Lots of people almost never need to parallel park.
I need to parallel park about once every 5 years on average (no exaggeration). I accomplish it fine when I need to do it, but I very rarely need to do it.
One "toy" might not be worth getting a new car or paying a pile of cash for it to be added as a factory option, but a whole slew of them all put together in one nicely-bundled package might.
Not for me. Those toys are anti-features that reduce the desirability of the car. The more of them there are, the less desirable the car becomes.
So what we have here is a bunch of people who do not want to drive, but are forced to.
This is me. I would love to be able to get rid of my car and all of the hassle and expense it brings, and to not have to actually drive. I live in the city, and in the city, driving just sucks.
It wasn't freedom for me. I got freedom when I got a bus pass. For me, getting a driver's license was a rite of passage, a signpost on the way to adulthood. Rites of passage change over the generations, though, and for my 20something child, getting a license wasn't one. She still has no interest in getting one.
It's a dark UX pattern: Take away user's options, present it as "simplifying," and then set the defaults to the expensive ones.
Indeed. You've explained very well why I consider the current UX trend of "simplifying" everything to be Very Very Bad: it's only simplification if your usage matches the preprogrammed one. If it doesn't then all that's happened is that everything has been made more complicated.
There are few retail scams bigger than the razor scam. Anyone who is buying "premium brand" cartridges or are buying them in a store are people who wouldn't mind piling their money up and setting fire to it.
It might benefit the seller more but customers don't buy anything that doesn't have a value proposition.
This is demonstrably untrue. Customers buy things all the time that have no value proposition to them. We even have an entire industry devoted to convincing people to do this. It's called marketing.
it's just that it's so obviously a massive oversimplification that maybe people don't quite believe that it's generally true in practice.
This is 100% my stance. I engage in transactions every day that leave me poorer in one way or another and that I would prefer not to engage in, but have no real choice about.
Case in point: my broadband. I have a choice of exactly one provider, who is drastically overpriced and I despise. Buying broadband from them is not a statement that I think they're doing a good job or that I approve. It's a statement that I would suffer an even greater loss by going without broadband entirely.
Surge pricing is the primary reason why I don't use Uber. Predictability of pricing is very important to me, and surge pricing means that I can't predict it. So I won't be using Uber anytime soon.
As to the question "what system would you propose to better reward drivers for working at high-demand times?" -- I don't know, and I don't care. I don't work for Uber. But I'm not convinced that such a thing is needed at all.
We decided, a long time ago, that the web would be supported by advertising.
Who is this "we"? I wasn't given a vote, and I certainly don't agree. Ad blocking is a reasonable defense against the ongoing attacks from ad companies.
That's no problem -- I just won't go to those sites. Despite what assholes like PageFair are claiming, the sites that are of the greatest value tend to be the ones that aren't deep into advertising to begin with.
Sometimes I'm looking for a solution and the adds that come up in my search are relevant. If they relate to what I need, I have no problem with that.
I have a huge problem with that. Well, not that part exactly, but the tracking that is required in order to accomplish it. When I see a targeted ad, it reminds me of why I do my best to ensure that block all ads.
I don't know about you, but I kinda prefer having targeted advertising for stuff I'm actually interested in
Not me. Targeted advertising really pisses me off. Well, not the advertising -- all advertising is obnoxious, targeted or not -- but rather the spying that is required in order to do the targeted advertising.
There are already plenty of places that I can get a curated news feed if that's what I want. What I want from Twitter is to see what the people I'm interested in are saying. If, as the Wired article asserts, this is an effort to just change Twitter into a news outlet, then Twitter would no longer be offering anything of value to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Now THAT'S a feature I'd welcome and pay a premium for!
Lots of people almost never need to parallel park.
I need to parallel park about once every 5 years on average (no exaggeration). I accomplish it fine when I need to do it, but I very rarely need to do it.
One "toy" might not be worth getting a new car or paying a pile of cash for it to be added as a factory option, but a whole slew of them all put together in one nicely-bundled package might.
Not for me. Those toys are anti-features that reduce the desirability of the car. The more of them there are, the less desirable the car becomes.
I don't want any of that crap in my car. In fact, its presence makes the car much less desirable to me.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. There are a tons of top-flight programmers who have zero interest in working for Google.
So what we have here is a bunch of people who do not want to drive, but are forced to.
This is me. I would love to be able to get rid of my car and all of the hassle and expense it brings, and to not have to actually drive. I live in the city, and in the city, driving just sucks.
It wasn't freedom for me. I got freedom when I got a bus pass. For me, getting a driver's license was a rite of passage, a signpost on the way to adulthood. Rites of passage change over the generations, though, and for my 20something child, getting a license wasn't one. She still has no interest in getting one.
it's clear that police officers should have some power over the movements of self-driving cars
No, this is not clear at all. If police (or anybody that I haven't authorized) can take control of my vehicle, then I don't want that vehicle.
It's the cutsey name some people have for Wal-Mart to try to make them seem less evil.
It's a dark UX pattern: Take away user's options, present it as "simplifying," and then set the defaults to the expensive ones.
Indeed. You've explained very well why I consider the current UX trend of "simplifying" everything to be Very Very Bad: it's only simplification if your usage matches the preprogrammed one. If it doesn't then all that's happened is that everything has been made more complicated.
There are few retail scams bigger than the razor scam. Anyone who is buying "premium brand" cartridges or are buying them in a store are people who wouldn't mind piling their money up and setting fire to it.
The immediate feedback is the button push and knowledge you ordered the laundry soap.
"Knowledge" is not feedback.
The button push is only feedback that the button was pushed. It does not indicate that pushing the button had any effect.
It might benefit the seller more but customers don't buy anything that doesn't have a value proposition.
This is demonstrably untrue. Customers buy things all the time that have no value proposition to them. We even have an entire industry devoted to convincing people to do this. It's called marketing.
live in the wilderness and live off the land. It just so happens that voluntary exchange has made us so wealthy nobody even thinks it's an option.
That's not actually an option. At least, not legally.
it's just that it's so obviously a massive oversimplification that maybe people don't quite believe that it's generally true in practice.
This is 100% my stance. I engage in transactions every day that leave me poorer in one way or another and that I would prefer not to engage in, but have no real choice about.
Case in point: my broadband. I have a choice of exactly one provider, who is drastically overpriced and I despise. Buying broadband from them is not a statement that I think they're doing a good job or that I approve. It's a statement that I would suffer an even greater loss by going without broadband entirely.
Surge pricing is the primary reason why I don't use Uber. Predictability of pricing is very important to me, and surge pricing means that I can't predict it. So I won't be using Uber anytime soon.
As to the question "what system would you propose to better reward drivers for working at high-demand times?" -- I don't know, and I don't care. I don't work for Uber. But I'm not convinced that such a thing is needed at all.
We decided, a long time ago, that the web would be supported by advertising.
Who is this "we"? I wasn't given a vote, and I certainly don't agree. Ad blocking is a reasonable defense against the ongoing attacks from ad companies.
That's no problem -- I just won't go to those sites. Despite what assholes like PageFair are claiming, the sites that are of the greatest value tend to be the ones that aren't deep into advertising to begin with.
Sometimes I'm looking for a solution and the adds that come up in my search are relevant. If they relate to what I need, I have no problem with that.
I have a huge problem with that. Well, not that part exactly, but the tracking that is required in order to accomplish it. When I see a targeted ad, it reminds me of why I do my best to ensure that block all ads.
I NEVER disable ad blocking, no matter what the website is. As near as I can tell, there is no such thing as "responsible" ads. They all track you.
I don't know about you, but I kinda prefer having targeted advertising for stuff I'm actually interested in
Not me. Targeted advertising really pisses me off. Well, not the advertising -- all advertising is obnoxious, targeted or not -- but rather the spying that is required in order to do the targeted advertising.
There are already plenty of places that I can get a curated news feed if that's what I want. What I want from Twitter is to see what the people I'm interested in are saying. If, as the Wired article asserts, this is an effort to just change Twitter into a news outlet, then Twitter would no longer be offering anything of value to me.
how is that different from Ctrl-S (Save page)?
Pocket saves your pages in the cloud so that more data about you can be mined.
I don't know about you, but I've done plenty of (non-hand) jobs without compensation.
If submitting feedback makes you feel better, go for it. But it's very clear that Mozilla cares not for your feedback.