11–20 of 90 posts
Not exactly 'mildly' by any united states standard... interesting post though.
Heck, the author of TFA has it tagged as nsfw himself! I disagree that the drawings were not meant to titillate. The, ahem , anatomic detail they go into was unnecessary to prove his point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heck, the author of TFA has it tagged as nsfw himself! I disagree that the drawings were not meant to titillate. The, ahem , anatomic detail they go into was unnecessary to prove his point.
It's nothing an art school graduate hasn't seen a million times over.
http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2007/NPAR07_Illust...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
depends on the context and the standards. The nakedness in question here is not intended to titillate, but to illustrate (ha) a point. To anyone who's ever taken a drawing class w/ a nude model, this is scandalous in the least. If you're presenting to your board of directors, it might be (presuming that character design is not pertinent to your endeavor).
Dude, I work at a fairly liberal software company in SoCal, and if I scrolled down to the bottom-most picture with the hand-drawn fully-naked chick and someone happened to glance at my screen, I would most likely be fired. As a rule of thumb, suggestive/sexy clothing is "mildly NSFW." Full nudity, regardless of context, is "very NSFW." (It may be different in Europe.)
If that would be grounds for firing, even after describing the context of the article, then you decidedly do not work at a fairly liberal software company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
depends on the context and the standards. The nakedness in question here is not intended to titillate, but to illustrate (ha) a point. To anyone who's ever taken a drawing class w/ a nude model, this is scandalous in the least. If you're presenting to your board of directors, it might be (presuming that character design is not pertinent to your endeavor).
Dude, I work at a fairly liberal software company in SoCal, and if I scrolled down to the bottom-most picture with the hand-drawn fully-naked chick and someone happened to glance at my screen, I would most likely be fired. As a rule of thumb, suggestive/sexy clothing is "mildly NSFW." Full nudity, regardless of context, is "very NSFW." (It may be different in Europe.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
depends on the context and the standards. The nakedness in question here is not intended to titillate, but to illustrate (ha) a point. To anyone who's ever taken a drawing class w/ a nude model, this is scandalous in the least. If you're presenting to your board of directors, it might be (presuming that character design is not pertinent to your endeavor).
Dude, I work at a fairly liberal software company in SoCal, and if I scrolled down to the bottom-most picture with the hand-drawn fully-naked chick and someone happened to glance at my screen, I would most likely be fired. As a rule of thumb, suggestive/sexy clothing is "mildly NSFW." Full nudity, regardless of context, is "very NSFW." (It may be different in Europe.)
(.|.)Not exactly 'mildly' by any united states standard... interesting post though.
Let's enumerate the things I didn't do here:
- Say this post shouldn't be on HN
- Say the post is inappropriate for viewing by anyone
- Say the post was porn or smut
- Say anything is wrong with the post
I know tons of people who read HN at work, but screw those people, right?
Another great example is Team Fortress 2. All the characters are carefully designed to be distinguishable at a glance - I remember seeing a great explanation of this a few years back, but can only find this pdf right now: http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2007/NPAR07_Illust...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
depends on the context and the standards. The nakedness in question here is not intended to titillate, but to illustrate (ha) a point. To anyone who's ever taken a drawing class w/ a nude model, this is scandalous in the least. If you're presenting to your board of directors, it might be (presuming that character design is not pertinent to your endeavor).
Dude, I work at a fairly liberal software company in SoCal, and if I scrolled down to the bottom-most picture with the hand-drawn fully-naked chick and someone happened to glance at my screen, I would most likely be fired. As a rule of thumb, suggestive/sexy clothing is "mildly NSFW." Full nudity, regardless of context, is "very NSFW." (It may be different in Europe.)
The broader point is that "NSFW" labels carry an implicit caveat emptor warning. Nobody's forcing you to click open a link, and if you believe that you work in an environment with a low tolerance for anything that could be construed as "NSFW," then don't click on a link marked "NSFW" -- even if it's qualified by "mildly," "moderately," "slightly," "possibly," and so forth. If you see the abbreviation "NSFW," you need to take stock of the risks involved in proceeding, and proceed (or not proceed) accordingly.
A corollary: given that one person's definition of NSFW will always differ from another's, it's often best to err on the side of caution.
Personally speaking, I'm thankful I work at the sort of company that wouldn't fire me for viewing this material. And I'm grateful because it's genuinely fascinating material, and the nudity is used for illustrative purposes (and also, conveniently, tucked at the bottom). Of course, if I worked at a bigger or more conservative company, there's no way in hell I would have taken a chance on anything with an NSFW label.