4 ms·

> We had smooth scrolling on the VT-100. I hated it. I found it far too slow, even on low baud rates. It's a feature you can configure > Personal taste, to ea

by csdvrx 3y ago

> We had smooth scrolling on the VT-100. I hated it. I found it far too slow, even on low baud rates. It's a feature you can configure > Personal taste, to each their own, but I hated it. I have trouble understanding how someone can hate an optional feature. What you might hate is the default configuration. I've heard people complain about desktop switching effects on hyprland, saying they are too slow. I've found they're helpful visual hints, but we all have different preferences for "speed" By making the desktop switching effect happen within a smaller time budget, they are not intrusive at all. It's less "buttery smooth" but it feels better than the lack of animation, or the slowness of perfect buttery smooth: it's as if the visual system of the brain could use this extra information to better interpolate and keep a visual map. If you want smooth scrolling in the terminal, yet want to scroll text very fast (like when looking for patterns inside binaries), maybe drawing the pixel lines by packets of 5 will achieve the speed you feel comfortable with, while still providing hints to your visual system.

simoncion 3y ago
> I have trouble understanding how someone can hate an optional feature. That's weird. You have trouble understanding how someone could hate an optional feature and -because of that hate- turn that optional feature off and keep it off forever?
- csdvrx 3y ago
  > You have trouble understanding how someone could hate an optional feature and -because of that hate- turn that optional feature off and keep it off forever? No, I have trouble understanding why someone might hate an optional feature that's either turned off by default, or that they can turn off with little effort then keep it off forever. The lack of the feature in the first place is more of a problem. With empathy towards people who might like the feature, you see the presence of the feature as a good thing, even if it's no use (or even an inconvenience) to you. If it's an inconvenience, what you hate is the default setting. Example: screen readers. I've been sometimes surprised by having Windows start reading text aloud after pressing a shortcut, but I then thought "actually, that's nice because people who can't use a screen have this great feature working out of the box"
  - sevg 3y ago
    OP didn't say "I hate this feature and this feature must be killed." OP even acknowledged that other people may like this feature: "Personal taste, to each their own, but I hated it." Seemed like a perfectly reasonable expression of opinion to me.
    - csdvrx 3y ago
      I understood that as hating the presence of the feature, so I got it wrong
    - simoncion 3y ago
      Yep. One can hate something while simultaneously acknowledging the reasonableness of its continued existence. It's distressing that (G?)PP either doesn't understand this, or is unwilling to spend enough time on reading what OP wrote to notice that this is the sentiment that OP is expressing about smooth scrolling on the VT-100.
      - csdvrx 3y ago
        > It's distressing that (G?)PP either doesn't understand this, or is unwilling to spend enough time on reading I already know there are many things that I don't understand, but I'm willing to spend large amounts of time to improve my understanding
        johnchristopher 3y ago
        Well, here's one: > I have trouble understanding how someone is generally felt (if not understood) as aggressive, as in passive-aggressive. You literally say you "have trouble understanding *foo*" as if the problem was on your side but what is understood (and more often than not meant) is "how could anyone/you be so stupid to do/think/try this is beyond me". "I have trouble understanding why you would use lib *foo* instead of lib *bar*" is very common on stackoverflow and other comp. sci. forums. Maybe people think it's a polite way to say things but it's worse because it's poison under veneer. If you want to point out you think it's stupid just say "I think it's stupid". 1/ it's stupid is better than you is stupid 2/ it's closer to what you want to express (or are people really so self-centred that someone else doing something they think is stupid breaks their brain ("trouble understanding")). my 2ç.
- klyrs 3y ago
  Personally speaking, bad defaults are never fixed forever. They're fixed once per machine, or once per account, or once per install, or in some cases, once per update. The first encounter is annoying (especially so if it takes a while to discover that the annoyance can be turned off). Later encounters build on the original annoyance, which grows to hatred. Especially for folks working in IT dating back to that era, setting up countless machines, that's a lot of exposure to bad defaults.

by csdvrx 3y ago

simoncion 3y ago

> I have trouble understanding how someone can hate an optional feature. That's weird. You have trouble understanding how someone could hate an optional feature and -because of that hate- turn that optional feature off and keep it off forever?

csdvrx 3y ago
> You have trouble understanding how someone could hate an optional feature and -because of that hate- turn that optional feature off and keep it off forever? No, I have trouble understanding why someone might hate an optional feature that's either turned off by default, or that they can turn off with little effort then keep it off forever. The lack of the feature in the first place is more of a problem. With empathy towards people who might like the feature, you see the presence of the feature as a good thing, even if it's no use (or even an inconvenience) to you. If it's an inconvenience, what you hate is the default setting. Example: screen readers. I've been sometimes surprised by having Windows start reading text aloud after pressing a shortcut, but I then thought "actually, that's nice because people who can't use a screen have this great feature working out of the box"
- sevg 3y ago
  OP didn't say "I hate this feature and this feature must be killed." OP even acknowledged that other people may like this feature: "Personal taste, to each their own, but I hated it." Seemed like a perfectly reasonable expression of opinion to me.
  - csdvrx 3y ago
    I understood that as hating the presence of the feature, so I got it wrong
  - simoncion 3y ago
    Yep. One can hate something while simultaneously acknowledging the reasonableness of its continued existence. It's distressing that (G?)PP either doesn't understand this, or is unwilling to spend enough time on reading what OP wrote to notice that this is the sentiment that OP is expressing about smooth scrolling on the VT-100.
    - csdvrx 3y ago
      > It's distressing that (G?)PP either doesn't understand this, or is unwilling to spend enough time on reading I already know there are many things that I don't understand, but I'm willing to spend large amounts of time to improve my understanding
      - johnchristopher 3y ago
        Well, here's one: > I have trouble understanding how someone is generally felt (if not understood) as aggressive, as in passive-aggressive. You literally say you "have trouble understanding *foo*" as if the problem was on your side but what is understood (and more often than not meant) is "how could anyone/you be so stupid to do/think/try this is beyond me". "I have trouble understanding why you would use lib *foo* instead of lib *bar*" is very common on stackoverflow and other comp. sci. forums. Maybe people think it's a polite way to say things but it's worse because it's poison under veneer. If you want to point out you think it's stupid just say "I think it's stupid". 1/ it's stupid is better than you is stupid 2/ it's closer to what you want to express (or are people really so self-centred that someone else doing something they think is stupid breaks their brain ("trouble understanding")). my 2ç.
klyrs 3y ago
Personally speaking, bad defaults are never fixed forever. They're fixed once per machine, or once per account, or once per install, or in some cases, once per update. The first encounter is annoying (especially so if it takes a while to discover that the annoyance can be turned off). Later encounters build on the original annoyance, which grows to hatred. Especially for folks working in IT dating back to that era, setting up countless machines, that's a lot of exposure to bad defaults.