in that its lovely and highly functional? sure. what disturbs me is that the lit map is wrapped around this large empty room. but the operator would get the same angular view if the whole thing was just somewhat smaller and wrapped more closely around the desk. the use of space here seems extravagant and kind of unsettling
The central room feels large today, but I bet it was the right size for 1930s technology.
The space requirement comes from two things: the diagrams on the panels are actually fairly complex with lots of controls thwt fit mostly inside the diagrams themselves. Operators in the room should be able to scan the whole diagram easily from a central position.
Thw size of the room then becomes a requirement because all the panels need to be oriented inwards, not occluded and they can't shrink down too much because the controls need to fit.
Backside of the panels. This might help you understand why the amount of space used is not at all extravagant. We're spoiled with our disposable, tiny electronics. Those things were meant to last decades.
The second part affirms that it is centralized. There is nothing wrong with that except saying that because you can leave the community and go elsewhere, it is ipso facto decentralized.
The entire story is a setup for a remark about a Neovim maintainer's refusal to remove a David Heinemeier Hansson quote from the Neovim homepage [0]. So with that in mind the rhetoric makes sense.
[0]: In spite of the author at Unsung saying that Neovim is "in news" for other reasons. Chisnall's account is being given in the immediate context of that news.
So you say the authors accusing neovim of being careless are themselves careless with the readers when they lure us into reading a piece that has second political intentions?
Maybe the author of the actual blog post had different intentions in sharing the Mastodon post than the author of the Mastodon post did. But the Mastodon post was made in response to the event that the blog post attempts to separate itself from. It's a reasonable thing to do if you're more interested in the technical issue and not the political one that the technical issue is being compared to.
But the context of the original post is meant to respond to a (techno-)political issue. This can explain why the post's rhetoric comes across as hyperbolic.
It doesn't help that UX seems to be talked about in ways that borrow the rhetoric of ethics from other disciplines like law and healthcare.
This is a silly post. No one is forcing this guy to do anything. He did it because he didn't want to take the time to learn to do this all himself or simplify his expectations so that he'd have to learn less. Or he did it because he wanted to and liked the way the website looks and it was easy and he may not actually care too much about the ethics (at least not as much as who ever he's asking forgiveness from).
