Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

dresdencodak.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#41

Post by gojomo »

kevingadd wrote: post #36
gojomo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I've never worked anyplace where it would be a problem. Which refutes your categorical pronouncements about nationally-consistent standards. Everyone's got an anecdote!

Well, if you're demanding standards, you could spend a few seconds looking up the definition of sexual harassment in the workplace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_environment_sexual_hara... You'll notice 'pictures of pornography in cubicles' is one of them. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html (a government website, note) mentions specific cases where visible pornography counted as establishing a…

Nude sketches in this context are not 'pornography'. (Go ahead, look it up!)

And, an illustration in a browsed web article isn't the same as posted pictures in a cubicle.

Yes, the kind of hypersensitive context-oblivious standards you're describing exist in many workplaces. The point is they're not in all.

The dissenting comments and downvotes you've received contain valuable information: others' experience really, honestly, truly differs from your blanket claims.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#42

Post by lifeformed »

alex_c wrote: post #13

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...

They kind of threw this out the window after all the hats and costumes, though.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#44

Post by scotty79 »

Camillo wrote: post #34
BoppreH wrote: post #3

Aaron Diaz is amazing. The time travel/transhumanism comic Hob is greatly recommended ( http://dresdencodak.com/2007/02/08/pom/ ).

It is the most ridiculously ham-fisted Mary Sue pastiche that I have ever seen, but the art is nice.

I think Mary Sue is only when character is posed as in any way ordinary.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#46

Post by angersock »

dbaupp wrote: post #39
angersock wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I don't understand why you need to match periods redundantly in your regex?

That's why it's a fireable offense.

I should be fired too... '.' != '\.'.

I'm put in mind of the old Zawinski quote:

"Some people, when confronted with a problem, think \"I know, I'll use regular expressions.\" Now they have two problems. "

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#47

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

kevingadd wrote: post #36
gojomo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I've never worked anyplace where it would be a problem. Which refutes your categorical pronouncements about nationally-consistent standards. Everyone's got an anecdote!

Well, if you're demanding standards, you could spend a few seconds looking up the definition of sexual harassment in the workplace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_environment_sexual_hara... You'll notice 'pictures of pornography in cubicles' is one of them. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html (a government website, note) mentions specific cases where visible pornography counted as establishing a…

In an ancestor comment you (correctly) noted that you hadn't said this post was porn. Now you are all but saying exactly that. Which is it?

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#48

Post by LeonidasXIV »

groundCode wrote: post #43

"using hair alone to distinguish heads is cheating" xkcd might disagree :)

He explicitly mentions stick figures that can be better than photorealistic painting as readers of xkcd might agree.

But take the Scott Pilgrim stories, everybody looks mostly the same except for hairstyles. I remember there is also a joke by one of the characters that everybody looks the same anyway.

I'd say, these are suggestions and not hard rules. You might get away disregarding some of these.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#49

Post by yason »

kevingadd wrote: post #2

Not exactly 'mildly' by any united states standard... interesting post though.

Conversely, I was wondering what was it that was NSFW at all in the pictures?

In a culture where all nakedness is banned and considered an absolute filter might be the explanation. But this is hardly the case even in the USA that is infamous for how inconsistently and arbitrarily such things are labelled as "ok" and "no-no".

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#50

Post by misnome »

kevingadd wrote: post #36
gojomo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I've never worked anyplace where it would be a problem. Which refutes your categorical pronouncements about nationally-consistent standards. Everyone's got an anecdote!

Well, if you're demanding standards, you could spend a few seconds looking up the definition of sexual harassment in the workplace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_environment_sexual_hara... You'll notice 'pictures of pornography in cubicles' is one of them. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html (a government website, note) mentions specific cases where visible pornography counted as establishing a…

I am slightly concerned that you considered this "Pornography".
Post reply on HN