🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@niclas

Most of my guys are contractors but to me that doesnt make a huge difference.

@admitsWrongIfProven @jenny_wu

@berkes

No the definition is the same, just more specific in software.

Here is the definition of software ergonomics (soft ergonomics) which is clearly in line with the general definition:

Soft ergonomics is the study of designing virtual interfaces that cater towards the wellness of the human body, its emotional and cognitive abilities.

Soft ergonomics is a subset of ergonomics and human factors engineering, a larger body of the study of human abilities for designing equipment and devices that fit the human body. Soft ergonomics can be thus defined as the ability of any virtual interface(computer application, website, ATM options, parking meter etc.) to make it comfortable for the user to use the interface while working on the user's request.

@berkes

> You have a completely different (wrong?) definition of ergonomics in software. Aesthetics is *part of* ergonomics.

No it isnt. How pretty something looks, when it has no effect on usability itself, does **not** fall under ergonomics. Ergonomics is defined as the following:

"Ergonomics is a body of knowledge about human abilities, human limitations and other human characteristics that are relevant to design. Ergonomic design is the application of this body of knowledge to the design of tools, machines, systems, tasks, jobs and environments for safe, comfortable and effective human use"

Therefore things like "this can be done in less lines of code" would be ergonomics, but "this looks pretty but has no other advantages" is not. Ergonomics is always about usability, not how pretty something is.

> As is a **readable and expressive syntax, an effective standard library**, good tooling, and so on.

If that described what we are talking about then yes, I'd agree it is an ergonomics issue. However the two syntaxes have absolutely no different in their readability or expressiveness. Which is why I say this has nothing to do with ergonomics. If one syntax actually was easier to read or write then I might agree, but as pointed out both are equal and even have the smae number of key presses. Actually if you want to get technical the python version needs one less key pres (the dot) and thus would be the more ergonomic of the two.

> having to read backwards from deeply nested function calls is neither of these. And, indeed, it also looks ugly, but that's the least of the concerns.

You dont have to "read backwards", you are reading forwards with that syntax. It is only "backwards" if you consider your preferred syntax as forward, which is arbitrary.

Its like saying "Joe rides the horse" is a bad sentence because its backwards and "The horse is ridden by joe" is the correct one because its forwards. When in reality they are just reverse order of eachother and neither is the privileged "forward" version.

@mdk

@lonelyowl Valid

@gpowerf

My goto is usually SNES with NES as a close second.

@trinsec

@trinsec

Dude your a minecraft junkie, Hate to break it to ya but thats an old game at this point :)

@gpowerf

At someones suggestion I now added "Drugs" to the list as well. This is the new list. Discussion welcome:

My stance on various issues:

Education: Free to PhD, tax paid
Abortion: Protected, tax paid, limited time-frame
Welfare: Yes, no one should starve
UBI: No, use welfare
Racism: is real
Guns: Shall not be infringed
LGBT+/minorities: Support
Pronouns: Will respect
Trump: Moron, evil
Biden: Senile, racist
Police: ACAB
Drugs: Fully legal, no prescriptions needed

@berkes

aesthetics != ergonomics.

The use of the global function has exactly the same number of key presses to represent it. It may look ugly, but beyond that there is no down side. Ergonomics implies it makes the problem physically straining, it does not.

Ugly vs pretty isnt really important, not in a utilitarian sense. For me I weigh aesthetics higher than most and it will effect my desire (or rather lack thereof) to use python. But I recognize that is really just a silly quirk of mine and not a functional black mark against the language.

@mdk

@gpowerf The only games I have played through to the end more than once were from that era.

@gpowerf

Well I used the term modern in what I said for that specific reason. I have tons of older 8 bit games i love and can play till the end, some multiple times (Zelda series for example).

@trinsec

@gpowerf

Only modern games i enjoyed enough to play till the end was witcher 3 and Elden ring. That said I do enjoy the whole dark souls series its just the co-op is just too slow/hard to use most of the time.

@trinsec

@niclas

> I did say "part", and perhaps I should have said "part of remuneration".

You just have to be careful here. I usually recommend a normal salary with a small equity and then let the person decide if they want to exchange some salary for more equity. I would also say the people wanting to take more equity should be prefered hires early on when you want your initial hires to treat the company a bit like their own.

> What I try to address is "Why would staying 2 years be rewarded as much as staying 15 years?" which was bothering me back in the days.
>
> Curious to hear your thoughts.

Oh thats simple, you usually just give them more stock with a similar vesting schedule as their old one vests. You only do it this way because its easier. The correct way (but requires a lawyer so not suitable when a company is brand new) is to create stock options such that they get a little trickly of stock each month. Stock options are legal trickery though and not the same as a direct vestment. Also its common that stock option stock is of a different class, not something I like to do, but very common.

@admitsWrongIfProven @jenny_wu

@berkes

They could have done it sure. I dont think anyone is denying the style you suggest isnt doable.

@mdk