9 ms·

The guy in the video is Stu, not only does he have an impressive resume (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0556179/ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0556179/ known for ori

by pen2l 3y ago

The guy in the video is Stu, not only does he have an impressive resume (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0556179/ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0556179/ known for originality, e.g. he did Sin City's look), he is also the original author of MagicBullet, which is one of the most used software by people in the industry to do easy color work. If there's one person who knows about color work, LUTs in creative work, color encoding systems, etc., it's him so naturally he knows how to present relevant subject matter without nonsense.

toofy 3y ago
oh thx for sharing his background. this highlights something that i repeatedly find so frustrating. this guy knows what he’s talking about. he has authority in his field. he has proven both theoretically and materially that his wisdom is high quality. yet, videos from people with far less expertise on the subject matter will likely drown his out. over and over again i’ve seen the top videos on so many subjects repeating just plain wrong information but the “creator” says it with confidence so people just eat it up. even worse, so many times i’ve seen people in the comments try to nicely point out where the “creator” went wrong, and people go after the commenter for daring to imply this person on the magic screen might be misinformed. it’s such a shame that being higher in the search says almost nothing about your knowledge on a subject and only means you’re better at manipulating the algorithm rather than having actual higher quality information. i really wish that our searches would prioritize quality of information. at this point, years later, i think it’s pretty clear that the “wisdom of the crowd will shoot the highest quality to the top” has been proven to not be the case. also, i don’t want to imply that amateurs can’t have valid and interesting perspectives, sometimes they might, just that being higher in search means quite literally nothing on wisdom of a subject—especially if a grifter can monetize off a trendy nuanced subject. anyway, this video was incredible information. thx for sharing his background.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  >> i really wish that our searches would prioritize quality of information Use a free service, and the person providing it doesn't have an incentive to give you what you want. Which is how we got current Google.
  - struant 3y ago
    The problem isn't that it is free. The problem is that it is funded by ads. Ads are a disincentive to providing useful information. That is fundamentally what an ad is. Someone paying to spread disinformation.
    - darkwater 3y ago
      > Someone paying to spread disinformation. They prefer you to use the form "their take on reality" . Misinformation is bad! Point of view is good!
    - tzs 3y ago
      > That is fundamentally what an ad is. Someone paying to spread disinformation. So when I see an add for say Kenwood's latest radios in QST magazine, what would be the disinformation being spread? Or an ad for House of Staunton chess sets in Chess Life magazine?
      - ang_cire 3y ago
        They are presenting a perspective that is designed to not only present the product in the best light, but also to convince you that you should purchase it (whether that is true or not). I think disinformation probably implies a level in malice that is not present (or rather, present in consumerist systems by default, and not specific to advertisers), but obviously trying to convince someone to purchase something which it might actually not be good for them to buy, is misinforming them. If a friend told you to buy a product and you did and it sucked, you'd be upset at them. But when a company does it with an ad, no one gets upset, because we understand that ads are lying to us. We don't expect that they're being honest. Or put another way, we expect that they are misinforming us about our need for, and appreciation of, the product.
        somestag 3y ago
        Honestly I disagree with this pretty strongly. First, I (and many people that I know) do get upset when an ad misrepresents a product and we get burned. It happens all the time, and people complain about it constantly. You might argue this is wasted breath, but it still happens. I would also say that while everyone accepts that ads are at a high risk for dishonesty, the vast majority of people live their lives assuming that ads convey some useful information, even if it's just the vague intent and target audience of the product. It's easy to pick out specific genres of ads that don't seem to do this, and ad rhetoric can often be complicated and interesting, but generally speaking they do try to convey some sort of genuine information about the product. Saying that ads are fundamentally misinformation people because they are "obviously trying to convince someone to purchase something which might actually not be good for them to buy" seems like a reasonable criticism at first glance, but actually I think that's kind of a ridiculous standard. No one except my closest friends and family have any idea what might be "good for me to buy", and I am not so against the idea of basic commerce that I think it's useful to say that someone hawking their wares is "misinforming" the public simply because they're trying to sell to strangers. This is not to say that the ad industry isn't infested with slimy people with perverse incentives. Of course it is. But advertising itself is a basic extension of human communication, and I think it's awfully cynical to say that any attempt to show someone why they might want to buy your product is spreading misinformation. I do believe that it's okay to advocate for something, and then let people decide for themselves if they agree. If it's not, then nearly all human discourse is an exercise in misinformation. (Inb4 "actually, nearly all human discourse is misinformation")
- city41 3y ago
  Yeah this frustrates me too. I also see this when say HN or Reddit is talking about a topic I know very deeply. People say incorrect stuff often in those situations, and it makes me think most situations we are spreading incorrect information.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    If I'm talking to a non-educated (in the subject matter) audience, I'll often aim for "correct enough" and people saying "well actually" is super annoying and confusing to everyone involved. There is always more to learn, and you can always go deeper into a subject, that doesn't mean everyone around you wants to go down that rabbit hole too; like 'cool flex bro.'
    - lazide 3y ago
      As a counterpoint, the number of folks teaching ‘accessible’ information that sounds good, and may even be plausibly kinda correct - but is actually harmful to understanding what is actually happening. Or ancient aliens (as a ‘theory’). Which is rife.
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        Is that a thing? I kinda want to search for it ... but if I'm not seeing any ancient alien shenanigans, I want to keep it that way.
        lazide 3y ago
        The AI generated content on YouTube is often 80% right, as is human generated by some channels, and sounds very plausible (and is sometimes very hard to identify!) - but is presenting hallucinated facts as reality for the other 20%. Quite convincingly too. It’s in almost all topics now, from the Ukraine War to cooking. And ancient aliens type stuff is all over the place - UFOs, pyramids, gov’t conspiracies of various forms, etc. Not just YouTube of course, but very visible there.
  - 3y ago
- user_named 3y ago
  Frankly, the writing is bad. Overly verbose, poorly structured, heavily editorialized section titles.
sbarre 3y ago
Thanks for pointing this out, I probably would never have dug further into his blog otherwise, and there's a ton of other fascinating posts.
mananaysiempre 3y ago
> If there's one person who knows about [thing] it's him so naturally he knows how to present relevant subject matter One lesson (no pun intended) of the academic environment is that no, it doesn’t work that way. Some people are subject-matter experts, some are brilliant expositors, but while you can’t be a good expositor without a decent knowledge of the subject matter, you absolutely can be a world-leading scientist and at the same time completely rubbish at explaining your ideas. (Some areas are better at making use of such people than others.) Good exposition deserves additional credit on top of subject expertise, is what I’m trying to say.
- david-gpu 3y ago
  I agree, it is a different skillset. This also means that you will often find excellent easily digestible expositions of ideas from people who don't have a good grasp of the subject matter, which is problematic.
  - npunt 3y ago
    Yeah the 'good at explaining / doesn't understand' part of the 2x2 is an entire genre on twitter.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  Hacker News. Why would you agree when you can argue? <-- official subtitle.
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure that's not the official subtitle
    - archon810 3y ago
      Can you please provide three sources supporting your counter argument?
  - mananaysiempre 3y ago
jprete 3y ago
I'm glad to know that the person behind this post have real expertise, because at first glance the headline is a bit clickbait-like. (The content, though, makes excellent points.)
riley_dog 3y ago
Fun Sin City story... https://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/301497-porsche-sypder-frank-millers-sin-city.html#post2785607 https://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/301497... I'm the (formerly) young guy who rented the 550 to the production team for a few days. Pretty fun story to be tied to the movie.
dagmx 3y ago
Also the author of the excellent DV Rebel’s Guide book which was an indie film makers bible for a long time. Obviously the title gives away its age though.

by pen2l 3y ago

toofy 3y ago

oh thx for sharing his background. this highlights something that i repeatedly find so frustrating. this guy knows what he’s talking about. he has authority in his field. he has proven both theoretically and materially that his wisdom is high quality. yet, videos from people with far less expertise on the subject matter will likely drown his out. over and over again i’ve seen the top videos on so many subjects repeating just plain wrong information but the “creator” says it with confidence so people just eat it up. even worse, so many times i’ve seen people in the comments try to nicely point out where the “creator” went wrong, and people go after the commenter for daring to imply this person on the magic screen might be misinformed. it’s such a shame that being higher in the search says almost nothing about your knowledge on a subject and only means you’re better at manipulating the algorithm rather than having actual higher quality information. i really wish that our searches would prioritize quality of information. at this point, years later, i think it’s pretty clear that the “wisdom of the crowd will shoot the highest quality to the top” has been proven to not be the case. also, i don’t want to imply that amateurs can’t have valid and interesting perspectives, sometimes they might, just that being higher in search means quite literally nothing on wisdom of a subject—especially if a grifter can monetize off a trendy nuanced subject. anyway, this video was incredible information. thx for sharing his background.

ethbr1 3y ago
>> i really wish that our searches would prioritize quality of information Use a free service, and the person providing it doesn't have an incentive to give you what you want. Which is how we got current Google.
- struant 3y ago
  The problem isn't that it is free. The problem is that it is funded by ads. Ads are a disincentive to providing useful information. That is fundamentally what an ad is. Someone paying to spread disinformation.
  - darkwater 3y ago
    > Someone paying to spread disinformation. They prefer you to use the form "their take on reality" . Misinformation is bad! Point of view is good!
  - tzs 3y ago
    > That is fundamentally what an ad is. Someone paying to spread disinformation. So when I see an add for say Kenwood's latest radios in QST magazine, what would be the disinformation being spread? Or an ad for House of Staunton chess sets in Chess Life magazine?
    - ang_cire 3y ago
      They are presenting a perspective that is designed to not only present the product in the best light, but also to convince you that you should purchase it (whether that is true or not). I think disinformation probably implies a level in malice that is not present (or rather, present in consumerist systems by default, and not specific to advertisers), but obviously trying to convince someone to purchase something which it might actually not be good for them to buy, is misinforming them. If a friend told you to buy a product and you did and it sucked, you'd be upset at them. But when a company does it with an ad, no one gets upset, because we understand that ads are lying to us. We don't expect that they're being honest. Or put another way, we expect that they are misinforming us about our need for, and appreciation of, the product.
      - somestag 3y ago
        Honestly I disagree with this pretty strongly. First, I (and many people that I know) do get upset when an ad misrepresents a product and we get burned. It happens all the time, and people complain about it constantly. You might argue this is wasted breath, but it still happens. I would also say that while everyone accepts that ads are at a high risk for dishonesty, the vast majority of people live their lives assuming that ads convey some useful information, even if it's just the vague intent and target audience of the product. It's easy to pick out specific genres of ads that don't seem to do this, and ad rhetoric can often be complicated and interesting, but generally speaking they do try to convey some sort of genuine information about the product. Saying that ads are fundamentally misinformation people because they are "obviously trying to convince someone to purchase something which might actually not be good for them to buy" seems like a reasonable criticism at first glance, but actually I think that's kind of a ridiculous standard. No one except my closest friends and family have any idea what might be "good for me to buy", and I am not so against the idea of basic commerce that I think it's useful to say that someone hawking their wares is "misinforming" the public simply because they're trying to sell to strangers. This is not to say that the ad industry isn't infested with slimy people with perverse incentives. Of course it is. But advertising itself is a basic extension of human communication, and I think it's awfully cynical to say that any attempt to show someone why they might want to buy your product is spreading misinformation. I do believe that it's okay to advocate for something, and then let people decide for themselves if they agree. If it's not, then nearly all human discourse is an exercise in misinformation. (Inb4 "actually, nearly all human discourse is misinformation")
city41 3y ago
Yeah this frustrates me too. I also see this when say HN or Reddit is talking about a topic I know very deeply. People say incorrect stuff often in those situations, and it makes me think most situations we are spreading incorrect information.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  If I'm talking to a non-educated (in the subject matter) audience, I'll often aim for "correct enough" and people saying "well actually" is super annoying and confusing to everyone involved. There is always more to learn, and you can always go deeper into a subject, that doesn't mean everyone around you wants to go down that rabbit hole too; like 'cool flex bro.'
  - lazide 3y ago
    As a counterpoint, the number of folks teaching ‘accessible’ information that sounds good, and may even be plausibly kinda correct - but is actually harmful to understanding what is actually happening. Or ancient aliens (as a ‘theory’). Which is rife.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      Is that a thing? I kinda want to search for it ... but if I'm not seeing any ancient alien shenanigans, I want to keep it that way.
      - lazide 3y ago
        The AI generated content on YouTube is often 80% right, as is human generated by some channels, and sounds very plausible (and is sometimes very hard to identify!) - but is presenting hallucinated facts as reality for the other 20%. Quite convincingly too. It’s in almost all topics now, from the Ukraine War to cooking. And ancient aliens type stuff is all over the place - UFOs, pyramids, gov’t conspiracies of various forms, etc. Not just YouTube of course, but very visible there.
- 3y ago
user_named 3y ago
Frankly, the writing is bad. Overly verbose, poorly structured, heavily editorialized section titles.

sbarre 3y ago

Thanks for pointing this out, I probably would never have dug further into his blog otherwise, and there's a ton of other fascinating posts.

mananaysiempre 3y ago

> If there's one person who knows about [thing] it's him so naturally he knows how to present relevant subject matter One lesson (no pun intended) of the academic environment is that no, it doesn’t work that way. Some people are subject-matter experts, some are brilliant expositors, but while you can’t be a good expositor without a decent knowledge of the subject matter, you absolutely can be a world-leading scientist and at the same time completely rubbish at explaining your ideas. (Some areas are better at making use of such people than others.) Good exposition deserves additional credit on top of subject expertise, is what I’m trying to say.

david-gpu 3y ago
I agree, it is a different skillset. This also means that you will often find excellent easily digestible expositions of ideas from people who don't have a good grasp of the subject matter, which is problematic.
- npunt 3y ago
  Yeah the 'good at explaining / doesn't understand' part of the 2x2 is an entire genre on twitter.
prmoustache 3y ago
Hacker News. Why would you agree when you can argue? <-- official subtitle.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's not the official subtitle
  - archon810 3y ago
    Can you please provide three sources supporting your counter argument?
- mananaysiempre 3y ago

jprete 3y ago

I'm glad to know that the person behind this post have real expertise, because at first glance the headline is a bit clickbait-like. (The content, though, makes excellent points.)

riley_dog 3y ago

Fun Sin City story... https://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/301497-porsche-sypder-frank-millers-sin-city.html#post2785607 https://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/301497... I'm the (formerly) young guy who rented the 550 to the production team for a few days. Pretty fun story to be tied to the movie.

dagmx 3y ago

Also the author of the excellent DV Rebel’s Guide book which was an indie film makers bible for a long time. Obviously the title gives away its age though.