Artists, designers, art students, and other people who can’t figure out how to do what you love what’s important:

Stop hitting yourself, why do you keep hitting yourself?

James Victore answers:

Q: I work at a job doing design I hate, I can never seem to find time to do the work I want to do, and I am constantly frustrated with myself. I wasn’t able to go to a great art program because of financial reasons so my BA was wasted. I don’t know what to do. I want to quit my job to become an amazing motion graphics designer but I’m scared. I’m in LA and it’s expensive and I don’t have anyone to fall back on. I have some money saved, but still I’m scared. I’m 26 and I see my thirties just ahead. I want to do what I love, not just waste time.


••••••

Victore can be a little intense sometimes. (Especially when I think of people who can’t make a decision so easily — for example, say, immigrant mothers who have to think of their children before throwing caution to the wind and doing what they love. But that’s a question of What do you love more?)

But there are great things to take away from this video, regardless of your career. A few:

  1. Again, figure out what’s most important. Right now? In the future? Pursue that. Protect and secure that. (Victore doesn’t explicitly say this.)

  2. Be kind to your future self. Save $$. Set up your path. It might change, but at least you have some kind of foundation. Save your health, too.

  3. Everybody’s afraid. For me, the question is, But what’s scarier? Think about living in your current circumstances for the rest of your life. If it doesn’t make your skin crawl, then do nothing.

    I graduated with an art degree 2 years ago. I’m now about to go back to school for something that’s A. one of the most difficult things one can do and B. going to take me at least 10 years to complete. I’ll likely be well into my 30’s before I get where I want to be, older than most of the youngsters in Grad programs, and less of a genius than most of them. That’s scary. What about money? What if I fail — how embarrassing. But the thought of not trying is even worse.

  4. Do not leave your education up to other people. It’s up to you to work hard, get scholarships, take the best classes, take extra classes, learn online, etc. etc. etc.

    All my life, whenever I did something other than what people thought I was good at, I got asked the same question: “Why would you choose a photography concentration?” “Why aren’t you an illustration major if you’re so good at it?” “What does that class have to do with art?” “How come you haven’t done any art in a while?”

    Same answer to all: To learn something new. To invest time in something I’m not good at, rather than remaining comfortable and not failing at something I am. Because in the end, that gives me a stronger foundation, more ways of seeing the world, and thus more nodes to connect and build into something that never could’ve existed had I tunneled through on the fast track. Synergy.

  5. You’ll probably “waste” some time. Bite it and work hard. Notice how “10 years” looks like nothing in a biography, but feels like a century when it’s ahead of you?

    Recently, some strangers commented on a photo and caption of “me”: a nameless, context-less image. They said things like “her parents are obviously rich” and my favorite, “I’m envious that she can just do whatever she wants, and never had to work for a few years to support herself” etc. Wow. What a load of bullshit. Few people are that lucky — don’t let glossy success stories allow you to think otherwise. SEE ALSO.

    Victore wouldn’t say this, but sometimes you have to do something you don’t like for some time (work, school, even sell out), to secure a foundation for yourself. Understand this. You can complain, but deep down, understand what you’re doing, why you’re doing it, and have a plan of action.


TL;DR: Happiness doesn’t mean feeling good or smiling all the time.

wildcat2030

jkottke:

Old people, like those who live to be older than 30, didn’t exist in great numbers until about 30,000 years ago. Why is that? Anthropologist Rachel Caspari speculates that around that time, enough people were living long enough to function as a shared cultural hard drive for humans, a living…

Sorry Tony & Elon,
Gesture Interfaces are NOT “The Future” — for a damn good reason.

People have been trying to develop gesturing-interfaces since the 1980’s. The reason that after three decades no attempt to create such an interface has seen commercial success is because of a phenomenon known in tech-jargon as “gorilla arm”. Our human bodies were never intended to be able to execute fine finger and hand motions, while holding our arms up/out in front of us, for an extended period of time. It doesn’t take too many minutes of doing this before a user’s back, shoulder, neck and arm muscles start aching. As people observed at the time, “you start looking like a gorilla using it and feel like one when you’re done”.
In years past, the gesturing-interface was taught in the engineering classroom as a case study in non-ergonomic design.  I guess that was one of the class-days that Elon Musk must have skipped.
– wildiris

Sorry Tony & Elon,

Gesture Interfaces are NOT “The Future” — for a damn good reason.

People have been trying to develop gesturing-interfaces since the 1980’s. The reason that after three decades no attempt to create such an interface has seen commercial success is because of a phenomenon known in tech-jargon as “gorilla arm”. Our human bodies were never intended to be able to execute fine finger and hand motions, while holding our arms up/out in front of us, for an extended period of time. It doesn’t take too many minutes of doing this before a user’s back, shoulder, neck and arm muscles start aching. As people observed at the time, “you start looking like a gorilla using it and feel like one when you’re done”.

In years past, the gesturing-interface was taught in the engineering classroom as a case study in non-ergonomic design. I guess that was one of the class-days that Elon Musk must have skipped.

wildiris

Some people—people who probably distrust mathematics—are quick to claim that they knew all along that some truths are beyond mathematics. But they just didn’t. They didn’t KNOW it. They didn’t prove it.

Janna Levin, A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines

Continued / context:

"… Gödel didn’t believe that truth would elude us. He proved that it would. He didn’t invent a myth to conform to his prejudice of the world—at least not when it came to mathematics. He discovered his theorem as surely as if it was a rock he had dug up from the ground. He could pass it around the table and it would be as real as that rock. If anyone cared to, they could dig it up where he buried it and find it just the same.”

I’ve just begun reading Lehrer’s Proust Was a Neuroscientist, and all I keep thinking of is that quote above.

There’s no denying the occasional prescience in art and fortune cookies, but intuition (chance) is not the same as knowing (certainty).

It’s too easy to look back on an event and create a convenient story — to ascribe cause to effect. That’s what our brains do; we make sense of the world via pattern-creation. It’s an easy trap to get caught in, but it’s not necessarily the truth.

——-

Minimally related; I definitely thought I’d already posted that quote. Was going flipping crazy trying to remember who said it, googling the shit out of terms like [ site:olena.tumblr.com “prove” janna levin ], etc. To no avail. Hate when this happens. Secondary brain disparity?

Anonymous asked:

Have you heard of the term "deprecated" for HTML coding? I wanted to use <center> and <i> to center and italicize, respectively, and I was told not to use these terms, though they work. You used them in your Operating System website, which I'm looking up to for web design. What do you think?

Technically you should use CSS to center (like so), and use <em> instead of <i> / also use CSS to italicize. The older terms mostly work fine, but are not supported in HTML5.

My site is not a good example of best coding practices; I didn’t really give a damn since it was a personal work and I had to get it done fast. :/

qsalms
There is a tremendous difference between ‘thinking’ in verbal terms and ‘contemplating,’ inwardly silent, on nonverbal levels and then searching for the proper structure of language to fit the supposedly discovered structure of the silent processes that modern science tries to find. If we ‘think’ verbally, we act as biased observers and project onto the silent levels the structure of the language we use and so remain in our rut of old orientations, making keen, unbiased observations and creative work well-nigh impossible. In contrast, when we ‘think’ without words, or in pictures (which involve structure and therefore relations), we may discover new aspects and relations on silent levels and so may produce important theoretical results in the general search for a similarity of structure between the two levels, silent and verbal. Practically all important advances are made that way.
Alfred Korzybski, Polish-American philosopher, scientist and engineer. Korzybski is remembered for developing the theoretical and practical model of General Semantics. His work argued that human knowledge of the world is limited both by the human nervous system and by the structure of language (1879-1950)
wildcat2030
When you have zero evidence, every assumption is basically equal. You prefer to see causes rather than effects, signals in the noise, patterns in the randomness. You prefer easy-to-understand stories, and thus turn everything in life into a narrative so that complicated problems become easy. Scientists work to remove the narrative, to boil it away, leaving behind only the raw facts. Those data sit there naked and exposed so they can be reflected upon and rearranged by each new visitor. Scientists will speculate, and they will argue, but the data they extract from observation will not budge. They may not even make sense for a hundred years or more, but thanks to the scientific method, the stories, full of biases and fallacies, will crash against the facts and recede into history.

The Common Belief Fallacy | Experts’ Corner | Big Think (via wildcat2030)

Curious if, with all the discussion of Fact, he mentions the connection between Fact & Law (in court) and Reason & the Scientific Method.

itsfullofstars
itsfullofstars:

@propagandery

The Fabric of Reality (hi-res image)
scifigeneration:

Theoretical physics: The origins of space and time
Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just the behaviour of space and time, but where these entities come from.
Continue Reading
via thenewenlightenmentage

itsfullofstars:

@propagandery

The Fabric of Reality (hi-res image)

scifigeneration:

Theoretical physics: The origins of space and time

Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just the behaviour of space and time, but where these entities come from.

Continue Reading

via thenewenlightenmentage

memeengine

memeengine:

olena:

Completing the Square.

"Stupid Question" time!

This is one of those things that really bothers me about math. I can easily remember how to use this process, but I don’t understand why it’s OK to do this, or how anybody figured it out in the first place. I wouldn’t think to do it of my own…

Oh, the math foundations!  The more basic you go, the more crazily unintuitive things can get.

When I tutor, I alternate between the “flowing between sides” metaphor (like “+3” flows across the “=” to become a “-3”), and the “do the same to both sides” metaphor, depending on which one seems more helpful.  But I think the more foundational, understandable one is actually the “do the same to both sides”.

(I mean, how does flowing over an “=” and swapping +- or */ intuitive?)

Doing the same thing to both sides of an equation does indeed change the equation.  But it changes it in a way such that the result is still correct (that is, if you started with a correct equation).  So:

2+2=4 and

2+2+10 = 4+10

are different, but both are still correct (and maybe the new version will be of use to me for some reason).

In completing the square, you add the constant to that you can factor the quadratic in a clean way.

Hope this helps!  Feel free to follow up.

Thanks for answering!

Actually, the “flowing over”/”doing to both sides” bit and “add[ing] the constant to that you can factor the quadratic in a clean way.” are the parts I DO understand. At least, I understand that’s why you want to add the constant — to factor cleanly.

EDIT:
You know what, I just answered my own question, below. Super Derp. T_T I was just missing the “connection”. The total quantity stayed the same all along.

In case anyone else is wondering:

Here’s a real example:

y = x^2 + 8x + 15
y - 15 = x^2 + 8x
8/2 = 4, 4^2 = 16, ergo:
y - 15 + 16 = x^2 + 8x + 16
y + 1 = (x + 4)^2

So, say x = 2.
Original: (2)^2 + 8(2) + 15 = 35 = y
Whereas in the final form:
(35) + 1 = ((2) + 4)^2 
36 = 36. True.
Or rather, y = 36 -1 = 35.

Completing the Square? Conjuration in Math?

Completing the Square.

EDIT: IGNORE THE BELOW. Unless you have the same question.
Was just a bit slow to see the arrangement in this one.
If anyone’s curious, I sort of proved it to myself, here.

"Stupid Question" time!

This is one of those things that really bothers me about math. I can easily remember how to use this process, but I don’t understand why it’s OK to do this, or how anybody figured it out in the first place. I wouldn’t think to do it of my own accord, because it doesn’t align with my idea of the “rules of math”. Thus, I feel my foundation is insecure. How can you play a strict game, requiring precise results, if you’re not sure what’s allowed or why?

So, in “completing the square”, a constant is added to both sides of an equation. Everything about the process makes sense, except that bit.

E.g., if I have A+1=B-3, I understand that I can “take 1” from the B-3 side and move it over to the A+1 side, to get A+2=B-2. Fine. The total “stuff” in the “system” remains the same.

But how the Hell is it OK to, for example, +6 to both sides? (Similar to what we do when CtS. Pretend that +6 would make my example more convenient to figure out. And note, 6 isn’t totally random, as 3 and 1 are factors of 6.)

But 6 is a quantity that didn’t belong to the equation, prior. To me, it seems like conjuration. For example, it’s ok to borrow matter (in physics) but you can’t create or destroy it. So why can I just “create” a 6 to make things more convenient for myself, if it changes the original quantity I’m working with?

Can some mathematician please explain, in plain English?