keyboard with the right interface I'll listen, but I have a suspicion it's that some people want work things to work one way, so they'll forgo other methods when that doesn't fit the mold. As for the look, I like a lot of elements of old-school Linux themes, but they could use some modernizing. I'm not thrilled about flat with lots of black and / or white. testman We need a central knowledgebase for everything related to the GUI Quest™. A place for proposed ideas, design guidelines for existing interfaces, links to experimental interfaces, list of abandoned concepts, etc. Someone on Reddit made a repo that I assume will be used for this purpose. https://github.com/HawaiinPizza/Ross-Good-Gui By all means, the forums here were just my stab at bringing order to chaos. I can maybe migrate things to that later. NightNord But honestly I don't think a lot of people really care. Hence the reason I couldn't stop my urge to create an hour-long quixotic video on the subject. danm36 For Ross's comment about the Windows shell being embedded so far in the OS that it's a pain to mess around with/replace, there's some good-ish news. Microsoft have apparently finally decided to separate the Windows shell from the OS layer, which should hopefully mean that shell replacements become much easier to implement in the future. Their main reasoning is so that they can push out shell updates without needing a full OS update, but dummying it out and replacing it with a custom shell should become trivial. How long this will take though... that's yet to be seen. As a Windows developer myself, the shell is pretty deeply nestled in there. That's fantastic news, I'm glad I made the video when I did then, so I didn't have to throw out a whole chunk of what I was going to say. I look forward to some of the video becoming obsolete. AtomicPurple If I use a GUI interface for the same tool, I have to click to open the program, click the open directory button, then click a bunch of times to navigate to the directory I already had open, and THEN I can start converting. I really don't think it's an either / or thing. Even though I showed a couple examples in the video where I think the GUI is faster, I still don't think it's GOOD there. Organzing files isn't particular pleasant at all on the mouse and keyboard, I see losing the mouse part of the equation not making it much nicer for me, I think we just need better software there to be honest. FixesComputers Now comes the opinion: Don't. Just...don't. Duly noted! Yllia Yeah I think the motion tracking gloves + keyboard are the "everybody wins" solution for getting away from mouse switching. I tend to be more visually oriented and I actually think the GUI LochNessMobster AR is one of those things I could see evolving to the Iron Man level over many years, or it may sputter out. I'm not waiting for that, I can be happier with more primitive means, but not what Windows is handing me. Also, you may find this interesting: https://www.pcgamer.com/this-8k-holographic-monitor-has-me-dreaming-about-the-future-of-gaming/ FuzzyCandle Yeah, you're beyond my level, I'm just at a point where I can see the potential of haptic controls. A problem that's unlikely to change for decades though (maybe ever) is software isn't going to be designed for it, so we'll have to focus on motion controls as a translation layer for more conventional interfaces for programs. By all means, figure out how things should work though. It's really not even a joke talking about us having to develop a martial arts style to interact with a more advanced GUI.

Just a quick check-in, I'll try and go through all this a little later, but thanks for all the feedback on this. I may also edit the OP later to add links to any particularly good examples people bring up in different categories also.

If you ever wanted to know all my thoughts on the GUI, here you are! This has honestly been brewing in my mind for decades and while this video took way too long to make, it's an accomplishment for me that I was able to put this into something coherent. I'm really hoping this leads to somebody bestowing GUI enlightenment upon us, though I'm not betting on it. This post also doubles as a thread for people to post any helpful information regarding my GUI quest at the end of the video. Thanks in advance for anyone who finds some answers! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

June videochat with fans. Topics seemed to swing back and forth between gaming and the state of humanity. Apologies there's no new real video yet, hope to have a big one ASAP, hopefully tomorrow! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

Yeah, but everything else looked promising and it was saying it was an also an adventure game, so it's brushing up against my tolerance limit.

Ask questions or topics to discuss here for the next videochat with fans on 5:00pm UTC on June 7th at twitch.tv/rossbroadcast. I'm embarrassed I don't have a new video yet, but it's coming ASAP; I really hope to have it out before the videochat. It's going to be about 75-80 minutes long, has a massive amount of editing this time. More Game Dungeon / Freeman's Mind afterwards! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

Ugh, I wrote up more on the forest part, but lost it. I was going to say the sources you listed showed it as being debatable. The goodnews article said it was growing, though that was before the Australia and Amazon fires. The Yale article said it was still going down under each metric, but only fractionally so under one of them, with it being up for debate. So it could be that part isn't as dire as I think, though you agree the biodiversity is going down, which I see as playing with fire for long term survival of the ecosystem (in a way that benefits us anyway).

Nah it's fine, I actually wasn't looking for a debate either, it just seemed like such a bold claim to make. Besides, you already gave me gold with the no good games after 2004 comment for the games list video, don't worry about it. Again, if people aren't making personal attacks or stuff that sounds like hate speech, it's not a problem saying whatever. I think capitalism does have a purpose, it's purpose is to make profit for those who invest their capital. Wikipedia says something similar. But fine, it could be I'm incorrectly correlating growth with capitalism. How does capitalism PREVENT growth when it goes against profits to do so? Take the Amazon forest. If I let a plot of jungle just sit there, I don't make any money from that. Whereas if I clearcut it, sell the wood, then turn it into a cattle ranch or plantation, that makes a lot of money. What mechanism does capitalism have to PREVENT that? I don't see any, hence the reason I say it leads to growth. It may not be its purpose, but it strikes me as an inevitable side effect. Finally, you say I make some flawed assumptions on my worldview. Perhaps, allow me to clarify each: I don't assume that, I think it's a case-by-case basis. I think SOME growth only comes from more resources and globally we're using more resources than at any point in history. We use more minerals, lumber, livestock, fossil fuels, plants, etc. than ever before. Now sure we can become more EFFICIENT with them, but we're still using more TOTAL. I'm not assuming they don't offer incentives to save, of course supply and demand comes into play. I'm saying the profit incentive is usually greater. Global warming is a perfect example of this. Exxon was aware of the impact on climate of global warming from their OWN RESEARCH back in the 70s, so they supressed that information and now it's unlikely we'll be able to reverse the effects. Dupont was aware manufacturing Teflon was poisoning the environment from their own research, but that would have meant a loss of profit, so they suppressed that information and now it's everywhere in trace amounts, with countless levels of cancer rates increasing. There was incentive to save, but there was MORE incentive to make a lot of money! Still is! Simple version: Some problems you can wait until they manifest themselves to deal with them. Markets are excellent for pricing those. Some problems you can't, you have to be proactive or else you won't be able to solve the problem by the time it manifests itself. Markets have a horrendous track record on those. Finally, I'll end it with this: I don't know if I have much else to say here. I mean this not in a hostile way at all, but I think this view is delusional. You yourself said we have less biodiversity now. Many medicines we have come from biodiverse regions, they wouldn't even exist if they were depleted earlier as opposed to later. If what you're saying was true, plants and animals that we value would not have gone extinct under our watch, let alone by the hundreds. Humans in the past obviously valued species like the dodo bird and mammoth for food. They weren't infinite. The coral reefs are currently dying much faster than they're being replenished, this has enormous consequences to the ecosystem and our survival at this scale. We've currently extracted the MAJORITY of oil via conventional methods, it's only technological breakthroughs that allowed for more, and even then with a declining EROI. At pre-covid demand levels (which our ENTIRE modern civilization runs on), we had enough left for about 50 years assuming steady production, which was likely a fantasy. While we can synthesize oil using renewable resources it's nowhere CLOSE to the scale it's used at, there's not enough farmland on earth for that. That's oil we need to survive, the majority of fertilizers and pesticides are dependent on that. Again, we're overextended. Now it will probably take a generation or two before everything to hit, but that's not even close to infinite. Anyway, I think I'm done here, we got to the core of our disagreement. You think resources are infinite (and to be fair, so does most of the modern world, I'm the one in the minority, not you), I do not. I see this as a kind of collective madness. I presented some examples of valued resources we've depleted, I see no reason to believe there aren't more coming.

I think your logic is flawed there. Fine, let's say invaders come to the island. You could have someone bestowed with emergency powers ahead of time to take over during such an event to give orders to combat them in that event that there wasn't time for group plans. Additionally plans for many different scenarios could be derived ahead of time, prior to any invasion. The military operates this way. They have plans for thousands of possible threats, even if most of them will never come to fruition. You can't prepare for everything, but you can prepare for many different scenarios, which can also mean you're halfway prepared or more for some similar emergencies that you may have missed. You say "therefore all we can do is be 100% reactionary and let open markets do its thing". I don't see how you jump to that conclusion at all. I just explained how the military prepares for many different scenarios. That's also the purpose of groups like FEMA, to prepare for potential disasters. They don't know if they'll have an earthquake or a hurricane, or a volcano eruption or what, but they can be semi-prepared for a lot of different scenarios. You can do the same with economic crashes, medical emergencies, technology disruptions, etc. In the Invisible War video, I talk about a Carrington event. We are SO not prepared for that. We know it's almost certainly going to happen again. There's no reason we NEED to be 100% reactionary, just that's a reflection of how short-sighted we currently are. Furthermore, that's not really a criticism of any government or economic system. You can be prepared for scenarios under socialism, communism, democracy, fascism, monarchies, theocracies, etc. It all depends on what the priorities of the people in charge are. Finally, I don't get how you jump from that to saying the open market is the only way to do things. If anything, that's a liability, because preparedness is often unprofitable. If invaders come to the island and everyone is competing economically with no plans or authority, I don't see how that would protect anyone. Everyone being divided rule-wise would be easier to conquer.

Sure, growth is slowing down, but it's still growing. I've heard that we're due to level off at 11 billion. My point is we're overextended RIGHT NOW. We're having increased global deforestation, half of all wildlife has been eradicated since the 70s, ocean health is getting worse and we're STILL GROWING. Here are some sources on the ecosystem being diminished: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/12/deforestation-world-losing-area-forest-size-of-uk-each-year-report-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/25/dying-oceans-rising-faster-predicted-un-warns-stark-report/ As for the socialism v. capitalism thing, I'm not saying either would preserve the environment. My point is I think the very core of capitalism makes it impossible. The purpose of capitalism is to maximize profit for those with capital, correct? That means exploiting any and all resources. Taking a more reserved or long term sustainable approach means you fall behind and can lose competitively to those who are more aggressive and can capitalize in the shorter to medium term. This means an almost maximum use of resources. Socialism doesn't necessarily mean that. It CAN mean that, like you mentioned, with fulfilling quotas, and collectively agreeing to come to a similar outcome. My point was neither one obviously solves the problem, though capitalism appears to accelerate the problem as much as possible. EDIT: Going back to the deserted island scenario. Say we realize that if we overfish we won't have enough food for the year, here are some ways of handling it: Ideal socialist approach: Everyone votes and collectively agrees to impose limits on how much we will fish, so we can continue eating all year. Likely socialist approach: Everyone votes that they don't want to reduce how much fish they eat, because they like fish, so they will continue overfishing until there aren't enough left, people starve. Capitalist approach: Steve fishes as much as possible right now so there will be more for him, but Jim and Charles also do the same so that Steve doesn't get all the fish. The fish are depleted rapidly, people starve.

Here's the longest videochat with fans so far. The sound quality isn't great since I'm still setting up in my new apartment and haven't dampened it yet. There's nothing too important here, I advise against watching this unless you're really bored, which you might be if you're stuck at home. More real videos coming! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

Ask questions or topics to discuss here for the next videochat with fans on 4:00pm UTC on May 2nd at twitch.tv/rossbroadcast. I should be set up enough to stream, though it could be a little echoey, depends on what I can set up between now and then. Things are still a bit chaotic for me, but more videos are coming! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

I think you're comparing apples to mountains. If the society had a positive / negative opinion of Starfleet, but have no means of contacting them in the future, then it doesn't really matter much either way. Again, we're weighing their opinion of Starfleet and how that may influence their society vs. ACTIVELY changing their development in a way that will lead to massive changes. In short, yes, what Picard did leaves association with Starfleet at a minimum. It ALSO dramatically changes their development more than any other option. Isn't the point of the prime directive to have a minimum impact on their development as a society? By trying to minimize association with Starfleet, in this case it causes a more tangible prime directive violation. There's no completely clean option here, but one has a MUCH bigger impact than the others.

I'd say we're in debatable territory here. If they really wanted "little impact on the culture as possible", then they should have sent back the drugs AND the ship parts so everything is as it was or sent NEITHER. There's certainly the argument to be made that Starfleet is walking away with things neutral, they gave them back what was theirs + nothing more, but they also changed the course of history for the culture significantly by sending back the drugs. That's a very LARGE impact on how the development of their culture is going to unfold than if they had not sent back the drugs. Consider this: Scenario A - sent the drugs + the parts: That would have kicked the can down the road, but had almost no change to the culture. You can argue the Federation would have artificially prolonged their unsustainable path, but the inhabitants may all but forget about The Federation and it would just delay things, not change the change the course of history drastically. Culture contamination would be very minor. Hell, this was what Picard was originally going to do anyway! He didn't seem to think it was a violation of the Prime Directive initially! Scenario B - withhold everything: This could create resentment towards the Federation, but that would likely be overshadowed by their larger problems, namely everyone going into withdrawl. Once they recovered, that might even lead to greater respect for the Federation after realizing they saw what they did not. Cultural contamination would be minor, but likely insignificant. This is pretty much the exact outcome that would occurred had the Enterprise not shown up + 4 extra people live and can say The Federation sucks. Scenario C - What Picard did: Creates a massive power play for the drugs that DRASTICALLY changes the history of the planet. Moreover these are events that WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if Starfleet hadn't intervened. Cultural contamination wouldn't be linked back to Starfleet, but it would still be extreme. It would be like if aliens came to Earth and escalated the Cuban missile crisis, but did it in such a way we never knew they were here. Sure, they didn't spread their culture, but they totally screwed with development in an extreme way and led to way more people dying.

New Game Dungeon! I originally thought the follow-up episode would be next, but this one managed to shove its way to the front. I am probably moving soon and won't have internet for about a week, so there will be a bit of a blackout from me, but considering my normal self, it probably won't be noticeably. Giant side video coming next after my move! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

Lots of rambling, new Game Dungeon coming soon. This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »