Looks like they ran this as a pilot in the distribution center, and liked the results so much they're going to roll it out to retail.

But I feel much, much more proud of the games I released than anything I've done outside of the games industry, even applications/services I've worked on that have been used by millions of people.

In corporate dev it just feels too much like I could have been replaced by just about anyone and those applications would have been basically the same, or only mattered for a few years before the company decided to throw everything out and rewrite everything, letting my old code disappear whereas with games my own ideas and creativity and how I determined the mechanics should feel and I have something at least partially unique to show for it after that people can go back and play decades later.

Games have their own problem, in that there's so many games out there that unless you've made a superhit, your game will fade to the point where probably no one is playing your game anymore anyway, in place of one of the hundreds of other games coming out all the time, but at least there are people out there that try to preserve as many games as they can, and there's a chance someone will run into your game, dust off the cobwebs, and share it in a video with the world, and a few more people will discover it and enjoy it.

Like for example I'm currently collecting and searching for obscure, fun puzzle games on the original Game Boy and Game Boy Color. All sorts of cool games there that probably only a handful of people in the world are playing right now.

A really cool surprise I can only find a couple of videos for online is Klustar for Game Boy Color. It's Tetris blocks coming in from all sides and you move a central mass around and rotate it, and try to make those blocks connect somewhere on that mass, which alters its shape, and make large squares to clear them and shrink your cluster, meanwhile some blocks slip past and land on the opposite edge of the board and stay there for the rest of the game, blocking you and other pieces, until eventually your cluster is too big and ungainly and oddly shaped that you can't place the blocks in good places anymore and all the pieces attach in bad spots and you fill up the board and the game ends. Really addicting. I don't know of another game like it out there right now. And probably no one is playing it. But at least I found it and I'm enjoying it.

If that's not an acceptable tradeoff, you can always make your dream indie game on weekends.

The success of a studio does not seem to correlate with how poorly or well they treat their staff.

In CA overtime is always paid for more junior staff (QA, junior artists/designers) as there were a number of high profile lawsuits against games companies back in the early 2000s. For senior staff and most programmers the salaries are (in my experience) competitive with general development work outside of the Bay Area and FAANG space.

It's people's own responsibility to make themselves valuable. It's nice if some people offer pathways to becoming valuable (education, traineeships, whatever), but I don't see how anybody would be entitled to it. That would imply somebody would be responsible for delivering it, and who should that be? Why would anybody be responsible for it?

That said my views on unions have become less negative: as someone pointed out - at least around here the construction companies with highest percentage of unionized workers are generally the most profitable ones year after year.

Why? I can only guess but I guess people work better when they know they are safe and also get a fair pay based on their work.

Unions are a tool for workers to come together and collectively negotiate working conditions and compensation with their company. That's it. Allowing Unions to collect fees such that they can donate to political blurs the original intent of the Union in the first place. I would support a bill banning Unions from donating to political causes so that we can all get back to remembering that Unions are a useful, narrow, and focused tool that does one thing super well.

Seriously?

You honestly think your employer, who you support with your daily toil, does not contribute to any political causes you might find objectionable?

It's factored in when I accept my job.

I've worked for next to nothing to support causes I find worthy so I am allowed to hold opinions on this.

But with my money, I choose.

If fasting can be undertaken safely by an individual not in a health care setting, how? What is the mechanism for safety? What are some signs that fasting is veering towards unsafe- for that matter, what's unsafe fasting, anyway?

You should probably be asking is not fasting safe.

We live a lot longer than we used to, it's important to have data that backs up your claims. Just saying that people have done it for a long time doesn't mean much.

He specifically mentioned religions that have safe fasting practices, as demonstrated by people who have been fasting for thousands of years. Your argument is a strawman fallacy.

I find this tells me a lot about the person who's interviewing me and the current climate they're operating in. Asking follow-up questions helps a lot here too. It's a good way to find out if the interviewer (frequently the hiring manager) is struggling with an unmotivated team, overly-onerous bureaucracy, lack of funding, staff turnover, outdated software, etc.

So, for example, with your friends: "Hey, how's that [thing they were telling you about the last time you saw them] going?" then keep asking questions about it until the topic peters out. Also, a bit off topic, but if you're finding that you and your friends don't have a lot to talk about, maybe find new friends that share hobbies so you can have a more natural flow of conversation?

With other professionals: "How did you end up in [Profession]?" or "What brings you to [Conference, lecture, talk, etc.]" A good one that will get you a lot of interesting conversation is "What's your biggest challenge at work right now?"

On a date, just ask them about themselves. The whole point of a date is to get to know the other person better, so just ask questions. Maybe the conversation doesn't go anywhere, which is probably a good sign that the relationship isn't going to go anywhere.

Random casual encounters: "Hey, [Person]! What have you been up to lately? Oh wow, that sounds really cool! Did you [have a good time, enjoy yourself, meet new people, learn anything new, manage to get that problem fixed, etc]? Great! Well, I have to run, fantastic to see you again!"

With speaking one on one with other people, think of the conversation as branches on a tree. You have the main "trunk" of the conversation which is whatever you both have in common (for example, you're both attending the same professional conference), and then topics of conversations are branches of possibility (why they're at the conference, what interests them most about the conference, how they ended up in their profession, etc). You can follow a branch down further to more specific topics if the conversation seems to flow that way, or back up and try a different branch, or maybe following one topic of conversation will lead you in a different direction (They say they're at the conference because they just started a new job, so you start asking them about the job which leads to them saying they just moved, so you can start talking about where they moved from, etc).

Something else that has helped me a lot is really thinking about what kind of person I want to be perceived as, and then holding that intent as I interact with others. In my personal life, it's a bit easier, as I just want to be myself, but in my professional life, I have spent some time thinking about what kind of impression I want to leave people with. As a result, whenever I go into a professional situation (like a conference or a big meeting) I spend a couple minutes thinking about what kind of impression I want to leave. That will naturally affect how I interact with others, as I will actively work toward leaving that impression. I'm not saying I create a false persona, just that I try and intentionally have my interactions be positive (so I strive to avoid complaining), that I come across as receptive to what the other person is saying (so I focus on really listening to the other person and understanding what they are saying), and that the other person perceives me as trustworthy (so I don't spread gossip or speak maliciously about anyone else, and I keep conversations private on an ongoing basis).

Except Chihuly has not physically produced ANY of the glass sculptures attributed to him since 1979: "...he continued to blow glass until he dislocated his right shoulder in a 1979 bodysurfing accident. No longer able to hold the glass blowing pipe, he hired others to do the work."

It's an interesting thought experiment about what art actually IS: is art the idea behind the piece? Is it the skill that the individual has in physically bringing the piece to life? If the person with the vision doesn't physically produce the outcome, is it still their art?

It's pretty easy to sit back and say "No, of course not, if you only have the vision and don't do any of the work, then you don't get all of the credit!" And yet, think about how this translates over to the technology world. Whose name is associated with the iPhone? Steve Jobs. Did he, alone, design all aspects of the device? Perhaps. Did he code every chip, bevel every edge, sketch every wireframe? No. Did it come to fruition in a vacuum? Of course not, and yet very few of us can name any of the other individuals who collaborated with Jobs. Does Steve Jobs deserve credit for the invention? Of course, and he signed off on every design decision and charted the course for the device to come into existence. However, he was not an independent actor, but a spearheading collaborator with a very large team coming together to work on one project. And yet, Steve Jobs is the name we know.

So in that vein, is Dale Chihuly an artist? If he only designs the pieces (and from what I've seen, "designing" consists of vaguely sketching out colored shapes on large pieces of paper and then overseeing all of the glassblowers who make the various parts of his sculptures) but he never physically produces ANY of the sculptures attributed to his name, does he deserve all of the credit? If he oversees the whole process, start to finish, and has final say on every single aspect of the sculpture, should he be lauded for his vision even though it was not his effort that brought that vision to life?

I sincerely enjoy the fact that people regularly visiting Hacker News think that is an "interesting thought experiment", in the context of art.

Isn't that an interesting thought experiment to question what does a CEO do, for example? But it isn't, since people on HN are mostly familiar in detail with what a CEO does. On the other hand art is somehow assumed to be a special case in our world.

These are two absolutely equivalent questions.

I think this is most due to a romanticized vision of what an artist really is/does. When people think artist, they think of the starving-artist stereotype - locked away alone in their studio pursuing their passion and living in poverty to 'do what they love'. Or, the crazy-genius archetype (think Van Gogh). People attribute creativity to 'natural talent' or 'artistic genius', when it's really a skill that can be sharpened the same as running a business like a CEO would.

Craftsmanship and creative vision are two sides of the same coin art, just as they are in business. You can have a killer business idea, but it's worth nothing without proper execution. The same goes if you are a skilled programmer but have no vision on how to sell your skills.

Running a business is not the same as visual art, literature, mathematics, physics. Most people will spend years sharpening their skills at these things and never produce something of note. It's not romantic to say this, it's just the way it is.

I'm thinking black webpages with pencil thin white fonts. You have to scroll down like 3 meters of page before you get to any content, it's just tag lines every break, staggered on either side of the page.

"After more than a century" "We revived the master" "Witness history being made at <blahhbhablh> on <date>"

Then they hold an auction, pay a descendant or two some money and book their trip to Aspen.

For years they were ignored, but they've been growing steadily in value as they come to be seen as worthy Picasso works in their own rights.

They aren't really "new" Picassos, but they hadn't been considered as valid as they are now.

http://observer.com/2015/04/so-you-want-to-own-a-picasso/

If you want some added legitimacy, drop a paint chip from an authentic Picasso into the mix, homeopathy style. If no one will let you do that, pay someone with some Picasso's to let you leave your paintings in the same room as them for a few weeks. Then, pay someone to write on behalf of the people who did the painting to say they "felt Pablo's spirit working through them, guiding their hand."

Get a descendant to sign off on how emotionally impactful and authentic the whole thing feels and I think you've got a high 5, low six figure painting. Do like 5 of them for your grand debut and I think we have a real RoI.

Yeah a ton of real artists will loudly decry it, articles will be written, teeth will gnash -- but I think they would sell with little to no difficulty.

For one, there's the coach of a team sport. We don't say that the coach played the game, but we do credit them with being a vital part of the team's success or failure. These artists seem more like coaches than CEOs to me.

One big difference between artists and both CEOs and coaches is that the products of an artists are standalone, enduring (except for some new media works) pieces. And I think that difference makes artists and the analysis of a technician in the production of any piece a somewhat unique situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly#/media/File:Chihu...

How much credit Chihuly deserves varies wildly with how that piece was made. If he had merely said "Make me some yellow/orangish flowers" then he doesn't deserve much credit. If the ~40 flowers we see were the result of 1,000 attempts with him directing ("Make this one 1" bigger, this one less orange" etc.) then he deserves almost all the credit.

Duchamp's fountain is a fine idea that continues to inspire newcomers to that age-old what-is-art question; but truly the material science and manufacturing process and craftsmanship that went in to that urinals design and production are a cause celebre - greater than Duchamp's idea by far IMO.

Now reflect on Warhol's prints; derivative instead of visual design rather than artefact production. But Warhol designed and created the works.

IMO: commissioning art doesn't make you the artist of a final work that required artistic and crafting input from others. Warhol is the artist of his self-made silk prints; Duchamp's input to Fountain is curating, or social commentary.

The same is true in architecture,"Wren's" St. Paul's Cathedral would be nothing without the skilled masons. There's a line there somewhere though -- I wouldn't include the sandwich makers, the steeplejacks, et al., A amongst the creators of that work, ...

(This all brings to mind Gaia Hypothesis.)

Ah, says the modern artist, but the art I create is the image/idea in your mind and the medium I use is other artists and craftsmen ...

The generally accepted answer is "yes, this is composer's art". But it's also generally accepted that those who render the piece also take part in the art, in a different way. The bigger the influence, the more noticeable part it is. You don't normally ask who plays particular violins in an orchestra string group, but you do notice the first violin, and the director; you say "Gould plays Bach", or you say "Band N covers band M's hit". The influence of the performer is very visible, and makes a lot of difference. Still, without the composer's art, their performance would not be possible.

I don't see why this parallel can't apply to other collectively performed art (or any activity).

Likening him to a composer directing his own symphony makes a lot more sense- no one would argue that Mozart wasn't a great artist just because he couldn't play the whole symphony by himself.

A better question to ask is, "If the composer merely told others what to write, is it actually the composer's music?" This is an unbelievably common practice, and IMO, the answer to the question is no.

To me it's like an artist provides a detailed plan of how to build a monument, and then certified builders actually construct it.

Of course if an artist just gives a few rough sketches, and then a civil engineer provides the detailed drawings, and the builders construct the monument by them, then the artist is a co-author at best.

I don't know how specific D. Chihuly was in his instructions. I just think that such a separation of labor is possible, when the artist does the artistic stuff, and a performer follows on with the technical execution. In an extreme case, a machine (such as a music box) can play Bach, but that machine can't play without Bach having written the notes.

It is important to point out that glassblowing is a team-focused effort from the very beginning. Although it is possible to work solo, it makes everything many times harder, and on top of that, makes many standard moves impossible to perform. Even the simplest transfer of a cup form to a punty is best done with at least one assistant, and for wraps and handles, having someone able to take a dip and prep the pull while you work on the main piece is a practical necessity. The Corning Museum of Glass has excellent videos of master gaffers at work that show just what a team effort any form is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oahrrN8ZHwE

Great fun to watch if you're even slightly interested in glassblowing.

The performer gets a cut. The lyrics writer gets a cut. The melody writer gets a cut.

I'm sure something similar could work.

I'm also recovering from just finding out that the process I thought happened behind artwork was largely false, and has more in common with renaissance painting businesses than the title artists work.

No, of course not: this is why we've had ever increasing numbers of sequels, remakes, franchise films and such. Why lots of heavily promoted music is highly derivative.

Sure, some people invest in riskier stuff, on the hope of much greater returns.

What are they risking, will they suffer in any meaningful way if the project fails?

Risking the largest absolute financial input is not equivalent to having the highest risk unless you exclude all human value, and consider a dollar to be of equal value to all people.

If the musician was able to provide enough capital/resources on their own by risking their entire livelihood they'd have no need for an investor and could take the entire profits of the venture for themselves.

I'm not making a moral judgement here, I'm just saying that it's a fairly straight forward logic as to why people who "only contributed financing get a bigger cut". The OP is wrong to claim they get a bigger cut because they're already rich, they get a bigger cut because they're risking more capital in the venture. It is secondary that them being rich means they have more capital available to take risks.

Bigger musicians will fetch high prices and in some cases, take on the financial "risk" (almost none since they're a superstar) themselves.

Also, its not like a single bad song is going to ruin a career. Clearly you haven't heard an album from the front to the back if you think that.

Chihuly has litigated and been litigated against by his helpers. His “ paintings” aren’t done by him either. It’s almost like he is a brand.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattlepi.com/entertainment...

That opens up another interesting thought process of which is more art, the chandeliers created by Chihuly's hired glassblowers directed by Chihuly himself, or the chandeliers inspired by Chihuly designs which are physically created by Kuster? What imbues a Chihuly design with "art"-ness? The fact that Chihuly signed off on it personally? The fact it was created in his studio and received his blessing?

The market seems to like the price of this imatation art however..

I have no answers to the question you pose but they are interesting to think about.

They have commented on how the "technicians" put a lot of effort and research into turning Chihuly's designs into a piece of glass. They aren't just "cranking it out"; they're figuring out how the pieces can be made, in the first place.

This is without getting into personalties, beyond this rhetorical tease of a sentence.

With Chihuly, as well, the accident really did limit his own physical capabilities.

A lot of people enjoy the work. I saw one of the first "garden" shows, years ago at the Garfield Park Conservatory in Chicago, and it was amazing.

But, people should keep in mind that it's a team effort. And the PR might do a bit more to highlight that, as well.

As to the specific case: living in Seattle, I heard nothing but bad things about Chihuly himself, and experienced it firsthand; he was presenting at a Sounders game, and had made a piece to be given to the opposing team. About halfway through the first half I headed in for a snack and the club was dead except him ordering something in front of me. While they were getting his order he turned and looked at me, and I said something simple and nice about his piece. He scoffed dismissively and his handler moved between us. Just came across as snotty.

Modern art does not have that craftsman history but is more known for the 'lone genius'. Public sculpture is a little bit different as it does often require access to industrial tools and materials. Tony Smith would sketch plans for his steel sculptures and send them to an industrial fabricator.

- A work of art, i.e. an artifact

- The skill used to create something

- Something original that changes another person

When we talk about an artist we’re usually talking about the last definition. So technical skill might be required, but the person with the technical skill isn’t necessarily the artist.

E.g. before Jeff Koons went into art he was one of the most talented commodity salespeople of all time. That skill is really the basis of his art, not polishing the metal or whatever.

When AI Weiwei has millions of marbles produced for an art installation we all know he didn't make them, but the examples in this articles are mostly artist taking full ownership of the entire process.

(In showing my age here, but first movie examples that spring to mind) Steven King's ..., Steven Spielberg's ..., I'm not sure if they're all called Steven though.

Some artists get credit akin to celebrity authors on books a ghost-writer wrote.

Additionally, I think a lot of "traditional" recipes in the US which were passed down in families came from advertising in the 40s/50s/60s, so they specifically call for "Hellman's Mayonnaise" or "Toll House Chocolate Chips" or "Heinz 57" or whatever.

Why are there even discussions about this on a work forum? Why in the world would anyone want to talk about this stuff with the people they work with? Is it a side effect of the company being so large it's impossible to know everyone?

I go out of my way to not discuss anything that comes within a whiff of a controversial topic with the people I work with. I go to work to pull a paycheck and because I enjoy the work that I do, I do not go to work to make friends or to hang out with people. If I end up making friends with some of the people I work with, great, however, we hang out as friends outside of work and we don't discuss things as friends via any work channels. Is making your co-workers your friend group a new thing? Is it a side effect of working so many hours you don't have time to hang out with anyone else?

Well, at Google we have things like Memegen where people post memes, and those memes have comments, so I guess you can see where that goes. Why do people post memes? I guess for the same reason I'm on HN at work; they're bored.

> I go to work to pull a paycheck and because I enjoy the work that I do, I do not go to work to make friends or to hang out with people.

I only go to work for the former and having friends at work just makes work more tolerable for me. I can eat lunch with them, get coffee with them, play ping pong with them, take classes at the gym with them, or just have a walk outside when I'm taking a break.

It feels lonely otherwise.

Also, many of us have moved far from home for work, so we had no friends, and it's much easier to make friends when you have common ground. Plus, as you say we spend so much time at work that in a way there are more opportunities to make friends there.

Yeah, but posting on HN doesn't advertise to my entire company that I'm dickin around instead of doing work.

It should be possible to conduct yourself professionally and not burn up inside over whether or not someone harbors some ideology that conflicts with one of yours.

More and more, it's portrayed in the media that people who are so out of control they can't tolerate different opinions are the "genuine" ones. This goes hand in hand with how certain kinds of ad-hominem attack are somehow morally laudable and intellectual worthy activities.

I feel like the idea "our hiring policies are getting us a lower quality of incoming employees than we should be getting" seems OK in the workplace from a topic standpoint...

This is likely flowery writing, and all you can conclude is that these forums do exist. That isn't surprising to me, in a company of tens of thousands of employees, that one person would start a group about some sensitive subject or another.

Of course, most people are political, social, etc animals.

Ugh, that's messed up. In grade school I was forced to spend significant amounts of time interacting with classmates who I detested. They brought their "whole selves" and it was torture. I assume most people had this experience?

As an adult I appreciate being able to choose who I associate with in my free time. Since I'm forced to interact with certain people at work, at least give me the mercy of bland "professional" personas!

I wonder if it's generational. I work with a group of millenials (~30) and my attitude is exactly like yours, but they're mostly all friends with each other, go to each other's places, etc. I'm honestly shocked that they ever hired me in here.

Thank you. It's strange how everyone from the CEOs to the journalists to ordinary people missed this. Why are any employees wasting time and resources on such unproductive thing during company time?

> Is it a side effect of the company being so large it's impossible to know everyone?

More importantly, why hasn't the board or CEO come down hard on these people wasting company resources and time? Last I checked, these people have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to make sure the company isn't wasting money on nonsense.

> I go out of my way to not discuss anything that comes within a whiff of a controversial topic with the people I work with.

I think that's 99.99% of all employees. How companies have been turned into a political turf war and a tool of their employees to actualize their political objectives is shocking to me. Either work or leave. Worry about politics and sexual expression on your own time.

I still don't see why you would do it with people you don't personally know. If you want to talk to randoms, the Internet is right there anyway.

smh...

Articles such as the one here tend to gloss over patient adherence to post-surgery self-care, which is one thing I believe makes or breaks successful LASIK (in my personal experience and from what I have read). This means eye drops on schedule round the clock, antibiotic eye drops on schedule round the clock, eye protection at night for the first week, avoiding dusty conditions for however long the doctor prescribes, avoiding getting water in the eye for however long the doctor prescribes, etc etc.

I also believe that thanks to a rise in LASIK's popularity and marketing some people do not see it as being "Major surgery being performed on your eyeballs, which you need in order to see". It seems to be talked about more like Botox or Invisalign or any other "lifestyle" type of procedure when in reality it's much more serious than that. Anyone considering the surgery should research carefully beforehand, weigh the pros and cons of the surgery for themselves, and compare multiple doctors before deciding to go ahead with the procedure, same as for any major surgery.

Again, due to its popularity, there are good doctors and then there are patient mills, and from my research pre-LASIK I believe that negative outcomes are greater when someone goes to a "patient mill" vs a good doctor, possibly because the doctor does a better job, or possibly because post-surgery instructions are emphasised more at a good doctor than at a patient mill.

These are fairly minor issues for me, and I've never regretted getting LASIK, but a reputable surgeon doesn't guarantee lack of side effects.

Absolutely! Side effects are possible for anyone getting the surgery, and like I said in my parent comment (or hoped to say), everyone should weigh the potential pros and cons to decide if the rewards outweigh the risks. For me, I already had terrible night vision (due to my astigmatism) and sensitivity to light, so after reading about potential side effects I determined to go forward with the surgery.

Also, I believe that advances in the LASIK procedure over the years have mitigated a lot of the side effect risks (though not reduced completely), so people getting the surgery today will have less side effects then you did getting the surgery 20 years ago.

I had LASIK from a well-regarded doctor in 2015 and I wasn't told to do any of these things, except avoiding opening my eyes under water.

A dangerous belief to propagate without any data, insofar as it again trivializes the risk, i.e. "I'll be fine, I picked a good doctor". What makes a "good" doctor? More expensive? More likable? Nicer offices?

For medically necessary procedures, data can be a bit of a double-edges sword, as it might make some doctors shy away from more difficult cases. For elective surgery, this actually sounds like a win.

Exactly the crux of the issue- I've only been to one doctor for getting my LASIK procedure, so I'm not sure what the best combination of data points would make a "good" doctor.

For me, I researched all of the doctors in my area, read reviews on many different review websites (specifically paying attention to people who had complications and what they said about the doctor's follow-up attitude), picked a couple of doctors who looked right for me, and then had consultations with each of them.

I also paid attention to which doctors didn't downplay the negatives of the surgery- because some doctors absolutely play up the "it'll be great and it's totally safe and nothing bad ever happens!" and some are way more realistic about it being a major surgery with a serious risk of complications.

The highest correlation to surgical success is number of that type of procedure performed by a surgeon. I'd be interested to see that research if you still have it.