Zagorath @ Zagorath @aussie.zone

Formerly /u/Zagorath on the alien site.

---

Read more

Posts

162

Comments

3,608

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think it's very important to start from the place of acknowledging that nothing Hamas does or has done is relevant. Whether someone condemns Hamas or wholeheartedly supports them, or (as most people probably do) sit somewhere in between, really doesn't matter. Because genocide is absolutely, totally, inexcusable. Even if Hamas were committing genocide themselves, that does not excuse Israel's genocide. And the fact is that Hamas isn't committing genocide. They literally could not if they wanted to. They haven't the power necessary for it.

Any organisation that is censoring people who accuse Israel of genocide, or who play whataboutism games by trying to ensure that condemnations of Israel are always followed by condemnations of Hamas, are abetting genocide.

This meme summarises it nicely.

The description says "psychological thriller", but the cinematography is giving me "Netflix romcom".

Oh awesome!

No, listen to all the words he said that Palestinian freedom needs to come, not at the expense of other people.

What we need to to dump the government extortion that is the Medicare Levy Surcharge and the Lifetime Health Cover loading scam.

Maybe. I couldn't find the report if it did, but that's not a huge surprise given how hard this is to google for.

I'd be extra interested if it happened under the current Media Watch host, who has ties to zionist organisations (he studied at Moriah College, a member of the zionist "Jewish Communal Appeal"), and started on Media Watch in February or March this year.

From what I can tell, the average ABC worker is on the right side of this. But ABC management seems to have a direct line to the genocide supporters. And when the Israel lobbyists tell Kim Williams (or formerly Ita Buttrose) to jump, he (she) asks "how high?" We only need look at the Lattouf case or, less sensationally, Sandy Gutman, to see that.

That's why what repeatedly happens is the right thing happens at first. Then management gets wind of it, usually because of DMs from lobbyists, and orders a reversal.

In this case, I think what probably happened is it got uploaded as normal. Because that's what they do. Any vaguely interesting segment of television gets uploaded to their website and iView. Then the Israel lobby saw it, saw that he was calling out their genocide, and got on the like to Williams or Hugh Marks or someone else on the board or management, and they sent down the instruction to nix it.

Someone has an archive of the video: https://xcancel.com/JonesHowDareYou/status/1927235160472215770

Ah interesting. That edited statement was not there when I first read the article. Frankly, I don't believe the ABC's claim. If it were true, that's an answer that could easily have been provided in time for publication. They've come up with a post-hoc excuse after seeing how much play this story was getting. They had initially hoped to quietly acquiesce to the pro-genociders without attracting as much attention as the last time they did so.

He's calling for an end to the genocide, and for the Australian government to cease promoting genocide by doing two-way arms trade with the genocidal state.

Anything else is whataboutism.

The URL of the removed article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-26/pms-gaza-comments-too-late-says-advocate/105338640

I'm currently on https://www.abc.net.au/news/contact providing "Feedback" criticising the ABC for this decision. In my message, I'm noting:

• The ABC's legislated requirement to provide a broad range of perspectives
• The growing international consensus that Israel is committing genocide
• The ABC's recent history of caving to pro-Israel pressure (and the waste of taxpayer resources in taking their Lattouf case to court) and how this latest case is showing a trend that damages the ABC's reputation for impartiality

And calling on the ABC to explain why this was removed, immediately reinstate the interview, and commit to ensuring they do better about representing human rights in the future. I encourage others to do the same.

edit: after completing that form, I was informed that actually I should be submitting here: https://help.abc.net.au/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=6354974197519 to "make a complaint". I am saying "Bias" best describes my issue, on the ABC NEWS website.

edit the second: in making the complaint, I decided to also add a bit about:

• The ABC's duty to fair and honest dealing with interview subjects. Mashni should have been informed by the ABC that they took down his interview and why. It should not come to his attention when readers tell him they couldn't find the interview.

I never actually put any serious effort into using MuseScore myself before the changes, so I can't comment from extensive personal experience.

But as a musician, I did use scores written by someone in MuseScore, as well as ones written in Sibelius. And I could always tell when it was MuseScore. I'm sure it was possible to write good looking scores in MuseScore 2, but it clearly did not make it easy. The scores were obviously inferior in terms of layout and design compared to those produced in Sibelius. Basic things like spaces between notes not being the right proportion, or dynamic markings appearing as plain italic text instead of the usual bold dynamics would be wrong in MuseScore far more often than in Sibelius.

As a general rule, a good UX should:

1. Make it very, very easy to do (or discover how to do) the most common basic things, and should result in them being done in the way a user expects
2. Not slow down a power user from accomplishing basic tasks at speed
3. Allow easy discovery of and access to less common tasks

A lot of designed-by-software-engineer FOSS applications do a good job of 2 and an ok job of 3, but fail at 1.

But the expression is "look what the cat dragged in"?

Quoi de neuf ?

Unfortunately Sibelius's development has basically stagnated since 2012 when the new corporate owners fired the entire original development team, with only one noteworthy release of the core app (not counting side-projects like an iPad app) since then, in 2014.

I first learnt Sibelius on its pre-ribbon interface, which I think was much better (even though I loved the ribbon in MS Office). That certainly made the transfer to more modern versions easier. Still, although Sibelius has a number of specific hangups in its interface that make fairly common activities awkward and unintuitive, I really do think it has the best basic flow. When you're just in the zone inputting notes, it's so easy to use in a way MuseScore isn't.

I actually take some issue with Tantacrul's design process, because it feels like he fundamentally doesn't understand how intermediate users like myself use the app. At one point he sent out a survey asking "how many keyboard shortcuts do you use?" in Sibelius/MuseScore etc. The problem was that he didn't define what a keyboard shortcuts is, and when people asked for his definition, he just snarkily responded that it would be obvious. But it's not. In Sibelius, you use your left hand on letters A–G to enter the note pitch, and your right hand on the notepad to enter rhythm values and common articulations. Slur lines and some other things can be entered during this process as well (slurs with the letter S).

Does this count as keyboard shortcuts? To me, everything I described above except maybe the slurs is actually the musical equivalent of typing text into a word processor…or a browser text box, like I'm doing right now. Does it become a "keyboard shortcut" just because it can also be done by clicking a rhythm value in a toolbar, and then clicking a location in the staff to choose pitch? I have no idea if Tantacrul thinks so, because he chose snark rather than clarifying.

Incidentally, his MuseScore design replicates this flow, but without the visual reference of the keypad toolbar that lets you learn and easily see what number to press, without requiring sheer memorisation. It's been a while since I last tried it, but I vaguely recall having other issues with the flow being hard to work out with a keyboard. Great if you're just slowly mousing around everywhere, but not for the intermediate user trying to get in the zone.

Which is such a shame, because he did such a fantastic job of the other stuff. The user onboarding, score setup, page layout management, etc. The attention to detail even with small things like music fonts and symbol design is impeccable.

That whole series is absolutely brilliant, but it's hard to go past the Sibelius one if I'm gonna go back to one. And I say that as a long-time Sibelius user who can comfortably work much faster in it than in any of the alternatives.

The open source music notation software MuseScore used to be really, really bad. A musician and UX designer gave it a scathing review in a humorous YouTube video. And then the company behind MuseScore hired that YouTuber and spent a lot of effort doing a major redesign, and now it's actually quite good.

All it takes is for the people in charge of the project to put aside their hubris and trust that sometimes, programmers aren't the best designers, and to get people who are trained in designing and evaluating user interfaces to do the job. And to perform adequate user testing.

How is B different from H?

stg?

Raine, is that you?