this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
664 points (98.4% liked)

Programmer Humor

32469 readers
596 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

This is an opportunity with creative landscaping.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Needs more plants.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 days ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Uhh, so looking carefully at the picture, it appears they shouldn't have bothered with the inner pathway at all, and should have just connected the bridge over the canal (?) in the background to whatever is under the camera.

Not only does the current design fail to provide a short path in demand, it leaves a goofy little boulevard behind the benches in what appears to be a dense, desirable urban area where you shouldn't waste space.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago

That’s right, it goes in the square hole.

[–] [email protected] 71 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Should include a concept to reduce impervious surfaces in modern times. User experience is not the only variable.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Designers need to wake up and realize their job is to understand what the user wants not what they saw in a wet dream.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Not a universal rule, however. Theres the whole concept of "optimizing yourself out of the fun" and what not in video games. Or the hardships being part of what makes a game fulfilling. It depends on what your goal is

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Wake up Nee-Oh!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

That's ancient.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago (4 children)

What the shit happened to that tree's shadow?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Could be a watermark that got removed.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 days ago

Probably the tree is shadowing the same area that a window in or near the building the picture is being taken from is illuminating.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Also, why is this shadow off from the others

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

that's just perspective, they're only parallel when looking for a perfectly top-down angle

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The tree on the right has that block missing in its shadow, the trees on the left are casting their shadows in a slightly different direction, and they guy on the dirt path's shadow seems too dark and clear. Once you pointed out something was wrong, it's hard not to see other mistakes.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

We are so paranoid about Photoshop and lately AI that we start seeing mistakes where there are none. All these things are perfectly normal.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The sun is fairly low in the sky, just a bit to the right of the guy on the dirt path, whose shadow is almost but not quite straight vertical.

The guy casts a darker and more crisp, or less diffuse shadow because he is less translucent, or more opaque, than tree leaves, and because the total distance from the heighest tree leaves to the ground is greater than the total distance from his head to the ground.

The lines of the tree trunk and lamppost shadows all converge toward where the sun is, if extended toward it.

The illuminated square in the one tree's shadow is likely a reflection from a window or some kind of metal fixture from a building or object behind the pov of the camera.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The lines of the tree trunk and lamppost shadows all converge toward where the sun is, if extended toward it.

I'm pretty sure that's not true

Edit: I'll concede the other points though

load more comments
view more: next ›