[Normal_gaussian]

I think your critique is actually the hollowest thing here.

The article is presenting an idea, not a solution. You've failed to see this and have constructed several strawman arguments in order to critique it.

Most importantly the article does not present itself in a definite sense - it is written with care to say "I think", "Next thought:", "Probably", "So yeah.". This article is a person sharing what they are thinking, and unlike many of my thoughts - it is a fairly complete thought which is clearly sparking many other reasonable people to think along similar lines.

The author doesn't present the solution - but there is no reason they should have to. What an odd and unreasonable bar you set.

I also don't find your attacks on the authors site particularly endearing. The taste gap is well known, and punishing someone for their conceptual contribution outstripping their practical skill is quite... distasteful.

A more competently written critique would have been more charitable and in the spirit of this community.

[enraged_camel]

>> The article is presenting an idea, not a solution.

The article establishes an arbitrary standard, provides examples and criticizes them on the basis that they don't meet that arbitrary standard, and then... nothing.

It is easy to criticize something from the outside. Much harder to dig deep, learn the material and understand why it produces the status quo, and then propose workable solutions. That's where the actual value lies.

[dagmx]

There’s an irony in you claiming my comment is uncharitable and claiming the article is a discussion point when you haven’t even taken up the question I posited and framed them as a strawman.

Can it be possible to make everything during a user interaction perfect looking? What does that mean?

That was part of my original comment that you skimmed past rather than engaging with. So if you truly believe this should be a starting point of a discussion, then why not even bother taking that point to build a discussion point off of?

I’d also argue that this is not presented as just an idea. That is disingenuous. The author clearly writes “I call these situations “The technology has outsmarted the programmer” “

That is more than just a discussion point but a levied criticism at the skill of the people making things. In turn therefore they’ve set the framing of skill as part of the discussion and I don’t think it’s unfair to point out their own lack of ability to execute to their high standard.

But let’s go by your standard of saying that we shouldn’t take the authors own execution or their own words into consideration but only focus on the core idea they present.

Then that still leaves defining what they consider every frame being perfect. What are the bounds of that statement?

[Normal_gaussian]

There is no irony; I'm under no obligation to take up any debate on any particular point you raise.

You're constructing more strawmen.

[dagmx]

I’m really shocked you can’t see the sheer hypocrisy on your part here again.

You have literally added nothing to the discussion, other than levying criticism and denigrating any points made just because you either don’t agree or don’t actually have anything material to add.

Anyway, it’s the internet. No point getting annoyed by drive by responses from a stranger. Enjoy your weekend.

[Normal_gaussian]

You seem confused.

It is you that was levying criticism and denigrating others because you don't actually have anything material to add.