5 ms·

No, they got the order to make something that looks like GoL. They tried it out, realized it didn't look great, then looked for what most people who don't have

No, they got the order to make something that looks like GoL. They tried it out, realized it didn't look great, then looked for what most people who don't have a CS degree would consider similar enough and also looked nice. This sort of reasonable compromise happens all the time. In the software industry, if you picked ideological purity over pragmatism you wouldn't be a great engineer. You may have a point if this was a museum celebrating Conway, but it isn't.

mnsc 9y ago
If they have a sign somewhere in the train station explaining the panels and how they "celebrate GoL" with an explanation of that algorithm then I would have an issue. But I agree that a static image of, ie a 77P6H1V1 wouldn't be a good representation of how it looks when flying. Static: http://www.conwaylife.com/w/images/8/89/77p6h1v1.png http://www.conwaylife.com/w/images/8/89/77p6h1v1.png Animated: http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/77P6H1V1 http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/77P6H1V1
szemet 9y ago
Ok but anyway, either they were ignorant or they simply lied in the press release. Choose freely what shows the project members in a better light! (Neither? ;) My initial quotation was this from the press release: The architects said the aluminium design is derived from John Conway's Game of Life 'cellular automaton', http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/could-cambridge-north-station-owe-13111740 http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/could-ca... You can't protect this with some kind of "we all come from gogol's overcoat", mentality. If it is true then they should have put a Gogol image there! ;)
- damnyou 9y ago
  The architects probably don't have much control over the marketing. They're each doing their jobs.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Pragmatic choices one can forgive, but that doesn't make it right to pretend that a thing is something it isn't. Ultimately, it seems someone there is simply lying to people. And you may think it's trivial, but it's exactly how - step by step, creative decision by creative decision - we turn each other into idiots with little clue about how reality works. Something that was discussed at length just few hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14460013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14460013 See also: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect. I strongly second the quote that I once found on the Internet: "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires".
- mmirate 9y ago
  (I'm not a lawyer, only a layman.) > "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires" Regardless of whether the first sentence is accurate (and indeed it certainly seems accurate), I believe the prescription given in the second sentence is not entirely accurate. Slashing someone's tires is absolutely/always illegal (property damage, or whatever the term is for causing it) ... whereas sabotaging someone's beliefs is illegal iff the "someone" is a court of law or government official, or if the belief-being-sabotaged is about a living person such that a falsehood constitutes slander. As such, sabotage of beliefs is possible in some cases where tire-slashing is not.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    The point here is intent. Don't promote less than maximally accurate beliefs unless you hate someone so much you'd be willing to go and slash their tires. Also, in terms of real-world consequences, sabotaging someone's thinking can be very, very much worse than just breaking their car.
    - 9y ago
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> if you picked ideological purity over pragmatism you wouldn't be a great engineer. OOoh, disagree. What yields purity is the clash of a pure vision with the constraints of reality. You can't be really "pragmatic" until you've tried really hard to "do the right thing" and failed and looked for alternatives. If you don't even try, you're not being "pragmatic"; just lazy and boring.

mnsc 9y ago

If they have a sign somewhere in the train station explaining the panels and how they "celebrate GoL" with an explanation of that algorithm then I would have an issue. But I agree that a static image of, ie a 77P6H1V1 wouldn't be a good representation of how it looks when flying. Static: http://www.conwaylife.com/w/images/8/89/77p6h1v1.png http://www.conwaylife.com/w/images/8/89/77p6h1v1.png Animated: http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/77P6H1V1 http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/77P6H1V1

szemet 9y ago

Ok but anyway, either they were ignorant or they simply lied in the press release. Choose freely what shows the project members in a better light! (Neither? ;) My initial quotation was this from the press release: The architects said the aluminium design is derived from John Conway's Game of Life 'cellular automaton', http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/could-cambridge-north-station-owe-13111740 http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/could-ca... You can't protect this with some kind of "we all come from gogol's overcoat", mentality. If it is true then they should have put a Gogol image there! ;)

damnyou 9y ago
The architects probably don't have much control over the marketing. They're each doing their jobs.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

Pragmatic choices one can forgive, but that doesn't make it right to pretend that a thing is something it isn't. Ultimately, it seems someone there is simply lying to people. And you may think it's trivial, but it's exactly how - step by step, creative decision by creative decision - we turn each other into idiots with little clue about how reality works. Something that was discussed at length just few hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14460013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14460013 See also: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect. I strongly second the quote that I once found on the Internet: "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires".

mmirate 9y ago
(I'm not a lawyer, only a layman.) > "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires" Regardless of whether the first sentence is accurate (and indeed it certainly seems accurate), I believe the prescription given in the second sentence is not entirely accurate. Slashing someone's tires is absolutely/always illegal (property damage, or whatever the term is for causing it) ... whereas sabotaging someone's beliefs is illegal iff the "someone" is a court of law or government official, or if the belief-being-sabotaged is about a living person such that a falsehood constitutes slander. As such, sabotage of beliefs is possible in some cases where tire-slashing is not.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  The point here is intent. Don't promote less than maximally accurate beliefs unless you hate someone so much you'd be willing to go and slash their tires. Also, in terms of real-world consequences, sabotaging someone's thinking can be very, very much worse than just breaking their car.
  - 9y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

>> if you picked ideological purity over pragmatism you wouldn't be a great engineer. OOoh, disagree. What yields purity is the clash of a pure vision with the constraints of reality. You can't be really "pragmatic" until you've tried really hard to "do the right thing" and failed and looked for alternatives. If you don't even try, you're not being "pragmatic"; just lazy and boring.