Jenna wonders if Matt is planning to take their relationship public when he invites her to a party. Jenna also realizes she might actually have more in common with Jake. Jenna wants to define her relationship with Matty, but she worries it will come at the risk of losing him. Meanwhile, Tamara enjoys her first sex scandal after contracting pink eye in a hot tub make-out session. A strange stalker brings Jenna's suicide stigma back to life.
Jenna starts to wonder if her reputation is preventing Matty from seeing her as girlfriend material. Things get even more awkward when she bumps into Matty and Jake.
Jenna gets cast as the victim in a mock-DUI event. As she struggles with her role, Jake and Matty struggle for her attention. The next day, a forgetful and hungover Jenna struggles to reconstruct the events of the wild night and find out who she kissed. Jenna experiences an embarrassing sixteenth birthday and deals with the repercussions of everyone she's alienated.
After failing her driving test, she wonders if she can repair her relationships with Matty and Tamara. YouTube Instagram Adobe. Kickstarter Tumblr Art Club. Film TV Games. Fortnite Game of Thrones Books. Comics Music. Filed under: Apple Tech iPad. Linkedin Reddit Pocket Flipboard Email. Image: Apple iPad users will also have to wait for the incredible-looking Universal Control feature , which seamlessly lets you share a cursor between Macs and iPads.
Next Up In Tech. There must be some haptic field going on as well because it feels like I'm cocking a gun or something like that.
It's so satisfying this heavy metal feeling. I think that that takes a ton of work to do consistently throughout an entire interface. It feels sort of superficial, who cares how it feels? The whole point is that it just locks. As long as it's functional, why do you need it? I also feel like if an interaction like that is satisfying, that actually gives you a different relationship with it. I kind of want to make more things that are just toys where it's fun to interact with the thing, because I feel like that actually sets a very high bar, a game can be fun because it has a story or it has cool characters or there's a scoring system or something.
But a toy, it has to be fun to play with just because it's fun to play with just from the interactions themselves. We recently had an episode with Jonathan Blow, the video game designer, and he's really obsessed with the performance of his video games and making sure they feel really good. He was making a similar point that, if it doesn't feel really good, people will just leave because they don't need to be playing your game compared to work software or something that their boss made them use.
They have to use that. I was looking at, what are the haptics like in Android phones? As far as I know, they're really not even close. Apple has spent a considerable extra money, and that maybe isn't justified on paper to have Because it takes extra space in the phone, I think, to have a really good haptic motor.
That's obviously at a premium. It's not in any of the advertising, anything like that. But you go into the Apple Store, you pick it up and you just feel it instantly. OMAR: I think it would open up a lot of this discussion that we've had. I think a lot of the reason why there hasn't been much movement in computer interfaces There was the iPhone and there's the desktop computer.
Basically, those interface paradigms have been the same since each of them was introduced. Your desktop right now is not really that different from the Mac. That you have your monitor and you have your keyboard and you have your mouse or your Trackpad. OMAR: I guess this is kind of an industry or business question.
I think we've gotten really good at making displays, keyboards and mice. Once you have a market where there's millions of people buying computers, you also need to be compatible with that market. It's hard to do really new things because everybody wants to have their work processed and their spreadsheets, and those are pieces of software that you have to support. Some of the examples of things that I think we're constrained away from doing are really rich spatial interfaces, like the sort of zoomable, giant canvas UI, I think, are pretty awkward with a mouse and keyboard.
I think visual programming is pretty awkward with a mouse and keyboard where you have blocks or boxes with wires between them. A lot of the kind of weird ideas for programming that don't just involve typing in a text editor, I think are one of the reasons that they haven't taken off more is that it's really annoying to use these with a mouse and keyboard because you have to drag one thing at a time.
It can feel fine for relatively big blocks, but you can't do that much detail. One type of input device you've used a lot is projectors. What are the sorts of things that projectors lend themselves to that normal monitors don't so much? For some people listening probably aren't familiar with what that is, can you describe what Dynamicland is? OMAR: The first thing that comes to mind is that projectors let you work on a much bigger scale.
As long as your protector is far enough away, you can cover a lot more area. If there is something that feels more humane or something about that, where the scale is more in accord with your whole body yet and you're not just kind of crouched around this desk like you are with a laptop or even with a piece of paper or a book. There's the big thing. I mean, you can overlay objects in the world. I mean, this is a lot of what we were doing at Dynamicland.
I think actually a lot of the potential of projectors is a little bit underplayed. In my mind, the stereotypical use of projectors is still, you have your PowerPoint on the wall of your office and you're clicking through it. I think you could do a lot more. It's a lot easier to have multiperson interactions. Some people listening probably aren't familiar with what that is. Can you describe what Dynamicland is? Who's this sort of interface researcher. The goal of the project is to create sort of communal physical computer.
Dynamicland itself lives in this building in downtown Oakland. It has sort of this whole floor. The idea is when you go into Dynamicland, you can leave your laptop at home. Instead, the whole building is basically a single computer. The way that works concretely is that there are all these tables around the space, Dynamicland space and above each table there are cameras and projectors. Rather than having a laptop and a mouse and keyboard and a screen, you have objects on these tables that you're moving around and that's what actuates the computer and the computer can project information on the tables.
Rather than having virtual objects like files and windows and stuff on your screen, you have physical objects. Which are usually right now pieces of paper, and you can move around those physical objects and point them at each other. The other key part of the Dynamicland system, and I was talking to you before about how I think a lot of people miss this even if they come in and see it, is that it's a full programming system.
All of the pieces of paper, all the objects on the table and the space, every object is a little computer program and you can take a keyboard off the shelf and point it at one of those objects and reprogram it to do something else. The goal is that everybody who comes in should know or learn how to program, and it's sort of just part of the social aspect of the space, that this is also a programming space.
That's something that's really novel about it. There have been physical computing systems in the past where there's a whole wall that's activated or there're projection map objects, but I think this further aspect of you can also reprogram the system inside the system without having your laptop or your desktop, I think that's something that's really new.
OMAR: Ideally, you use it for whatever you use your laptop and phone for right now. You can use it for your normal work. That's really the goal of the system, is to be a computer in the full sense of the word. It's not supposed to be just an educational system or a kind of toy. It's supposed to be the actual system that you're working inside.
I think there are, and this is what the team has been working on for the last while, is there are a lot of technical constraints and there's a lot of engineering to do in terms of making more of it reprogrammable.
Allowing more kinds of objects that aren't just pieces of paper. Those are really important because I think when people go to a website or they see demos of something, they really anchor onto whatever concrete examples they see and they kind of extrapolate from that. Like what is this whole system about? I think having more kinds of examples of what you can do with the system is pretty important, and that's a lot of the technical work they're doing. I mean, a lot of the things that I ran into where I felt limited were thinking about things like, what do I do on my laptop?
A lot of those things weren't possible in the Dynamicland system for various reasons. I think those are concrete examples of things that you might want to do. Where maybe you don't have the internet connectivity or you don't have the high resolution rendering or the tracking of physical books. Or whatever you would need to be able to do those kinds of tasks. Instead, it was very much bottom up.
Like, we're making these demonstrations of things you can do in the system, but not necessarily hoarding workflows from the existing computer. DEVON: What are aspects of the system that seem really important about Dynamicland, but are actually sort of incidental and could have been done in a totally different way?
OMAR: The things that people fixate on when they first see the system are the least important things. For example, there are these colored dots that are used to track the pieces of paper. If you ever go and see a picture of Dynamicland or a video or something, that'll probably be the first thing you notice, is the color dots.
They're really this icon or logo of the system. Those are completely incidental and you could make a system that to me would be recognizably a Dynamicland based system and not have colored dots. Conversely, you can make a system that had color dots that does not have any of the interesting properties of the Dynamicland system.
You mentioned when you were talking about Dynamicland, about how it's social. I remember you've talked to me a lot about how CS II , the class that you taught at Stanford titled, "Computer Systems from the Ground Up" and the office hours for that were a very social space.
What did that look like and how did people interact in that space? You get taught C and systems programming and stuff like that. It was this experimental version of the class where I set up meetings, or you kind of knew that there was this gathering point where people would be anyway. I think I really didn't appreciate that as a student until maybe my second or last year of school, where I started taking more of the small classes. Those classes were almost always so much better.
I wish someone had told me that when I was OMAR: Whenever you have a personal relationships that are involved where people know who you are and you're trying to impress them or you're friends with them or whatever, I feel like that creates a much stronger relationship with the material and it's a lot more motivating than if you're just part of this machine and you're sitting in this lecture hall.
I mean, I think I found this is true also for learning languages. I've become a lot more motivated in the last few years to really get good at Spanish because my significant other is from a Spanish speaking country. The idea of being able to speak with his mom is really incredibly motivating. Versus in school, it was cool.
I mean, I enjoyed learning Spanish, but it was not in the depths of my heart. OMAR: I guess it's funny because this way of thinking really, it makes me a lot less interested in a lot of things about education or pedagogy than I think I would have been maybe 10 years ago. Because it feels to me like that's never the important part.
The important part is always the motivation part and the social part of why you're learning the thing. One of the biggest things is, if it feels like you have to switch modes to use the thing The example that I've brought up in the past is, when I was TAing this class often people would have these really nasty bugs in their programs.
They would always, always, always put off using the debugger to track down that bug. We would always kind of try to push them to use the debugger and they would really put it off until the last minute. They would insert print statements or they would make the thing blink or whatever. That's really telling. That tells you there's something wrong with this workflow or interaction of switching to the debugger.
I think people do dread it and I think they dread it because it's like, you have to go off into this different world to invoke the debugger. You have your normal ways of doing things where you write your program in your text editor and you compile it and you send it to the Raspberry Pi.
But now, you have to stop all that and you have to go use this weird debugger thing that has completely different commands, you run it in a different way. Also, you're kind of admitting to yourself that you can't figure it out. I think there's also a sort of ego thing to that, but this sense that you have to stop what you're doing, that it's this cliff and you have to do something different, I think that generates a lot of dread.
I think that's often associated with tools like debuggers or profilers or whatever. Where it's outside your normal interaction with the programming system. DEVON: Is that something that is sort of inherent to the entire idea of a debugger as we think about it? Or is it something that you think, if we tried to design a debugger with that idea in mind, we could make just a way better debugger.
OMAR: I think you could do a lot better. I mean, I think the word debugger is a little bit unfortunate. I think someone, it might've been my friend Will on Twitter was talking about this. The word debugger almost suggests this whole workflow already.
Maybe you wouldn't call it a bugger. I think the basic question is, how can we see what our programs are doing and be aware of that and see why they're going wrong? I think the debugger right now, that's the thing that happens to be able to answer that question and give you that information.
But you can imagine other ways maybe that information is just sort of ambiently present when you're running the program and you just sort of see things pop up and you don't have to explicitly go in and interact.
Because it's related to what you were saying about having to go into a different mode or a completely different tool. Where when you're in one tool, you're in flow and one step kind of naturally leads to the other. You see something on the screen and you react to it. To go into a debugger, you have to stop yourself and be like, "Hey, this new thing called a debugger would be useful right now.
I should go use that. There's also a threshold of, you're kind of trading off in your head, I think, the whole time, like, "Can I fix this without having to go into the debugger?
Because if I fix it without having to go into the bugger, all I need to do is just add this incremental print statement or there's kind of things I can do at the margin that maybe DEVON: One of the things I really liked about office hours in college was, everyone would understand different parts pretty well and you would sit around a big table and work on problems together and talk about them. You would each walk out sort of having picked up the expertise from somebody else.
You've talked about this sort of idea of local experts, or I think someone responded to one of your tweets saying it reminds them of heist movies.
How there's the tiny person who crawls in the spaces and there's the big strong guy or whatever. Can you talk a little bit about that concept and your experience working with different people with different superpowers? OMAR: I think the tweet in which this came up was talking about literacy and maybe driving. People often make this comparison that the programming is like literacy.
It's like being able to read and write. I think what comes with that comparison is it's kind of a problematic view of what it means, of what literacy meant historically. Where not many people could read or write, and it was sort of a superpower to read and write, and it made you a better than everyone else. Or gave you access to things that you didn't have access to before.
I think this is sort of a problematic individualistic view of what it means to have a skill. Where you're the guy with literacy and that lets you do all kinds of things. When really, and I think this was pointed out by this art historian on Twitter, often there would be someone in the community who is like the person who knew how to read and write and that gave them certain responsibilities for the rest of the community.
It's the community as a whole, maybe that is the right unit of analysis. The village or the neighborhood and the town or whatever, maybe that's the right unit of analysis rather than the individual person. DEVON: In the past, we've talked about how hanging out in a system for a really long time can help you understand things about that system that you don't get from really shallow engagement.
What's something that you learned by spending a lot of time in a particular system? OMAR: I guess there's two systems that come to mind, but the one that I'll talk about first is this text editor, Acme , that I used for actually an entire summer. Acme is the built-in text editor for the Plan 9 operating system. Which was this research operating system from Bell Labs.
It was sort of meant to be the successor to Unix and it was built in the '80s. Unix has Vi or Nano , it has these built in text editors. The Plan 9 equivalent of those is Acme. Acme is really interesting because you're supposed to use the mouse in it as much as possible. I kind of like this like subversive aspect of it that, rather than being this hardcore computer thing of you stay on the keyboard all the time, it's, no, you stay on the mouse all the time. I mean, you can find demos of it online.
It's a much more flexible interface than really, I think almost any graphical program I've ever used. Whereas you're working, as you're editing your files in Acme as you're programming, whatever you're doing in the text editor, you kind of build up this workspace and you build up this palette of the operations you've been doing. You can middle click on anything in the program to execute it. At first, you're typing in a bunch of commands and then middle clicking them to execute them. But over time, you've built up this palette of all the commands you've already typed in and you just click on them again to execute them again.
You're actually developing this interface for the specific thing that you're doing right now. It just feels much more flexible and powerful and tuned to the hour or to the day that you're working.
0コメント