Having dabbled a bit in astrophotography, I would suggest that color is best used to bring out the structure (and beauty) of the object. Trying to faithfully match the human eye would, unfortunately, cause a lot of that data to be harder to see/understand. This is especially true in narrowband.
Plus, what's the point? It's not like anything will change if the object looks a bit more green rather than blue, it makes no difference to the wonder of the universe.
important context!
surprisingly more than i expected! 20% loss of userbase is devastating for an extension, although no doubt not enough for any long-term change in strategy... :)
Losing 4M is pretty significant considering that's 4M people who actively decided to uninstall something. A majority of the 16M might be dead users (installed on an old browser) or people who don't realize it's still installed but also don't interact with the extension at all.
The article below claims that milder store-bought peppers are the result of growers using different varieties, which is driven by larger (factory) consumers of the peppers.
Ah that makes sense. Seems to be in large part because there are varieties that are lower heat but higher flavor, and ceteris paribus, getting away with less jalapeno for same or greater flavor saves money. I wonder if anyone's weighed the amount of actual jalapeno in a jar of tostito's queso. Probably like a quarter gram.
I found it helpful in understanding the underlying causes of my own feelings of burnout. Also, don't be put off that the book says it's for women. The core lessons seem to apply to everyone.
I’ll point out and it will probably get downvoted again because it is an inconvenient truth, but making vehicles safer for the occupants at the cost of slightly to somewhat more dangerous for non-occupants can still result in a net improvement of overall safety because pedestrians and vehicle accidents happen far less frequently than vehicle to vehicle accidents.
No it doesn't. The larger vehicle in a collision is safer, but the smaller vehicle is less safe. If you buy an Expedition, you're more likely to kill a pedestrian, plus you're more likely to kill the occupants of any other vehicles you collide with. You're more likely to die in a rollover, and dont significantly affect your odds when colliding with a fixed object.
Your personal risk goes down because as you say vehicle to vehicle is the most common and you win that zero sum game, but overall the score is very negative.
So you do or don’t agree with my statement of “making vehicles safer for the occupants at the cost of slightly to somewhat more dangerous for non-occupants can still result in a net improvement of overall safety”?
I used to work at a CMMI Level 5 (certified) shop. The process was inevitably tailored to the lowest common denominator. It was meh.
We used to say that the process will never turn a mediocre engineer into a good one but it will absolutely turn a good engineer into a mediocre one.
In general, I've observed that a lot of these heavyweight processes are used as a substitute for high quality engineering leadership. They are not a good substitute.
When I've seen this happen it usually boils down to communication problems. The solution is often to talk to the reviewers _before_ writing the PR.
For example,
1. Disagreement about the problem/solution - hash out the design first, then write the code
2. Disagreement about priorities - align expectations before investing too much time in design or code
3. (etc)
Yes, communication is hard. Unfortunately, it's really the only way to get things done with other people. Building decent communication skills is a worthwhile investment for all SWEs
