That’s my point, by bringing it up in the article you can deflect most of the comments that would _try_ to turn the discussion towards race. Whether the author genuinely feels like that or not... who knows.
Yes. And I think his point is that you shouldn't cater to extremist behaviour. Which I agree as well. Don't pick a side as a defence. Just censor any attempts to start the war.
I've been using Python a lot longer than I've been using Julia, and this isn't really true. Python tends towards much larger packages where everything is bundled together, and there are fairly deep language-level reasons for that. Python doesn't have major alternatives to pandas the way Julia has half a dozen alternatives to DataFrames. There is nothing like Query.jl that applies to all table-like structures in Python.
In pandas, you'll see things like exponentially weighted moving averages, while DataFrames.jl is pretty much just the data structure.
The centralization of the Python ecosystem and extra attention that pandas has gotten has made it much better in several ways – for example, pandas's indexing makes filtering significantly faster. These optimizations might make it to DataFrames.jl eventually, but I doubt you'll ever see the same level of centralization.
We need to fix the loop holes. Money is also an amazing instrument that keeps us motivated. Without the lure of money and its power, we wouldn’t do anything. Startups? Why bother when there is no money involved.
I really think if there was one thing we got right - that’s money as a civilization. What we need to do is fix the loop holes. That includes taxes, corporation as persons, the whole 2011 movement of Occupy Wall Street.
Because you want to make something useful and helpful for the world? Personal satisfaction? Passion? Necessity?
Granted, those are no arguments to work for free in a world where operating a business and keeping yourself fed cost money, but if somehow those weren't concerns, I can assure you people would still have plenty of motivation to innovate still.
People are motivated by a variety of things, only one being wealth accumulation; and there is an inherent tension between the qualitative and the quantitative (for instance, one would be insulted if one's dinner guest offered to pay the bill for a home-cooked meal).
There's a lot to be said for the social technology of markets and the extrinsic motivations of money. But from FOSS to mutual aid to gift economies [0], currency-denominated markets should only be one tool in our political-economy toolbox.
I think basic income solves it nicely. You still get the allure of money (folks want to make more), but they can also now focus on innovation and creative endeavors. It's a win win in my opinion.
No statement in this arena taken to an extreme stands to reason, including "without the lure of money and its power, we wouldn't do anything".
I contribute to open source, as many others here do. Lots and lots of people contribute to society and the common good in other ways without the expectation of capitalistic reward.
f, t have unusually sharp overhangs but that's the style you're going for. I am not a fan of IBM's Plex's sharp corners either because it ruins the texture of the font. Either make all corners tight or not. Their argument is "Machine + Humans" or "Tight corners + Soft curves" but your eyes don't give a shit about those things.
a's tail is too long
A, V have a massive opened corners (usually done for small size readability) but Z, X, Y's crotch doesn't. You need consistency here.
Double-story g is hard to justify in a font based on drafting templates and generally doesn't feel like it fits into this type of a typeface. However, its ok to take some liberty here.
Fitting needs work first. S's side bearings need to be cut down by a lot. o, c, e's fitting is much larger than it should be.
There is a lot of work to be done here. I am pretty grumpy generally so don't take this too seriously. Have fun and hope you're enjoying the process!
Typographers struggle to make a living in most cases, but yet they don't offer better font licenses. I don't understand why they don't make it simple single license term for all usecases and make a sale. It's masochistic.
Logomark and Logotype are two aspects of Logos. Some companies decide to do both, some only one.
Regardless, the purpose of a logo is to discern and identify amongst thousands of other similar looking logos. I lean towards Logomarks (Nike, Apple, Starbucks) and less towards (Stripe, CocaCola, Kellogs).
I recommend getting a logomark + logotype designed by a professional graphics designer.
Don't Google and disregard all advice here - find a good graphics designer at your local artist directory, college or club. Here in USA, it is AIGA and a number of colleges. Find competitions or contests for graphcis design where they can display their work. Find people this way and you will have a better time than buying some stupid crap for $5.
