As a medical imaging tech, I think this is a terrible idea. At least for the test I perform, a lot of redundancy and double-checking is necessary because results can easily be misleading without a diligent tech or critical-thinking on the part of the reading physician. For instance, imaging at slightly the wrong angle can make a normal image look like pathology, or vice versa.

Maybe other tests are simpler than mine, but I doubt it. If you've ever asked an AI a question about your field of expertise and been amazed at the nonsense it spouts, why would you trust it to read your medical tests?

> Since the consultant already checks the report against any images, the AI being more sensitive to potential issues is a positive thing: giving him the power to discard erroneous results rather than potentially miss something more malign.

Unless they had the exact same schooling as the radiologist, I wouldn't trust the consultant to interpret my test, even if paired with an AI. There's a reason this is a whole specialized field -- because it's not as simple as interpreting an EKG.

Actually, what happened was you explained once, I rebutted, and your reply is now "I already explained."

>You even postulate programming as something outside of art; a statement I have fundamentally disagreed with.

Is this seriously a point of confusion for you? So I need to spell out I meant "drawing and painting" because you aren't able to extrapolate from context?

>To me it's nothing but an imprecisely articulated, sweeping generalization constructed around the anectodal "evidence" that's your life (with an unknown sample size of people you've met or read about that might agree with you to some extent). In other words it's nothing but tedious fallacies, a thing oft observed in such discussions.

Observed experience and testimony from others with similar experience isn't fallacy -- it's valid evidence. You are choosing to ignore it because... actually, I don't know why my thesis is apparently so offensive to you.

> It's also a massive red flag; I at least would never be so presumptious and arrogant to make myself the yardstick and declare cocksure that one discipline will take longer than the other for some to me completely unknown reader.

Not myself -- please show me the place where I said my own experience is my only evidence.

> I know many a great artist who paints and/or writes but could not program their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone reach the same heights there as in their chosen medium of expression.

Sounds like you know artists that didn't have a reason to take the time to learn to program. That doesn't mean that time would be longer than it took to learn to draw and paint.

Up until this sentence I assumed I was talking to another person who does both art and programming. The fact that you have something to say about people you know but nothing to say about your own experiences suggests to me you're probably not an artist. Which means you're just running your mouth about something you have no experience with.

> So what's useful to you, and what might be useful to me

Oh, I realize now you're just new to internet forums, so I should probably explain that not every individual comment needs to have direct relevance to whatever your exact current pursuits happen to be to be a worthwhile contribution to a discussion.

> If one wants to find out which form(s) of expression is/are best suited for oneself, one needs to spread the wings and take to said form(s). How long that will take no one can say for sure

Sure.

> How long that will take no one can say for sure; therefore what takes longer if one gravitates to more than one form, no one can can make reasonably accurate predictions about either. Especially not without knowing at least a modicum of relevant information about the individual any advice is supposed to enrich in the first place.

That's where you're wrong. There are a lot of people that are qualified to estimate the general amount of time it may take to learn a skill to a certain degree. You're right that no one can tell the exact amount of time, but once again, show me where I claimed to know the exact amount of time it takes anyone to learn anything.

There are art educators that have spent decades teaching how to draw and paint. If you've seen literally hundreds or thousands of students over the course of decades, you know how long it takes to learn your craft. And some of these edu cators have shared their knowledge with us. For instance, Jeff Watts of the Watts Atelier has spoken about how long an artist needs to train before their skills are to a level where they can start to assist in teaching*, which is about ten years to be a "decent teacher."

Ten years of full time study to learn, according to a master who has been teaching for over 35 years. Are you going to lie and tell me it takes that long to get a job as a programmer? I can name more programmers than I can count on my fingers that got a job straight out of a four-year or two-year program. I've never met or heard of an artist that got a full time professional job with less than ten years of study.

> Hence, when addressing a general audience, better concentrate on giving detailed and sound advice on how to get better as opposed to shallow and often unapplicable generalizions.

Are you seriously suggesting a bunch of unsolicited technique advice would've been an appropriate response in a conversation about why the author of the article suggested programmers don't have a reputation for making good artists? And just in case it causes you further confusion -- the author clearly meant "draftsmen" when they said "artists."

* https://youtu.be/BlBnkNr_7ms?t=1767

> And furthermore, I see both disciplines as fields which humans engage in to solve specific identified problems, rationally or intuitively; in both it takes practice to get reproducible results, in both you need to keep doing it until it becomes "second nature". This refers to the process itself, the process to hone one's craft.

These are all the words you've said so far that address whether art takes longer to learn than programming. Your points boil down to 1) People have different strengths and weaknesses 2) Both require practice

But neither of these contradicts the statement "art generally takes longer to learn than programming."

> In the end it's useless mostly for entirely different reasons, though; reasons I have already explained as well.

Here are all the words you've spent explaining why the observation is useless:

Oh... actually nothing. This whole discussion started when you said

> Such overgeneralizations are not helpful

But they've already been helpful to me before, and no fewer than one other person. Even if it's not much, "useless" is untrue. I said "this is what I've found to be true, and observed in others like me," and you said "this is not a useful observation." You never said why, you just jumped straight to "I already adressed that."

I suppose it was a mistake to get distracted by trying to find out what exactly you're trying to say -- it's now completely clear that it has nothing to do with whether art or programming takes longer to gain proficiency.

>labored [...] tedious

Saying my points are long-winded or redundant also doesn't support your point. You're doing a lot of philosophizing about what art is or whether my points are "useless," but you still haven't reasoned about why it's not true that art takes longer to learn than programming. Which is rich since you've spent more words on this matter than me.

>Such comparisons, as relatable as they might sound to someone who is familiar with these titles, are often useless as well (I am aware of these games and their game mechanics, but have never played them nor care to do so).

So, you haven't played the games, therefore you have no insight into the analogy, so you're not really in a position to say whether the comparison is useless.

You've also used the word "useless" a handful of times here, all without any follow-up as to why exactly. What "use" are you referring to here?

In the context of a programmer wanting to know how learning to draw compares to learning to program (something I've only been asked once, but even once is enough to prove it's useful), to say "expect drawing proficiency to take longer, because it requires more repetition" is useful.

Once again, this isn't deduction or hypothesis. It's my own experience with both crafts.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean to say the worth of an artwork for you is tied to how well it executes technque? "Art" is a word so nebulous that it's hard to pin down a definition, but I think the millions of people that prefer a punk rock song over an academic figure drawing study would disagree with this.

>And furthermore, I see both disciplines as fields which humans engage in to solve specific identified problems

Well, I'm both an artist and a programmer, and I can tell you I engage in neither to solve problems. I do both because the process of doing them is enjoyable. If they stop being fun, I'll stop doing them, and there wouldn't be any lingering problem in my life to go unsolved.

If you say you picked up art faster than programming I'll believe you, because I only meant it as a general observation.

Art is like playing Dark Souls -- maybe you beat the hardest boss once, but that doesn't mean you won't die ten more times before beating them again.

Programming is like Zelda. Once you know the solutions to the puzzles, you're basically going through the motions.

This isn't me guessing based on philosophy -- this is my lived experience as both an artist and a programmer.

Art is all about repetition. Even if you've done it successfully many times, you still need to keep doing it until it's second nature.

Programming is more like solving puzzles. Once you've solved it once, you can pull the solution out of your head as many times as you need, as long as you still remember it.

With art, it doesn't matter if you remember how to do it, it still takes practice to get reproducible results. Of course it takes longer.

Quite the opposite. The fewer pixels, the more each one has to be perfectly in place. Honestly should've been obvious in hindsight. If I have any games left in me after my current one's finished, I'll just use as high a resolution as I'm comfortable with.

Unless the sprites are truly tiny, like 16x16 with 2 or 3 frame animations, I don't know if pixel art makes a good shortcut to an aesthetically appealing game. Then again, it might be easier than six years of every day practice.

I know it is on Apple, but let's just assume I don't care about Apple specifically.

I've never met or talked to an android user that truly believes android is better technology or a better user experience. They all use it because of flexibility.

My reason for bringing up the "selling point" was to bring attention to the language -- "You can install any app you want" has always been the common refrain when I see friends get into a debate about IOS vs Android. People are already using the term because it makes the most sense.

The point of the above comment is that Google intentionally introduced the word "sideload" to make "installing an app on your own device which Google did not curate" sound more risky and sinister than it is, and I'm inclined to agree.

I "make" coffee on my keurig. If Keurig decides that making any single-serve coffe pods that aren't owned by the Keurig brand is now called "off-brewing," I'd dismiss it as ridiculous and continue calling it "making coffee."

We should use the language that makes sense, not the language that happens be good PR for google.

> If they're happy to do it to 1970s standards, probably most of them [could support a family on one income with an ordinary job].

Our house has the same electrical wiring that it did in 1969. The couple that sold us the house told us they bought it for $20k, which means a cashier could have afforded it back then, but now it's too expensive. Therefore, the fact that it has electricity has no bearing on whether it's prohibitively expensive for most people, and I can make a similar argument for any house built in the mid 20th century.

>Your mortgage is what, 20 years? $200 x 12 x 20 ~= $50,000, and around 25% of the mortgage principle. We've found 43% (almost a half house) of the cost so far in the electricity alone. Wiring it up and running the grid aren't cheap. I've always suspected it is illegal to build & sell a house without electricity otherwise there'd probably be a brisk market in them as a cheap option, the savings potential is there.

Practically all houses had electricity in the 70s. So this is already contradicting what you said earlier if you're citing electricity as the reason no one can afford a house on one income.

>It's 15%. That is a substantial chunk of the whole.

It doesn't matter if it's substantial. I'm only saying it's not so much that it's the reason no one can buy a house and support a family with an ordinary job.

Median income doesn't matter to my point. Housing prices have skyrocketed to the point that most people can't buy a house on one income. No one who's paying attention can deny this fact with a straight face, and your claim that it wouldn't be true if people lived by "1970s standards" is easily proven false by the fact that houses that were built in the 1970s with all the exact same amenities are still overpriced way beyond inflation.

The fact that a Victorian house that's falling apart to the point of being dangerous was listed ANYWHERE for $180,000 serves my point.

> You've forgotten electricity, depreciation and the need for the house to be wired up to support all the gear. The figures you're quoting are just the price for a one-off purchase, not the total cost of ownership.

Cost of total rewire was quoted $30,000. We didn't end up buying that house, but 30k is honestly a drop in the bucket when you're talking about numbers as huge as 180k. So no, the inclusion of electrical wiring is not some big expense that's making housing unaffordable. And houses had electricity in the mid-to-late 20th century... You know, back when it was reasonable to expect to be able to buy a house on one income without even a college degree.

Our electricity bill is usually ~$200/month. This is not what eats most of our paycheck. Our mortgage is far and away our biggest expense.

If houses still costed 20k (a price that many older folks have told me they bought a house for), even with a full rewire bringing it up to $50k, some kid working at Walmart could own a house. Now both renting and buying are prohibitively expensive, and it has nothing to do with modern amenities.

Housing costs are outrageous, far beyond the rate of inflation. That's why many can barely pay their bills. Not because we have electricity and washing machines and and microwaves.

I can get a microwave for ~$60.

I can get a decent used cell phone for ~$100.

Appliances are a little more expensive, but I can get a washing machine for ~$300, less if I go to facebook marketplace.

But in my area, a victorian house that's litterally crumbling with no central cooling and not up-to-code wiring where you can't run a hair dryer and coffee machine at the same time?

$180,000

Cost of rent at a similar quality house half the size?

$1600/month

Modern comforts are not the reason people can't afford to live.