Ha ha, it took Anders twenty minutes to make that picture. Then I panicked over the sickening combination of colors he had chosen (every color, more or less). So I spent five minutes spontaneously changing to softer, more similar colors. For that reason I thought the picture might look very home-made and that it might be a bad idea to be too much associated with it.
Since you couldn't guess this chaotic background of the picture, maybe I should change my opinion of it.
Never forget: Anders was the one whose comment summoned me from AstralCodexTen. The two of us outnumber you now; this is just a basic mathematical fact.
That logic is unassailable. If I ever disagreed, I give in.
A bigger question is whether a blog should always look the same. I liked it better when the top picture changed with every new post, but I also like the idea of a thematic table of contents. We're discussing to change the top picture every time we publish something new, so readers who prefer not to subscribe can easily see when there is something new to take a look at.
No, it's a new system. Every time we publish a new post we change that picture to another one from Wikipedia's collections of "patterns in nature". That way we hope it will be easier to see when we have something new to offer.
The branches and nodes were probably not under any copyright. They were hand-made by me the old-fashioned way (no AI involved). Unfortunately, my colleague deemed them "ugly" and had them replaced with the bland Wikipedia image you are currently watching.
Stand up straight, man; stand tall, stand proud. Look her in the eye and insist that the lines and circles were avant-garde, very chic, very French, and if not then probably German, and if not that then definitely appealing to modern art critics, flat-Earth archeologists, or drunken homeless people who read your blog.
Why the change in images? I liked the branches and nodes. Were they under copyright?
Ha ha, it took Anders twenty minutes to make that picture. Then I panicked over the sickening combination of colors he had chosen (every color, more or less). So I spent five minutes spontaneously changing to softer, more similar colors. For that reason I thought the picture might look very home-made and that it might be a bad idea to be too much associated with it.
Since you couldn't guess this chaotic background of the picture, maybe I should change my opinion of it.
Never forget: Anders was the one whose comment summoned me from AstralCodexTen. The two of us outnumber you now; this is just a basic mathematical fact.
That logic is unassailable. If I ever disagreed, I give in.
A bigger question is whether a blog should always look the same. I liked it better when the top picture changed with every new post, but I also like the idea of a thematic table of contents. We're discussing to change the top picture every time we publish something new, so readers who prefer not to subscribe can easily see when there is something new to take a look at.
Well the fish isn't bad, I must admit. But it also isn't lines and dots made with love. Is the fish a child of love?
No, it's a new system. Every time we publish a new post we change that picture to another one from Wikipedia's collections of "patterns in nature". That way we hope it will be easier to see when we have something new to offer.
Oh! The new *system* is a child of love.
The branches and nodes were probably not under any copyright. They were hand-made by me the old-fashioned way (no AI involved). Unfortunately, my colleague deemed them "ugly" and had them replaced with the bland Wikipedia image you are currently watching.
Stand up straight, man; stand tall, stand proud. Look her in the eye and insist that the lines and circles were avant-garde, very chic, very French, and if not then probably German, and if not that then definitely appealing to modern art critics, flat-Earth archeologists, or drunken homeless people who read your blog.