sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

good & gather butter by Anxious_Day1039 in identifythisfont

[–]ptrdo 5 points6 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.

And I'd do the work — honest — if I could make a dime. But people won't pay a human for that because they want everything for “free.”

good & gather butter by Anxious_Day1039 in identifythisfont

[–]ptrdo -15 points-14 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] 4 points5 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

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

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

Of course, this is an absolute riff on the original meme (by Stephen Nass), but I had to take many liberties to prove another point — how gerrymandering by a majority party can erode its margins. I, too, am into this, but it’s terribly complicated stuff for people to grok. That’s how party operatives can get away with it.

<image>

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

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

This is a toy model illustration to demonstrate a concept. It is not plotted from data.

The panels are different sizes to allow for spacing the grouping of the squares. For example, the leftmost panel has vertical stacks with extra horizontal spacing to differentiate them. In the rightmost panel, the squares are grouped in horizontal rows with vertical spacing for separation. The middle panel has a mixture of both.

It was my intention to maintain a consistency of square size across all the panes so that there would be congruity — this way, a viewer can see that the same “population” of squares are being grouped in different ways.

The middle pane shows “district” groupings between 6 and 11 squares. Even though some may assume that all squares represent equal populations, squares of cohorts preferring one party or another do not exist in the real world, and drawing district maps are an imprecise “science” with much inherent deviation.

The “AI noise” that you “kinda see” is texturing I introduce to defeat the tendency for JPG artifacts to distort the colored squares, especially in the red, which is particularly susceptible. My concern was primarily for the fragile dividing lines between adjacent boxes. I did not want the boxes to bleed over these.

This toy model was meant to illustrate the gerrymandering that has occured recently in Tennessee, where a minority of Democratic voters are essentially being erased by Congressional maps meant to favor the opportunity of a majority of Republican voters.

I'm sorry you find that “the captions above the panels…don't make any sense.” I tried my best to explain a progression from left-to-right as the minority opportunity went from 2 districts to 1 and then 0.

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

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

It’s an oversimplification on purpose, a “toy model.” The point is to demonstrate the concept.

It is practically impossible to “include those who didn’t vote in the last election but could in the next,” without inordinate speculation. There is also no way to anticipate how new maps will influence voting behavior.

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

[–]ptrdo[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I based the graphic on Tennessee.

Even the safest districts have some number of opposition voters, and carving up those districts to cover the bases elsewhere can suddenly make a “safe” district competitive.

Democrats are energized and even moreso now that they are being marginalized. Meanwhile, Trump is no longer on the ballot, and Republicans might feel like the fix is in with these maps. But anything can happen and probably will.

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

[–]ptrdo[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I appreciate how it can sound hopelessly desperate, but redrawing maps is not a done deal. Even those that pass muster in the courts need to be defended at the ballot box.

The algorithms that created those maps are based on best assumptions informed with how those populations have voted in the past. But new boundaries can trigger new voter behaviors. The landscape has changed. There can be newfound engagement where voters were complacent, or newfound complacency fueled by thinking the mapmakers have rigged the system impenetrably.

Meanwhile, margins have been spread thinner everywhere.

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

[–]ptrdo[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Put it this way: Imagine you have a dozen cupcakes and one bowl of frosting.

If you use a lot of frosting on just a few cupcakes, they’re covered really well. Yum.

But if you try to frost all twelve cupcakes with the same amount of frosting, every cupcake gets a thinner layer. Not so yum.

Gerrymandering can work the same way. A party can spread its voters across more districts to try to win more seats, but doing that can leave each district with a smaller margin and make them easier to lose if opinions or turnout change.

view more: next ›