The internet didn't ruin customer service.
Companies,
in the form of the executives that run those companies,
chose to slash and burn customer service down to the minimal possible.
Now all we get is an email address that generates an automated response.
Maybe somebody at the company someday will read the email
and if it looks important create a Jira ticket which will pile up in the backlog with the rest.
It was not a fun time.
In Java,
for example,
the concurrency & threading primitives were so low level it was almost impossible for anyone to use them and get it right.
The concurrency package introduced in 2004 brought higher level concepts
and mostly eliminated the need to risk the footguns present in the thread/runnable/synchronized constructs.
> In Java, for example, the concurrency & threading primitives were so low level it was almost impossible for anyone to use them and get it right.
I disagree with this. As long as you had an understanding of critical sections and notify & wait, typical use cases were reasonably straightforward. The issues were largely when you ventured outside of critical sections, or when you didn’t understand the extent of your shared mutable state that needed to be protected by critical sections (which would still be a problem today, for example when you move references to mutable objects between threads — the concurrent package doesn’t really help you there).
The problem with Java pre-1.5 was that the memory model wasn’t very well-defined outside of locks, and that the guarantees that were specified weren’t actually assured by most implementations [0]. That changed with the new memory model in Java 1.5, which also enabled important parts of the new concurrency package.
So you're saying that as long as you knew what you were doing,
you'd be OK?
My point is that at that time,
and still to a large degree today,
most programmers don't know what they are doing.
Now I see it written down I realize how lucky I've been to have spent time at the Programming Research Group at Oxford when Tony Hoare was running it and then to have worked for and founded a company with John Ousterhout. And, yeah, when I worked with him he wasn't a fan of threads.
"This shouldn't be possible. I'm not saying that you cheated, but not not saying that."
0.0011. The quote seems a bit hyperbolic. There were maybe 2-3 that I didn't see and missed. 1-2 that I didn't hit perfectly but close enough. Display probably affects results (but didn't change any settings for this). I have a Dell IPS. I also moved my head around a bit, felt natural while trying to discern the colors.
I do have a good vision (including color). Reminds me of the other color-game where you order some colored boxes to form a spectrum.
Edit: just tried hard mode and got 0.0084. Missed maybe 3 that I couldn't see. Usually some magenta or blue colored. Grey and red / brown seem to be the easiest.
I got the same results you did. I think this is testing our monitors more so than our eyes. Given the forum we're on, I expect far better than average display devices being used which could help explain why basically everyone is doing far, far better than "average" according to the site.
I'm afraid to find out at this point... retinal damage combined with cataracts that I'm waiting to have a job with medical insurance to take care of... I used to be in the top 0.001% for color detection, now I know I'm very far from it. Especially towards dark and light brightness.
In the early 00's, I used two pro grade NEC flat panel monitors... they weighed a lot... my desk at that time had a permanent bow in the middle. It was around 2008 or so when I'd moved them a few times in a year and a half and decided to switch to flat panels... It became very clear to me around that time, that most people really didn't care about color accuracy in designs. Couldn't tell you how often I'd get "it doesn't look like our printed logo" only to adjust their monitor settings and voiala. Even then.
LCD flat panels are much easier to move around without killing your back. OLED is pretty amazing, but I've got to turn my brighness down a bit to make it tolerable... and I just about have to use dark mode. But there aren't many options in the 45" 3440x1440 display range, which is where I'm most comfortable today.
What youre doing is seeing changes limited to one of the R, G, B so instwad of judging integral xolors, your doing 3 different. The article explains how errors propagate, and those RGB pixels will all shift errors because of matetial science.
There's was 2 or 3 where i had no idea, guessed and was a way off.
There's was 1 where i did a hail Mary and got it. It was interesting how some even towards the end were really obvious and others were really subtle - I'd say I did better with purple tones and worst with the blue / greys.
I'm color blind, and not even a little bit, but I scored 0.0084. I've noticed before that my perception of contrast is slightly better (than that of the people I ever compared it with; admitteldly, that's only a handful, but they weren't colorblind).
It depends on something about your screen at least. I first did it on a low quality monitor and it made the line between the two obvious even if I couldn't tell the colors apart. The "hard mode" one was impossible on that screen however.
I got a 0.0035. I'm on a Dell U2724D monitor which is supposed to have decent color accuracy and I cranked up the brightness and contrast to a maximum so I'm sure that helped a somewhat. I also noticed squinting and closing my eyes for a bit sometimes helped when I felt stuck.
"Genuinely remarkable. You sailed past the theoretical human limit like it owed you money. I'd accuse you of cheating but I don't actually know how you'd cheat at this."
Replying to myself. I also tried this with both my Samsung S25+ phone and LG G5 TV and repeatedly scored in the 0.003-0.005 range on both so it doesn't seem like the display makes that much of a difference for me.
Was fun and kind of meditative locking in like that – I noticed that the anti-glare coating on my screen introduces a visibly larger Δ than the later stages of the game (kind of a dithered "cloud" noise), making it quite a challenge. 0.0021 oneshot.
0.0043, but to be honest, I could probably do better if I changed my monitor's settings. But I have it setup with low brightness for night time lights off viewing that won't wake me up.
so basically this thread confirms that we're all getting worse color that we can actually see because I guess of some terrible lab measurement that got carried over like gospel? (0.0021 here, on a semi-cheap acer IPS screen)
> At its core this formula gives you a single number: how far apart two colours look. 0.0 means identical, 100.0 means you're comparing black and white. The magic number to remember is the "Just Noticeable Difference" (JND). For dE00, JND is around 2.0. Below that, people struggle to tell two colours apart. Below 1.0, basically no one can. So anything under 2.0 is "close enough" and anything under 1.0 is "you're kidding yourself."
The article doesn't mention any new secrets revealed.
I visited it, and it's a decent place to visit once,
but it's owned by the Barringer Crater Company and it kind of shows.
The site really ought to be a National Park or similar.
I was wondering if I was just having reading comprehension issues myself.
TFA: These kinds of studies have led to the identification of, so far, of about 200 confirmed impact craters on Earth, Koeberl said. "Impact crater studies have actually grown in importance over the years and are an interdisciplinary effort. We encourage young researchers from all over the world to submit grant proposals,"
Huh... I never thought about it like that. I had no interest in using OpenClaw, but my coworkers are extremely dumb and inconsistent. OpenClaw might be comparable.
"In order to make machines significantly easier to use, it has been proposed (to try) to design machines that we could instruct in our native tongues. this would, admittedly, make the machines much more complicated, but, it was argued, by letting the machine carry a larger share of the burden, life would become easier for us. It sounds sensible provided you blame the obligation to use a formal symbolism as the source of your difficulties. But is the argument valid? I doubt."
reply