Messages - ital2 [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: prev1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 23next
51
General Software Discussion / White Identical Twins
« on: July 28, 2017, 06:06 PM »
EDIT Night August 6/7, 2017: Title change (original title: "AI, google (YT), in the year 2017")


from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gESAnsj0FDU :

OttoIlse.png

Original screenshot. This evening, after spending some hours on YT exclusively with the German comedian Otto Waalkes, I just encountered the grossest AI glitch (or then, is it not...) I've ever seen in my life, aside from it being most memorable because of its shock value. Note that I do NOT vision documentaries like the central one (> "Recommended for You" or similar effect), independently from the fact that I regularly have my browser history, etc. cleaned (by CCleaner), and even if they spy my hdd (which cannot be excluded), they would only discover some political videos treating current affairs, especially on censorship.

Thus, yesterday, I had downloaded this YT video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdKC72rS6ng ("Götz Kubitschek zu seinem unerwünschten Bestseller 'Finis Germania'"), an interview with RT who treats the backgrounds of a current censorship case of a book thrown out from the authoritative bestselling-books list (NYT, NZZ, etc. treat the affair, too, currently), for beng politically incorrect. (In short, the - now deceased - author writes that Germany as a country cannot continue to bucket all (!) of its national identity out of the holocaust but in order to survive, must bethink of positive values, in case even create new ones, and really believe in them - as you perhaps know, even the German car industry auto-destructs itself at this very moment, and its narrative wasn't sustainable for ages anyway.)

Thus, it's not an AI glitch indeed, but

- google spy on me (spying my hdd? or simply my IP from yesterday, very similar to my IP from today, the web provider always assigning numbers within a restrained range), and

- within an evening of comedy, in the centre of 7 (and more) pertinent comedy suggestions, they place a documentation, "Ilse Koch, the monster of (camp) Buchenwald".*

(That list is known for listing current (!) best-selling books only, i.e. it doesn't include so-called "long-sellers", like the Bible, the Coran, etc., but it hadn't been known they censored books. Now caught with it, they say that oh yes, they have "quality standards" which obviously is a lie since incredible bad junk's on that list all year round, year after year, and they didn't leave that censored place 6 in the list blank, but number 7 is now in place 6. Spiegel (co-) belongs to Bertelsmann (and Random House, etc., which you certainly will know, is Bertelsmann), the data for the list - which, as said, comes as the "list of the best-selling books", not as the "list of the politically-accepted best-selling books" - is gathered and processed by "Buchreport", a leading trade paper by Bertelsmann, and book number 7, which now takes the place, is published by "Knaus"... which is Bertelsmann, so this scandal also has a competition law aspect (since also they tried to do this without communicating their act of censorship which favored their own title (since many idiots (sorry, but how could you call them otherwise) BUY "from" this list), before being caught, and now only they communicate about it) which nobody to my knowledge has seen yet.)

It's NOT the case that I wanted to serve you some political blah-blah by the pretext of YT AI; all to the contrary, when I did the screenshot, I couldn't think but of an AI glitch and wanted to publish it here in order to show you just how "dumb" they are, ha, ha, oh no, as I see now: it's been then only that I remembered how it came that google served me that "historical lesson" on purpose, obviously in order to reprimand me for having had the guts to feel positive of ideas contained in that book (I visioned the clip in its full length; politically-correct people who are pro-censorship (write in Der Spiegel, in Die Zeit et al. and) tend to just look into some minutes, so google correctly knows my stance and lets me know they highly disapprove it and/or they try to "educate" me in the alleged "opposite" direction: They obviously take me for a fascism-drifter in need of "new information" in order to be salvaged for the flock.

*: What will google and others do, in the same situation, with people like me, who just are openly against (Bertelsmann-and-others') depotism (the Bertelsmann owner widow is an intimate friend of the German Chancellor) and openly against censorship (the "German Question" just being accessory here, and to be precise, the author does NOT defend the Reich in any way: the latter would have been a criminal act, the book would have been seized, the publisher jailed; it's just that the pitmans of the oligarchs (well, google are oligarchs themselves now, aren't they?) don't bear someone naming Jehova (Life of Brian, you know that comedy).

They try to silence the population (German press for example is extensively government press, just last week they published an ironclad scientific research paper on that, and not speaking of German state radio/tv), and when they see you're not part of the silenced ones yet, they currently try to heavily educate you, in some years they will change tune. The screenshot above is a scandal in itself.

And thank you, I know about Buchenwald and its monsters without YT/google "helping" me with it.

52
I'd been interested in hard links, a subset of symbolic links; we're speaking of newer Windows versions here.

From this quite recent post: https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/12/02/symlinks-windows-10/ (December 2, 2016 2:00 pm - Symlinks in Windows 10! - By Yosef Durr / Lead Senior Program Manager), you could infer that they had been made more accessible to common Windows users now, but in the end, I had to set my system to "Developer Mode" indeed, in order to be able to create hardlinks with my macro program (open a cmd window, trigger the necessary commands, auto-close the cmd window); with direct API access it should be smoother, visually, but I don't know how I would do that; in any case, no manual intervention is asked for, it's just the popping up of the cmd window which isn't that pretty.

Hard links are robust when it comes to renaming or moving of the "original" file name (or any one of the "links") - in fact, there is not such an "original" file anymore, but there's that data thing in the hdd, and then just several links to that data body, the original name being just one of them - that's how NTFS works anyway, so these NTFS-only links appear to be a perfect way to do file cloning (instead of creating copies), even though it all doesn't function but within the same drive - I suppose you could install some super drive for this, i.e. a common denominator for anything below it, like multiple hdd's in some NAS, so this one-drive-only limitation doesn't exclude the use of symbolic links from "corporate" use if the "corporation" is a pop-and-mom office or the like.

Of course, there seem to appear big problems with web storage ("cloud"); some people in the web speak of using it for this, but I cannot imagine any inter-office-web use, so they've got probably everything (and only, except perhaps for backup purposes) in the (same) "cloud".

Where things begin to get nasty - hence this thread -, read here:

https://www.zive.cz/poradna/symlink/sc-20-cq-526698/?consultanswers=1

cpbbt2  |  15. 08. 2014 09:44  |  Microsoft Windows 8.1 IE 11.0  |  [5.104.22.---]

What you have to consider is the way an application/program works on a file. Some edit the file directly, and they should work perfectly fine with hardlinks. Although I didn't knew the "fileinfo difference" problem until now ... Other applications copy the file and then delete the old one when they save their edited version. This programs obviously break the hard link with that hidden copy operation. What they save is no longer the file they had opened. When they then delete the old version, they remove this single hardlink from the directory. Other hardlinks remain, and so you get two files in the end.

Lots of blah-blah discussion here: https://superuser.com/questions/306548/windows-7-mklink-hard-links-attributes-expected-contents-do-not-affect but they don't get it any better than that (and they don't even cite the source).

Of course, I encountered the problem described there, immediately, with my very first trial files: You make, from some original file x.xyz, a copy (!) 0x.xyz, then create hard links 0x1.xyz, 0x2.xyz, etc. from 0x.xyz, and then you can play around with these all-non-original "files", i.e. links to the copied original; first copying is important since you will want to extend your playing around to also deleting the first name in the line, the 0x.xyz, in order to see if really there is no difference anymore to the other, later links (since you created these with the mklink command, while the 0x.xyz had been created in the traditional way): You open some of these file aliases, change them, close them, then check if other aliases you open have got those changes or not.

(I did not check what happens when you open that same content body, under two different names, with 2 different programs at the same time, and if that is possible to begin with - probably yes... IF one of the 2 programs comes with the problems described above.)

Now imagine somebody trying to create some office software relying on hard links, and the customer service they would have to do afterwards, with all those angry customers having created multiple alternatives from the same original files...

BUT this being said, hard links are probably a fine, elegant, file-system-only solution for pictures or other files of a certain kind and of which you first must be sure you will never use a program upon, which will create the problems described above; also, the same picture programs could behave differently for just opening / displaying some pictures, and then processing them, for example some dedicated picture viewer but which also has some basic processing features.

So before adopting hard links for pic categorization, you would have to do many verifications if it's viable in your case, but if it is, such a file-system-only solution is without any doubt much superior to any commercial database solution, for pics, since in the latter, you only have your multiplicity of the same pic / document only in that dedicated program - the same is true for dedicated tagging programs of all sorts, except for a single exeception among them which writes the tags into the filenames, but you could do that yourself, with any good file manager (thus offering a good multi-rename function) -, while with hard links, these "clones" would be available from anywhere, from within any file manager, any pic browser, and thus also be available TO any special dedicated program which does something DO to these files, so if you exactly know what program and/or program functionality does, how it behaves in this respect, the use of hard links, together with some automatic check functionality which then, in case, handles the aliases, could certainly be an almost optimized solution.

The same for office use, the only problem being that then such an office software would prescribe the use of some restricted list of "acceptable" applications, either because they or the file formats in question don't represent any problem, or because that centralized program knows how to "react" whenever such an application works upon a file within those "monitored" directories (which would be a prerequisite in order to get such a system functional). (NB: Some file formats may be without problems up to now just because there isn't any application yet which messes around with it in this way.)

Whereas traditional links are totally unreliable; they've egen got some (!) functionality in order to not being broken when the original file (here there is a distinction between original file and link files indeed) is renamed or moved, but from my experience, you should never rely upon it, it works here and there, and then again not, so...

So whatever that MS "Lead Senior Program Manager" says, a really viable solution to the everlasting "it's-just-a-tree-instead-of-a graph" problem inherent to NTFS (not speaking of FAT32 et al.) hasn't been found yet, or in other words, MS don't do their homework.



EDIT August 1st, 2017: Just title change, for the title better reflecting the extended content.

53
The following was meant as an Edit to my previous post, unfortunately I got, with multiple tries, "invalid attachment". It's a 5kb .png file called SQLiteExpert.png, from c:\, so it'd be of interest to know what in such a file could be "invalid" for this forum, perhaps screenshots cannot be inserted by edit, but only into new posts, since now, doing a new post for it, it seems to work?


EDIT July 25, 2017

Of course, some days later, there is a new version of SQLite "Expert", it's quite FIVE versions later than about 5 days ago. Probably, the immediate crash will not come now. But I've said it several times, the quite pretty GUI is really bad, functionally. So I think I should share a little screenshot in order to give an impression of what I mean, this is just an example of many (or let's say, several of) such quirks. As always, just a tiny one, so that the size demonstrates, too, that my illustrations are only for conveying my point in question issues. Here, we've got a record NOT numbered 72, but with a 4-digit number, but the whole record had been more or less readable indeed, not editing purposes though, but then, I had clicked on the plus sign above the records, in order to create a new one - which you see in the middle line, with the star in front of it, and you can see that it's perfectly unscrutable - so that's how the developer thinks people should enter the data into a new record, by "in-line" editing, ha ha ha (the multiple "(n" are default nulls):

SQLiteExpert.png

54
General Software Discussion / Re: SWOT software
« on: July 23, 2017, 02:19 PM »
SWOT Compare

There are some (free or paid) macro collections for Excel; by chance, some days ago, I saw a very beautiful bullet chart somewhere ( https://www.powerusersoftwares.com/single-post/2016/08/22/75-of-the-best-add-ins-plugins-and-apps-for-Microsoft-Excel-free-or-not ), I took a tiny, partial screenshot from the screenshot (right of citation):

Heatmap 1.png

It's called "Dashboard Tools for Excel" (45$) there, but it's obvious that is has been renamed "Tools for Excel Tables" (price maintained), and under http://jabsoft.com/tools_for_excel_tables/insert_bullet_chart.htm you'll find another specimen of which I also took a tiny part for demonstration:

Heatmap 2.png

SWOT is more specific, but I like bullet charts very much, they're very useful for lots of things; you can include SWOT by color into them; weighting has to be discussed though since bullet size regularly would mean strength of the factor in the given element, and not the weight you give to the factor represented in the element; it wouldn't be a good idea to combine them I think, but you could use background color / greyness for the "weighting", or, better, modulate the given color (red would be risks, green would be chances, etc., but a lighter green on a bigger bullet would then be a quite big chance but which isn't valued big, and so on.

Perhaps the same would be possible with PowerPoint or even in Excel's own graphics department? And what about risky chances? And there's the old saying that "it's all playing around since you do your weighting according to the decisions you will already have done before", but that's not entirely true, and you certainly 1) will find out this way what really matters to you(r corporation or similar), 2) with which disadvantages you are / must be willing to live then.

Anyway, my musings above go into the direction of a compared SWOT analysis, or, shorter, a "SWOT Compare"; the traditional form of SWOT (see @Contro's links) isn't that much suited to a compared SWOT, when in fact, SWOT is about comparing alternatives, most of the time (even if then several alternatives will be realized in case).

Thus, trying to put several dimensions into such a table is worthwile, but then, it could become difficult or even impossible (i.e. too much scripting involved) to generate such a table from an Excel/spreadsheet table: You will probably end up doing it "manually", in an independent business graphics tool, or in some combination: Creating 2 dimensions in Excel (hard data if there is any, or then just simili-data, i.e. 1 dimension from deliberately-attributed numbers: size; also factors = Excel rows: color*), to be imported into the chart, and then manual work (which may not be possible with Excel add-ins) in order to add a / get the third dimension (or even a fourth one, but I fear comprehension will suffer then, but yes, if you have got one dimension with only a few possible values, you could try to combine different shapes).

*: It goes without saying that lots of Excel rows will then only apply to some alternatives or even just one alternative, but at least, the identical / similar factors can be grouped together (by different dimensions, hopefully), and that helps a lot with deciding and/or planning, just like, but much better than, positioning two sheets of vellum one on top of the other, pair by pair, and trying to get the matches visually.

Thus, a "SWOT Compare", or a Compared SWOT is certainly better in most use cases, hence the interest of more elaborate graphical representations.


EDIT: I see the second table in @Contro's first link is a comparison, but it's not multi-dimensional as I advocate it here. Also have a look at the very last table in that link: On first sight, you could think all those buttons on the left are filter and sort buttons, but that's unfortunately not the case: Such buttoms would be very welcome in such a tool, and they would be technically feasible: Their affectations would have to be plastic, according to the table in question. So it's evident that at the end of the day, SQL's the "answer" here again: Just have generic buttons, for some number of different SQL selects*, to be written by the user, specific to the table in question, and to be assigned to those buttons, just like macros are assigned to kb keys; since we're speaking of screen buttons here, there would be captions, and more informative mouse-overs; the selects (i.e. the filters/sorts), with their code and all, would be stored in records in some SQL table on their turn, just as would be the "tables", i.e. the data and all possible dimensions of their metadata with their respective values.

*: As we know, SQL "selects" do much more than just "select".

55
Text Cursor vs Mouse Cursor

I occurs to me that during all these years, I haven't done one thing right; I switched between my most important applications by keyboard keys (or then by a 1-key Alt-Tab replacement for the respective last-previous application (toggle)), but I always moved the mouse manually if needed, and the mouse is needed a lot (except for file managers where I do it all with the kb, except for mult-selects, and here and there a dragndrop).

This un-smart way of doing things was bearable in a 2x 1280x1024-pix setup; now where there are 3 or more applications visible all the time, and the mouse cursor may have been left anywhere, this isn't viable anymore: First, I tried with lots of gratuitous moving around of the mouse, just in order to check where the curser might have been, then I replaced the default system cursor setting with quite some monstruous cursors very visible indeed but not bearable to the eye, then I finally started to think for half a minute.

It's easy indeed. If you have kb macros which either run a program or (when the application doesn't has a setting "allow for 1 instance only") activate it (when it's already running: by: if there is a window with partial title "name of application here) then activate the window; else, run the application, with such a setting, just run the application), the text cursor (or however it's called) is activated over there, but the mouse cursor stays where it is, so you simply must programmatically move your mouse cursor, too - not for clicking the mouse in its target position (which technically would be possible, too, but which could have unwanted effects; just moving the cursor.

The name of your "target" application is already known, and it has got some window position and size, which are both determined by the 4 coordinates A, B, C, D, as seen above for the screen surface; it's similar for any window. So you can retrieve the position of A, B, C and D, then let's say you would like to position the mouse cursor at some relative (!) position x, in the centre of the window, or, for example, at a position y, 1/3 of the height, 1/3 of the width of that window. Note that this is also possible for windows of "plastic" size within a cluttered desktop, not only for windows with fixed sizes and fixed positions. That makes, for any mouse position a, b, a very simple calculation in your macro tool, and all your activation/run macros could get the same call to this "function" or sub-routine (one-and-for-all, and, of course, with some wait command, waiting, in case, that the "target" application will have been loaded (so that the coordinates of its window can be retrieved).

Whenever you then switch applications, by macro instead of by Alt-Tab*, your mouse cursor will already be within the vicinity at least of where you then will probably be in need for it, so searching for the mouse cursor is abolished, and also, your always necessary manual mouse movements will be reduced to a minimum.

*: You could even do it, this way of doing things included; you simply put the PosMouse() function, instead of putting it into the trigger macros, into something like OnApplicChange() or the like; if that's not available, you set up a timer checking for application changes, say, 2 times per sec.

Also, theoretically, it's possible to position the mouse cursor at a specific position, for a specific application or for a specific group of applications, or even for any application but depending on its window size and/or position - I'd call that hobby macroing, extended macroing just for the fun of it, and I have never felt the utility to have the mouse on some specific position within any application, except for the execution of some macro, but such macros aren't that much reliable anyway; on the other hand, if one of your application comes with a lot of palettes for example, perhaps it's a good idea to position the mouse pointer 1/3-1/3 into the main work area of that application, not at 1/3 1/3 of its overall window, but that would be exceptional, very specific adjustments to be made.


Do You Have a Cluttered Desktop?

See MaxMax (or MaxTo if you want to pay, or MS Snap if that thing works on your system) above for prefiguring screen positions / snapping of application windows. If you prefer the Cluttered Desktop, the mouse advice is possible, too, as explained, since the necessary mouse pointer position will be calculated on run-time, just the relative position is pre-set.

I have never used a Cluttered Desktop in my life I admit - when you trigger everything by kb or by some application launcher tool (home-made or bought, no difference), there is simply no need to ever look at the desktop, besides when turning on the pc.

BUT I now understand much better why for example @wraith808 sees uses for tools like "Fences": In fact, when you use the MS "desktop" as background for an ever-moving set of "plastic" (different positions, different sizes, too, probably) application windows, then why not have ready some application shortcuts grouped in some "Fences" field or other: With a visible desktop, such applications can be maintained continuously (all/most of the time) visible, too, so that's quite another situation than the one I described in the KM/KVM thread and which was, display the desktop, move the mouse to the wanted icon, re-activate the your previous application window(s) (besides the new one, and one by one) which, by activation of the desktop, have all been hidden now.

Thus, "desktop enhancers" are really useless in my style of work (applications maximized or maximized to pre-defined areas of the screen(s), while they may be useful indeed for anybody who, while working, always sees some parts of the desktop (which implies that none of their applications is maximized).

I do NOT know how Mr. Bartels does it do for ShareMouse, that "greying out" of whole windows, but it's the ideal way to indicate the active window - when, as said, you set the "greying out" very lightly, so that the inactive windows all remain perfectly readable but, at the same time, become "greyed out", designed as "inactive"; as said in that thread, a "blackness" of just around 15 % seems perfect for this effect, without "too-much-blackened" inactive windows becoming threatening or at least very ugly; if it's still lightly-only greyed-out, it remains perfectly viable.

Does anybody know how greying-out of the whole screen, except for the active window, would technically be done?

EDIT July 24, 2017: I'm asking for a more "natural" solution to this problem, of course, than the creation of 4 rectangular, always-inactive windows for each screen would be, and in which those windows would be of plastic size (could even be 0,0, in case the active window is (regularly) maximized), position (default would be 0,0 here again) and greyness = transparence (set by the user to their convenience, ditto for color (e.g. for girlies)): That would work, of course, but should be considered a "dirty" solution, even though the timer-basis would ensure that those rectangles would be moved and resized accordingly whenever the user moves and/or resizes the active window. (End of Edit)

As said, this should be done; at this time, in ShareMouse, the inactive screen (!) is greyed-out, and Multiplicity puts a colored frame around the active screen (!), not around the active window, so what I describe here isn't done yet but would be oh so useful! On the other hand, systematically putting a colored frame around the active window (!) would be easy; just decide about the thickness and the color, and then put its drawing into the macro described above, preferably with a timer indeed; the less de-sync between indications and the specific real situation, the better!

Pages: prev1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 23next
Go to full version