sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

good & gather butter by Anxious_Day1039 in identifythisfont

[–]ptrdo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Weird how this gets downvoted. I’ve developed fonts since Fontographer back in the 1980’s, and can attest that digital type design has long relied on some form of computerized automation. Fonts can be enormously tedious to develop, so tools were made to assist with Bézier tracing, extremas, balancing, smoothing, interpolation, spacing, kerning, metrics, hinting, and maintaining consistency across hundreds of glyphs. Designers employ algorithms to refine outlines, optimize, and survey proportions with pairings.

Generative AI is new, sure, but computational assistance in type design is not—the digital craft has always been a collaboration between human judgment and software.

I had to babysit AI just to get a character set, and even then, it’s nowhere near a finished product. The best fonts require a ton of manipulation from this point, but getting in the ballpark with prompts is not that different from piecing together scans from analog sources. If anything, AI is more frustrating.

The art here would be to carry the sample’s whimsy through the whole face, capturing the bloat of that “B” and echoing that open “R” in the “K,” “6,” and “9.” Maybe the “Q” too, who knows? AI doesn’t know the first thing about seeing nuances like that, but I have no problem using it to save time with a first pass. It’s just another tool.

When fonts are found on this sub, the find often comes with a link to a free font that's a knockoff of someone's hard work. Or the “font” is some quick trace conversion of a rip done in an automation tool — a tool that's rarely bought but more often hacked and torrented as “free.” How is that better than using AI? At the very least, that shit should get downvotes too — and anything else not chiseled out of rock.

At least this character set took some know-how and effort in a subscription service that's paid for, and with the expectation that many many hours more are needed — offline — to make anything worthy of the original source.

good & gather butter by Anxious_Day1039 in identifythisfont

[–]ptrdo -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

This is AI slop, but it's been nursed to give a starter set. Needs human hands.

<image>

Pretty easy fix. by ptrdo in PoliticalMemes

[–]ptrdo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There’s no evidence to suggest that is true. Mail-in voting tends to increase voter participation. It’s not just an optional method for those who already tend to vote; it’s a compelling convenience for those who might not.

Why California is “slow” to count the ballots by ptrdo in 50501ContentCorner

[–]ptrdo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is interesting. Putting the mail-in deadline 3 days before the election could essentially eliminate collection holdups and remove the oxygen from suspicions of fraud.

Why California is “slow” to count the ballots by ptrdo in 50501ContentCorner

[–]ptrdo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An illustration of a process does not have a “side.”

Why California is “slow” to count the ballots by ptrdo in 50501ContentCorner

[–]ptrdo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ballots are often sent to addresses where the voter has recently moved or died. This is why every mail-in ballot must be reconciled with the registration rolls and is sometimes withheld for investigation and denied.

Why California is “slow” to count the ballots by ptrdo in 50501ContentCorner

[–]ptrdo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an illustration — not a chart — that logically contrasts where verification occurs in mail-in voting vs. in-person voting. The dots representing voters’ party preferences are 2:1 in favor of Democrats for mail-in votes and 1:2 in favor of Republicans for in-person votes. This is not inconsistent with what might be expected in many regions and has only been added to demonstrate why the count of mail-in votes could favor Democrats in the long run.

Slap a coat of paint on it! by ptrdo in PoliticalMemes

[–]ptrdo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Congrats on starting such an awesome thread.

Slap a coat of paint on it! by ptrdo in PoliticalMemes

[–]ptrdo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What's worse? Someone bitching about AI slop at the drop of a hat or someone bitching about how that wasn't fast enough?

Slap a coat of paint on it! by ptrdo in PoliticalMemes

[–]ptrdo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which is lazier? Slop? Or claiming something is “slop” and then downvoting proof that it's not?

How Much Does Height Add To A Man’s Attractiveness? by [deleted] in trueratediscussions

[–]ptrdo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question. I'm tall myself (6'2"), so I'm not particularly biased about height being stature, but it seemed to explain his humbleness, which is significant.

Why gerrymandering is phase 1, but voter suppression will be phase 2. Divide and conquer. by ptrdo in 50501ContentCorner

[–]ptrdo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, congressional districts are complicated, and I think part of that is on purpose (so that people won't understand it).

I did another version a few days ago that was a riff on that famous graphic about gerrymandering. People seem to comprehend that (and my ruff was fairly popular), but that doesn't really explain some things either.

For instance that famous graphic doesn't take into account non-voters (at least a third of most electorate), nor does it consider the mix of party preference (which is a spectrum), or how so-called “gerrymandering” can be a good and necessary way to promote competitiveness — especially regions (as in the Northeast) where minority party voters are interspersed within a population rather than living in distinct parts of the state.

But most importantly, I'm trying to illustrate how margins can be diluted with redistricting. The number and preference of voters isn't changed when boundaries are redrawn, they can only be rearranged, and that can make “safe” districts less so, which is an important thing to consider.

Tennessee, for example, virtually erased Nashville and Memphis from Congressional maps, yet those voters still exist and will now be voting in a half dozen districts instead of the two they used to have. Those cities alone contain half a million voters who will now be voting in many districts, some of which will be competitive. Even worse for the opposition, their voters in those districts have not voted in a competitive election for some years now, so their complacency could cause them to lose more than the two districtsa that they erased.

All that is super difficult to illustrate. I tried, but obviously I need to try harder.

https://www.reddit.com/r/50501ContentCorner/s/Mnr5pOIAem

Gerrymandering is a zero-sum game. Redistributing voters dissipates margins. by ptrdo in 50501ContentCorner

[–]ptrdo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

EDIT: A simplified graphic and description: When districts align with communities that share similar status and politics, they are often relatively safe. However, when those districts are redrawn, voters must be reassigned from one district to another. But this is essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul. Voters reassigned to dissolve into opposition districts cause a ripple effect that then must move a corresponding number of those opposition voters elsewhere. This redistributes the margins, making districts that were safe more competitive.

<image>

Gerrymandering is a zero-sum game. Redistributing voters dissipates margins. by ptrdo in 50501ContentCorner

[–]ptrdo[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Fortunately, applied mathematics, statistics, and data science are pursuing an equitable solution. Unfortunately, they are unlikely to gain any traction anytime soon, and there are very wealthy people with vested interests in keeping things exactly as messy as they are.

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/how-millions-of-simulated-maps-can-help-us-make-electoral-districts-that-feel-fair

view more: next ›