If these are technical manuals, I see no issue.

But fucking fiction?

Do you want to know more?

This feels like a “may be able to” situation. Once they’ve completed a flight from New York to London, I can get on board with the notion of them being able to fly from New York to London.

Who the fuck is Alice? (if you do not get this reference, Gompie is what you’re looking for.)

That’s all well and good, but it comes at the expense of the user experience.

The implication that rewriting GPT output makes one a professional writer … not sure we’re on the same page there. If you know how to use it for those results, great!

That’s because of bots like you. (I kid to make a point.)

All respect intended, is this not obvious?

This cannot be taught. I really wish it could, don’t get me wrong, but it just can’t.

We would not be here if this were possible. Something about rhyming, but I’m sorry, when Hitler is what you’re quoting, this becomes a different conversation.

I have read Mein Kampf. I’ve never read anything so poorly written, and I’ve dealt with a lot of junior reporters. Hitler should have stuck to speeches.

The problem here is we’re talking about Hitler. You generally don’t want to go there.

“But my phone said it would be OK” is a lousy epitaph!

This is the correct take. Hence my worry.

We got used to foreign call centers. They’re not incompetent, but the wording is always off, and I say this as someone whose English usage is not exclusively American. Took me weeks to drop the Aussie accent.

GIMP suffers the same problem. If you’re used to CS, anything else is going to be a horrific experience.

I’ve not tried Inkscape. Is it a bit more friendly?

As you’re dealing with digital print output, Scribus may be a good option. That’s layout (something of a mix of Illustrator and InDesign), not image editing, but cropping photos is easily done in a variety of FOSS without having to be subjected to the learning curve of GIMP (so long as your RIP can translate RGB into CMYK, which was a solved problem in the aughts). I’ve admittedly only played around with Scribus a bit, but from what I can tell from your use cases, you’re not looking for the bells and whistles like trapping one needs for offset.

1:42 into this, and “above the fold” – while defined correctly within the scope of newspaper layout – somehow ignores the ear ads that have been showing up for decades. Hell, I was involved in redesigns where the big question was “OK, but how do we fit more ads in there?”

This is in fact how one gets from a good design decision to offending readers with an unfulfilled promise, and this ain’t coding.

In the early aughts, there was a fad for taking up newshole just inside the paper to … tell readers what was in the paper. No one is buying something off the rack to open it to A2 to figure out what the refers are, but some metros were doing it, and midsize dailies tended to be lemmings 20 years ago.

I went several rounds with editors, folks from advertising and even higher-ups at The Washington Post (for unusual reasons) crafting what Page 2 would consist of. Upper half of the page was pretty much set in stone, with 4-col art that somehow needed to be demoted to A2 because we rarely went bigger than 3 cols out front (you try fitting nine stories plus at least three pieces of art, refers, index, blacklines [obit names], weather and anything else out front on a 44" web down from full broadsheet).

The bottom half was another story. Early on, it was decided that we’d have most of the bottom half of the page be a story we called (I shit you not) “A Closer Look” (I did it first, Seth). The idea was we had about 30" to play with and could run a wire story that was interesting but not A1 worthy … not exactly a feature, just news that wasn’t paper-of-record news. This concept would reappear out front downpage at a later paper, where it was called “Editor’s Choice.”

Once ads was done with that voodoo they do so well in terms of selling positions, we had on a good day 10" for A Closer Look, leading to it being internally referred to as A Cursory Glance. To the point that within two weeks, even the managing ed would ask in the budget meeting what we had for A Cursory Glance that evening as the guy who insisted on keeping the overline as “A Closer Look,” as that’s what he sold the publisher on.

I’m morbidly curious to continue watching and will from here, but Google didn’t invent shitty ad placement that insulted their audience anymoreso than Apple invented flat, rounded rectangles; print was there around 9/11 (and before, if one considers the precursor to “native advertising,” “sponsored content” – that editorial-looking stuff in the wrong typeface saying that, for example, you could only buy these exclusive silver coins during a half-hour window based on ZIP Code).

This is the logical continuation of unregulated late-stage capitalism. Pretending it’s about tech is certainly a framing choice, but it isn’t the right one.

I don’t know that it’s influential so much as formulaic. It’s been working for them for decades. And without it, we’d never have gotten Schweddy Balls, and that’s a worse timeline.

For real fun, submit your resume (that shit’s already all over online; Google can have it) and listen to NPR hosts take 7 minutes to describe your career arc.

Only a true visionary could have foreseen YouTube in 1982!

You have to admit, making them self-replicating would be pretty cool … for a time.

So long as one gets off the couch! 🤣

It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. The idea here is replacing solar usage with kinetic energy in certain applications so fewer devices need an external power source and therefore wiring. It would also reduce grid use (by a minuscule amount), but I’m assuming the solar comparison is solely because both produce a DC current.