Forum Moderation

[tggzzz]

In general colors can help to make schematics and diagrams more clear but care must be taken to make sure color blind people can also use them or at least don't mis out.

Yes, but this is not what tggzzz wrote: "No information should be lost when rendered in black and white."

By definition information is lost when rendering a color image in black & white. So this statement is pretty meaningless.

You could also argue a schematic should be legible for people without needing reading glasses along the same line. Bottom line is: if you can add features (like color, big text, 'sans serif' fonts, etc) to a schematic / diagram which can help the majority of the people understand the schematic more easely it is a win. Bonus points for choosing the features in a way so people with visual handicaps are still able to profit from it. But I think we are in agreement about that.

It is possible to lose data without losing information.

The guiding feature with a schematic should be to help each and every reader to understand the design and how it works. There are many aspects to that.

[Nominal Animal]

Now you are being silly, deliberately snipping the majority of the paragraph to (try to) make a point.

That is honestly how I parsed it.  Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by a "hint", versus the opposite of my "necessary"?

As an example, consider a schematic where positive supplies, negative supplies, ground, high-frequency digital, audio-frequency analog, and almost-DC control signals are all drawn in slightly different shades.  (I discovered that using completely different colors is too heavy-handed, except for supplies with reds and blacks; distracting rather than helpful.  Consider sufficiently dark pastel colors on white background, or light on dark background.)

For components, I don't like bypass capacitors being stuffed separately in some corner.  I'd much prefer them to be nearby the pin they're supposed to be even in the schematic, but drawn with less contrast compared to other capacitors in the schematic.  (I found that for myself, drawing them e.g. smaller than other capacitors is more distracting than helpful.)

Try these and see for yourself.  Take one of your own projects, plot/export the schematic as SVG, and open it in Inkscape.  Select all, and repeatedly Object > Ungroup (Shift+Ctrl+G) until no more groups left, and you can edit individual traces and objects.  When you select some tracks, use Path > Combine (Ctrl+K) to combine them into a single object, so you can use Object > Fill and Stroke to select its color.  Set Fill to None, and Stroke to the color and opacity you want.

I don't think these are "hints", because the idea is not to convey extra technical information about the schematic, or the designer intent behind parts of it; it is only to help humans perceive and understand it more clearly. The additional information is not necessary on top of what the schematic shows if simplified/converted to black and white only, it is only there to reduce the cognitive load when trying to parse/read/understand the schematic.

I see "hints" more like the comments delineating a subsection saying "pre-regulator" or "filtering", explaining the designer idea behind the schematic, somewhat similar to code comments in software.  I'd never use color to convey that kind of "hints".  I'm sure my understanding of the way others use the terms differ, but you don't seem to bother to try and define them.  I guess "everybody knows what a hint is!", eh?

[Shock]

I had to check for a moment I was in a thread about off topic moderation.

[tggzzz]

I had to check for a moment I was in a thread about off topic moderation.

I've been experiencing thread drift for 39 years, since shortly after the kremvax hoax, and bang path email addresses were used.

Nonetheless I think this drift has run its course.

[rsjsouza]

Giving my $0.02 to the original moderation discussion...

If you see a thread drifting off-topic in way you don't like, YOU have the power to pull it back on topic by, surprise, posting on-topic replies.

Not only that but, if the topic of a thread is inflammatory to your own nervous system, you are the only person in the world that can control your own urge to respond / react. Casting aspersions and levelling everyone else that disagrees with you like BD139's OP can be exhilarating but will do nothing to your argument. Also, you probably wouldn't say that to someone's face without risking being punched, but that is the internet these days.

You agree with BD139's original post where he called this forum a "cesspit of fucking morons" and "corpus of assholes in an echo chamber. When I say assholes, this is interchangeable with fascists"?

By many accounts here it seems, it's BD139 that should have been banned for that, right? 

Sounds like someone who is very salty with how the world is politically going, and someone who forgot to take their medication.
Mental breakdowns all around. I expect this to only get worse. It's not a moderation problem, really.

Indeed. While there might be an argument as to how the forum SNR is being reduced, I suspect this is mostly due to the people that started reducing their own SNR due to their participation in the most contentious discussions (T3sl4co1l being one of them).

Fortunately those "cancellation" tactics such as claiming the various people/opinions as "-ists"/"-isms" or the "reductio ad absurdium" of self-victimization as credible arguments are coming out of fashion quite rapidly. The grift is up but some didn't yet get the message.

Trump and Covid certainly broke the minds of many. During the Covid days, I simply left this and other forums for a long while to leave the current zeitgeist of myopic opinions to cool off - the so-called "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" that were proven to be true. I know several that did the same - which was the only option but nonetheless the most sane one. Again, we can only change ourselves and not others, especially when discussions become vitriolic, so I left. Slowly coming back as I see the sanity is coming back as well.

[Zero999]

Basing fact checking on the goodwill unpaid amateur members is guaranteed to lead to shadowy corporate/commercial/state interests overwhelming them.

How is professional fact checking any better?

In whom do we trust to be the arbiters of truth?

Companies have their own commercial interests which introduce bias and are vulnerable to state interference. As soon as you pick a segment of society to fact check, then it introduces bias. If you base your operation in a certain area, then they'll be more likely to vote a certain way. If you pick, highly qualified graduates then again, it introduces bias.

I prefer community notes. It's not perfect, but it's the lesser evil. I consider it to be similar to trial by jury, which is imperfect and has its limitations, but is better than the alternative.

Yes, politics can't always be avoided in a discussion of science and technology - because politicians always have and always will want to assert their dominance over science and technology. The cautionary tales from the past are infamous.

I think what's made things worse over the last four years is many large organisations have subjected their employees to DEI training, which is inherently political. This has inevitably had an impact on this forum. Fortunately I've only had to endure two such courses, one being pretty bad, but nowhere near as bad as the horror stories I've heard and another which was pointless, but more benign.

[bdunham7]

but nowhere near as bad as the horror stories I've heard

I have perfectly nice friends and colleagues who have been brainwashed into thinking that they are horrible people. 

[tggzzz]

Basing fact checking on the goodwill unpaid amateur members is guaranteed to lead to shadowy corporate/commercial/state interests overwhelming them.

How is professional fact checking any better?

In whom do we trust to be the arbiters of truth?

On balance, would you prefer to rely on a qualified doctor or electrician the as self-appointed "expert" on Clapham omnibus?

After Michael Gove loudly pronounced that we shouldn't trust experts, I was hoping he would need a non-urgent operation. I would have fought all-comers to be his surgeon.

Truth is rarely pure and simple, and is arrived at by a consensus of experts - not by a bunch of randomers.

Companies have their own commercial interests which introduce bias and are vulnerable to state interference. As soon as you pick a segment of society to fact check, then it introduces bias. If you base your operation in a certain area, then they'll be more likely to vote a certain way. If you pick, highly qualified graduates then again, it introduces bias.

And states are vulnerable to corporate interference (as per Trump) military influence (as per Eisenhower), social influence (as per democracy).

Bias and influence and interrelationships are everywhere.

your bringing only "the state" into that argument is a political statement that a libertarian would make.

I prefer community notes. It's not perfect, but it's the lesser evil. I consider it to be similar to trial by jury, which is imperfect and has its limitations, but is better than the alternative.

I don't; most people are grossly ignorant of most subjects. Renaissance man ceased to exist long long ago.

I strongly suggest you read "The Secret Barrister" before holding jury trials up as a paragon.

Yes, politics can't always be avoided in a discussion of science and technology - because politicians always have and always will want to assert their dominance over science and technology. The cautionary tales from the past are infamous.

I think what's made things worse over the last four years is many large organisations have subjected their employees to DEI training, which is inherently political. This has inevitably had an impact on this forum. Fortunately I've only had to endure two such courses, one being pretty bad, but nowhere near as bad as the horror stories I've heard and another which was pointless, but more benign.

You are monomanic if you think DEI is a principal cause of the current malaise. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a fan of DEI training.

[PlainName]

Basing fact checking on the goodwill unpaid amateur members is guaranteed to lead to shadowy corporate/commercial/state interests overwhelming them.

How is professional fact checking any better?

In whom do we trust to be the arbiters of truth?

On balance, would you prefer to rely on a qualified doctor or electrician the as self-appointed "expert" on Clapham omnibus?

After Michael Gove loudly pronounced that we shouldn't trust experts, I was hoping he would need a non-urgent operation. I would have fought all-comers to be his surgeon.

Truth is rarely pure and simple, and is arrived at by a consensus of experts - not by a bunch of randomers.

Just to correct your (common, it has to be said) mistake, that isn't what he said. His actually said:

“I think the people of this country have had enough of experts with organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”

That was, of course, paraphrased and twisted by the media, and that misinterpretation picked up by the likes of you without reference to the original.

I recall we had, at that time, disgreements between experts on some things and, as he noted, stuff that turned out to be wrong. He was reflecting the frustration of not knowing who to believe. And, as it happens, social media is now full of experts spouting dangerous rubbish, so was he wrong? (rhetorical question).

In whom do we trust to be the arbiters of truth?

I think we have to go with those that have a track record (which isn't foolproof - cf. MMR) and something to lose if they deliberately mislead (also not foolproof).

[tszaboo]

I think what's made things worse over the last four years is many large organisations have subjected their employees to DEI training, which is inherently political. This has inevitably had an impact on this forum. Fortunately I've only had to endure two such courses, one being pretty bad, but nowhere near as bad as the horror stories I've heard and another which was pointless, but more benign.

The Clockwork orange Ludovico comes to my mind when I hear about these courses..
I have  no idea how to survive in a corporate environment like that. Probably the only sane way would be to get stoned before that brainwashing session, to not get myself fired.

[tggzzz]

Basing fact checking on the goodwill unpaid amateur members is guaranteed to lead to shadowy corporate/commercial/state interests overwhelming them.

How is professional fact checking any better?

In whom do we trust to be the arbiters of truth?

On balance, would you prefer to rely on a qualified doctor or electrician the as self-appointed "expert" on Clapham omnibus?

After Michael Gove loudly pronounced that we shouldn't trust experts, I was hoping he would need a non-urgent operation. I would have fought all-comers to be his surgeon.

Truth is rarely pure and simple, and is arrived at by a consensus of experts - not by a bunch of randomers.

Just to correct your (common, it has to be said) mistake, that isn't what he said. His actually said:

“I think the people of this country have had enough of experts with organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”

That was, of course, paraphrased and twisted by the media, and that misinterpretation picked up by the likes of you without reference to the original.

I recall we had, at that time, disgreements between experts on some things and, as he noted, stuff that turned out to be wrong. He was reflecting the frustration of not knowing who to believe. And, as it happens, social media is now full of experts spouting dangerous rubbish, so was he wrong? (rhetorical question).

Theres a bit of revisionism in there, which isn't surprising since Michael Gove is frequently called a snake by those that have dealt with him. From what I can see, his modus operandi is to determine what his audience wants to hear, and then tell them that. He has many different audiences.

In this case he had to "clarify" his stance on experts. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-39102847

In whom do we trust to be the arbiters of truth?

I think we have to go with those that have a track record (which isn't foolproof - cf. MMR) and something to lose if they deliberately mislead (also not foolproof).

Reasonable rules of thumb, devoid of ideological tunnel vision

I'd add that conflicts of interest are also relevant and should be taken into account, with MMR/Wakefield being a poster child for that.

[PlainName]

Gove is and was a two-faced back-stabbing git. But what he said is what he said.

[nctnico]

Truth is rarely pure and simple, and is arrived at by a consensus of experts - not by a bunch of randomers.

Very true. Unfortunately forgotten by many due to social media being weaponised to steer people away from their own best interests and actual science.

[tggzzz]

I think what's made things worse over the last four years is many large organisations have subjected their employees to DEI training, which is inherently political. This has inevitably had an impact on this forum. Fortunately I've only had to endure two such courses, one being pretty bad, but nowhere near as bad as the horror stories I've heard and another which was pointless, but more benign.

The Clockwork orange Ludovico comes to my mind when I hear about these courses..
I have  no idea how to survive in a corporate environment like that. Probably the only sane way would be to get stoned before that brainwashing session, to not get myself fired.

I was fortunate enough never to have had to undergo such training. That was partly because the main companies I worked for presumed that people were decent, and took a great deal of care to ensure their employees would be.

When on internal training courses with other team members, we expected the trainers to be able to justify what they were teaching, and challenged them about the consequences of what they were teaching. Would you expect a group of engineers to do otherwise?

Even in junior school, -8yo, I presumed such attitudes right and proper

[wilfred]

I had to check for a moment I was in a thread about off topic moderation.

 

I was thinking if I could get A.I. to plot the trails left by the thread as it meanders to it's inevitable conclusion. If I did it to all similar threads tracing peoples opinions would they all coincide and finish up at the same point? I have come to the conclusion some people hold opinions to be true because they attach their sense of self to them tightly. They air them on the internet because they are testing them to make sure they are right to hold them. Not that the opinion is right, just that they've come to the right place. I had the same view of trump rallies. I felt the same about the TEA thread. The point they arrived at wasn't necessarily truth, it was just a place to gather, more like a watering hole and the paths taken were more akin to cow paths. Not the shortest, just the least effort and well worn.

 I wouldn't like to see forum moderation take that away from them.

[EEVblog]

I was fortunate enough never to have had to undergo such training. That was partly because the main companies I worked for presumed that people were decent, and took a great deal of care to ensure their employees would be.
When on internal training courses with other team members, we expected the trainers to be able to justify what they were teaching, and challenged them about the consequences of what they were teaching. Would you expect a group of engineers to do otherwise?

I also was fortunate enough to never be involved in that "training". I would have disrupted that crap so hard they would have had to fire me, or remove me from the course as a lost cause.

Closest I got that was a "therapy session" with other employees made redundant. Basically a couselling session with a psychologist to help us deal with our "grief" of losing our job. I was away when they marched everyone out the door, so decided to go to the session to see everyone and say bye.
We all sat in circle and they went around one by one asking us to talk about our feelings and what it meant to us etc. People crying like crazy. When it came to me I said, happy and smiling, "Nah, I'm good, doesn't matter at all to me". The psychologist assured me that I was just internalising my grief or some BS, and they kept going on and on about how I need to let my feelings out etc. I realised it was a lost cause and just stood up, said bye to everyone and wished them luck and walked out.

[magic]

When it came to me I said, happy and smiling, "Nah, I'm good, doesn't matter at all to me". The psychologist assured me that I was just internalising my grief or some BS, and they kept going on and on about how I need to let my feelings out etc. I realised it was a lost cause and just stood up, said bye to everyone and wished them luck and walked out.

That's what they are paid for, I guess.
I was bored out of my mind sitting at some other group nonsense like that. When it was my turn to describe what I think my strengths are I just said "can't think of any". Got a lecture about needing to believe in myself more.
They can't simply admit that they are wasting your time, because that would be wasting their employer's money too.

[Zero999]

Basing fact checking on the goodwill unpaid amateur members is guaranteed to lead to shadowy corporate/commercial/state interests overwhelming them.

How is professional fact checking any better?

In whom do we trust to be the arbiters of truth?

On balance, would you prefer to rely on a qualified doctor or electrician the as self-appointed "expert" on Clapham omnibus?

You do realise that fact checking orgnisations employ journalists not experts?

Would you ask a journalist for medical advice?

After Michael Gove loudly pronounced that we shouldn't trust experts, I was hoping he would need a non-urgent operation. I would have fought all-comers to be his surgeon.

I'm not a fan of Gove, but we shouldn't blindly trust experts. They often disagree and it can be wise to seek a second opinion.

And states are vulnerable to corporate interference (as per Trump) military influence (as per Eisenhower), social influence (as per democracy).

Bias and influence and interrelationships are everywhere.

your bringing only "the state" into that argument is a political statement that a libertarian would make.

The state is larger than any one company and it has put pressure on social media to push a certain narrative and censor content which goes against it.

You are monomanic if you think DEI is a principal cause of the current malaise. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a fan of DEI training.

I didn't say it was.

[tggzzz]

Closest I got that was a "therapy session" with other employees made redundant. Basically a couselling session with a psychologist to help us deal with our "grief" of losing our job. I was away when they marched everyone out the door, so decided to go to the session to see everyone and say bye.
We all sat in circle and they went around one by one asking us to talk about our feelings and what it meant to us etc. People crying like crazy. When it came to me I said, happy and smiling, "Nah, I'm good, doesn't matter at all to me". The psychologist assured me that I was just internalising my grief or some BS, and they kept going on and on about how I need to let my feelings out etc. I realised it was a lost cause and just stood up, said bye to everyone and wished them luck and walked out.

Such corporate counselling ls little more than a fig leaf, designed to tick boxes. OTOH, some people do benefit from counselling, but in my ignorance I expect such CBT would be more beneficial after a period and over time.

Psychologists presuming your mental state is exceptionally dangerous. Start by considering "past life regression therapy" to uncover childhood traumas... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_life_regression

[tggzzz]

When it came to me I said, happy and smiling, "Nah, I'm good, doesn't matter at all to me". The psychologist assured me that I was just internalising my grief or some BS, and they kept going on and on about how I need to let my feelings out etc. I realised it was a lost cause and just stood up, said bye to everyone and wished them luck and walked out.

That's what they are paid for, I guess.
I was bored out of my mind sitting at some other group nonsense like that. When it was my turn to describe what I think my strengths are I just said "can't think of any". Got a lecture about needing to believe in myself more.
They can't simply admit that they are wasting your time, because that would be wasting their employer's money too.

You are invalidating their entire existence, so expect them to fight back

I have occasionally had reason to tell people that I know I'm third rate. The explanation is that there are some people that I listen to very carefully, especially when we disagree, and they have indicated some people that they hold in awe. Ergo I am third rate.

I then pause for reflection, and point out that one of the people I listen to is directly descended from two Nobel prize winners. I pause again.

[PlainName]

W need to be careful that we don't see 'expert' as 'know everything about anything'. Experts are generally expert in their field (obvs.) but that doesn't mean they are similarly expert in other fields, and can sometimes disagree strongly with experts in those other fields.

[tszaboo]

I also was fortunate enough to never be involved in that "training". I would have disrupted that crap so hard they would have had to fire me, or remove me from the course as a lost cause.

I'm mad especially because of the reasons these trainings happen. If you watch Matt Walsh's documentary, several things become clear:
- Companies only do it to get ESG money.
- The people holding the meeting have no credentials whatsoever. You can become a certified councilor after like an online few hour training, and automated test.
- They charge tens of thousands of dollars for these trainings to companies
- Simplify the situation, make up things that didn't happen, change history and just lie in general
It's just grifting. Making a billion dollar consulting business for nothing.
As someone put it, today the need for racism is much higher than the supply.

[tggzzz]

I also was fortunate enough to never be involved in that "training". I would have disrupted that crap so hard they would have had to fire me, or remove me from the course as a lost cause.

I'm mad especially because of the reasons these trainings happen. If you watch Matt Walsh's documentary, several things become clear:
- Companies only do it to get ESG money.
- The people holding the meeting have no credentials whatsoever. You can become a certified councilor after like an online few hour training, and automated test.
- They charge tens of thousands of dollars for these trainings to companies
- Simplify the situation, make up things that didn't happen, change history and just lie in general
It's just grifting. Making a billion dollar consulting business for nothing.
As someone put it, today the need for racism is much higher than the supply.

There's truth there, but we don't need racism. One thing life has taught me is that
- there are good [men,women,Christians,Muslims,shorties,lofties,black,red,white,yellow] people.
- there are bad  [men,women,Christians,Muslims,shorties,lofties,black,red,white,yellow] people.
Now apply Karnaugh map reduction techniques

We do need the concept that people are in general different, neither better nor worse, and the HR-droid mantra of "treat everybody equally" is dangerous nonsense.

[Smokey]

Anyone else notice a rise in normal typically intelligent and technically competent users going off the rails and getting into arguments that spiral into pages and pages of shit talking?  I feel like that's happening way more than it used to.  It's like a black hole of crap that pulls in other people until it collapses on itself.

Sure there are the trolls you sort of expect to cause trouble, but I'm talking about users that are usually "upstanding citizens". 

Not sure what to do about it.  Just more of an observation.

[tggzzz]

The mods monitor newbies for a while to verify they aren't acting in bad faith.

Thereafter there are too many messages to monitor, so the mods rely on being alerted to (perceived) problems by members using the "report to moderator" link. A sensible, practical compromise IMHO, which works because most people are decent and the mods have sane judgement.

So, if there's a perceived problem, report that instance.

Having said all that, I have reluctantly recently started to use the "ignore bozo" mechanism. That is badly misnamed; it can only make me pause before responding to some members.