Except that Linkedin does their absolute best to prohibit use of the browser version on mobile devices, going to their site just re-directs you to download their app. To even get their website working on my phone I had to change my browser user agent string, something your average user doesn't exactly play with.
And that really is the thing that bugs me most about these apps, it's not their size, it's the fact that we need to use them at all. If I access your product from my computer 100% in a browser, that same functionality should be available from my phone without downloading an app at all, after all, my phone has a browser on it already. If you're going to cram an app down my throat, it had better provide me some additional functionality that I can't get at all from your website on my computer.
Somewhat related note, if I access your webpage, any webpage, from the browser on my phone, I should see exactly the same thing I see when I access it from my computer. There is ZERO excuse to serve me something different, save yourself a bunch of money, and stop developing separate, crippled, versions of your sites for mobile. My phone has a big screen, and the ability to zoom and scroll. I don't want a different page when I go to the same site on a different device.
Any fancy chip is only as good as the package you put it in, and when that package can't do half the tasks the competition can, you can't call it superior.
I worked at a small ISP at one point, the owner was... I'll politely call him "cheap". Everything we had was the cheapest item he could find, but what helped a lot was when you looked in his office, he was using the same particle board desk and same cheap plastic rolling chair that the rest of us had. It goes a long way in garnering good will if the CEO is doing the same things the rank and file are expected to do.
As for your example. The CEO, CFO, and VP of HR had offices because they had private conversations. Does that mean nobody else had a need to have private conversations? Nobody else had a need for silence and to have the ability to take calls? I doubt it. It sounds like yet another example of the CEO and CFO thinking they were above everyone else and that their decisions shouldn't have to affect them.
Einstein was a genius. The people doing "minimalist" design today are not. Every single product I've ever seen that has had any mention of "minimalism" has had valuable features removed and functionality compromised.
That's not to say that I haven't seen good examples of minimalist design, just that those I've seen have never bragged about having it, instead they just focused on making something simple and intuitive instead of focusing on removing things to make it more "minimal".
Remember when advertisements for graphics cards talked about what the card could show you rather than how many transistors it had and the processor speed?
What I want to know about a new card is what picture it can put out and to how many monitors of what connection type.
This sounds more like it's advertising a CPU than a graphics card.
Then please elaborate on what it DID bring to the table other than marketing.
It wasn't the first phone of that form factor, and the first version of the phone didn't really have any more features than other phones of the time, in fact several phones already on the market could do simple things that the iPhone could not.
The entire comment claimed Apple invented something they did not, and laughably claimed that the previous incarnations were all inferior.
The truth of the matter is that Apple did not invent anything, and the previous incarnations were similar to what Apple is credited with inventing, and in many cases superior.
Apple is a marketing masterpiece, but their technology is quite sub-par.
If you weren't distracted by anyone else, in all that time in an open floor plan, then I suggest that you were likely the biggest distraction. As for wasting time. Which is more important, the number of hours you spend sitting at your desk appearing to work? Or the quality and quantity of the work you did? You seem to suggest that the former is important, and the later is not. I'd suggest that it's the other way around. If I have one worker who comes in before everyone else every day, stays after everyone else is gone, and is never seen slacking off at work, and another employee who comes in at 10, leaves at 3, takes a 2 hour lunch and posts on slashdot all day. I'll still pick the second of those 2 employees over the first if he has better quality work, and more of it.
Management by time clock is lazy, and in addition to not getting the best work out of your employees, helps contribute to their misery.
There are 2 big fads right now in management: - open concept offices - forcing everyone back in to the office and not allowing work from home Combine the 2 and you get miserable employees who are unproductive.
This is really due to lazy management. It's hard to actually do your job and look at the quality and quantity of work done by your employees, it's much easier to just make sure they're physically in the office the right number of hours and that their computer monitor appears to show something work related on it. Of course that also leads to miserable employees who are unproductive, but productivity and happiness were pretty much doomed when the manager started caring more about the hours worked than the end result anyway.
Managers who insist on being able to see your screen at all times are poor managers. It's the same as the ones that look more at how many hours you worked than what work you did.
A decent manager will look at the quantity and quality of your work, and not care which way your screen faces, how many hours a day you work, or if you even came in to the office at all.
The fact that there are so few decent managers around is also why there are so few companies that allow employees to work in their most productive environments (generally a private space, and often one that isn't at the office)
The library model falls apart completely the first time one of these programmers has to talk to the person who requested the work. They're on a conference call, and nobody else in the office can work. The more people in the office, the more often this happens, until at a certain number of people it's a constant situation.
Sure, you can slack off in a private office, but you can equally slack off in an open floor plan. If that's your concern about your employees, you need to monitor their output to see if they're doing the amount of work you asked them to.
My office used to have 4 of them, it also had 6 windows... of course it also had 4 wheels and an engine. That's the only job I ever had where I had a company supplied office with a door.
Other than that, my second job after college I had a desk in an open area with the servers and 4 offices off of it, but at least it was only me in that area, and then my next job was open floor plan until I got promoted to a cubicle that I shared with 2 other people (at the same time) and now I have no assigned desk at all, but I work from home 80% of the time (the other 20% I either work in a conference room with 2-6 other people, or in an open floor plan office.
I can tell you that I've never been more productive than when I had that mobile role, or when I work at home. The shared office spaces involve a lot more socializing, and a lot less working (even if all I want to do is work, some of the others don't seem to want to)
When the CEO starts working in the open floor plan instead of his penthouse office, then I'll believe it really is the better option. But as long as the top levels of the organization keep their private offices it's pretty clear that the change is out of malice, not ignorance.
Minimalism has been redefined recently to mean the fewer controls the better. It's completely lost the context that fewer is only better if you don't lose the ability to access the needed functions.
Yet it seems that no company on the planet is willing to put out "usable", they'd all much prefer "beautiful"
It's extremely frustrating, in so many places you can tell that they probably spent an absolute fortune deciding the exact shade of each colour used, and the exact diameter of each rounded corner, while completely ignoring that the most commonly used task is 32 menus deep, and doesn't maintain it's state between app launches.
Honestly I'll take something designed by an engineer over a designer or "UI expert" any day. The one made by the engineer will just work, the designer or UI expert will have some squiggly line on an icon that you're only able to interpret if you can read minds, and won't do what you needed in the first place. They'll probably also remove all ability to actually do what you need the item to do in the name of "simplification"
While not a bad idea, to work well the coax network needs to be in extremely good shape. I work for an IPTV provider, and we do use of coax when we can't run new Ethernet, however we have to replace all the ends, couplers, and splitters first or the packet loss is just too high. These sorts of adapters are quite picky about coax quality.
So you don't believe me, and you didn't bother to read the article I linked. The one that states that already 85%of phones do this and that number is increasing. I'm afraid there's nothing more I can do being that I've already shown you the facts and explained what's happening and you just keep coming up with the same refusal to accept reality.
Considering that you don't care if you're right or not and have absolutely no interest in what the facts are this will be my final reply to this thread.
For anyone else still reading. Look at the link. 85% of cell phones do this right now. And more are doing it every day (the 15% represents older phones that are not capable of this feature) This is a good thing as it means help can actually find you when you call 911.
As a paramedic working on a rural service I have been incredibly grateful for this advance in technology it has greatly improved our ability to find patients who call when they are not able to give us a good location themselves. So although the other poster does not believe this technology exists I rely on it daily and it has been working extremely well.
More so than you who believe that people won't care if Emergency Services claim they don't believe them and are not going to send help. That will cause the vast majority of people to give up and try to find other ways of dealing with their situation. They may start phoning friends or family. But they won't stay on the line with someone who is flat-out claimed they will not help them.
Landlines don't need a GPS because they don't move. Cell phones have a GPS and it's automatically activated whenever you call 911. The information is relayed to the call centre.
This is federal law to deal with the fact that cell tower triangulation is low resolution and only works with multiple towers.
You can tell me I'm wrong all you want. It doesn't change the facts about how it works. As for not being plausible. It's far more plausible than the idea that the government has completely ignored the fact that you can't locate most cell phone calls any better than several hundred meters, and often more than a km. The fact that it's true makes it even more plausible. I recommend you read this piece for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So pranksters just need to say"no this is real" and we'll now start sending real resources again? I'm sure none of them will think of that!
Telling someone who's already panicking that you won't help them and don't believe them is quite likely to get them to hang up because they see no point to staying on the line with someone who won't help them.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that Linkedin does their absolute best to prohibit use of the browser version on mobile devices, going to their site just re-directs you to download their app. To even get their website working on my phone I had to change my browser user agent string, something your average user doesn't exactly play with.
And that really is the thing that bugs me most about these apps, it's not their size, it's the fact that we need to use them at all. If I access your product from my computer 100% in a browser, that same functionality should be available from my phone without downloading an app at all, after all, my phone has a browser on it already. If you're going to cram an app down my throat, it had better provide me some additional functionality that I can't get at all from your website on my computer.
Somewhat related note, if I access your webpage, any webpage, from the browser on my phone, I should see exactly the same thing I see when I access it from my computer. There is ZERO excuse to serve me something different, save yourself a bunch of money, and stop developing separate, crippled, versions of your sites for mobile. My phone has a big screen, and the ability to zoom and scroll. I don't want a different page when I go to the same site on a different device.
That's 2 people sharing an office, that's a long way from a full open floor plan.
They do the best marketing, and mediocre tech.
Any fancy chip is only as good as the package you put it in, and when that package can't do half the tasks the competition can, you can't call it superior.
They weren't the first multitouch phone, nor were they the first phone without a physical keyboard.
Try again.
I worked at a small ISP at one point, the owner was... I'll politely call him "cheap". Everything we had was the cheapest item he could find, but what helped a lot was when you looked in his office, he was using the same particle board desk and same cheap plastic rolling chair that the rest of us had.
It goes a long way in garnering good will if the CEO is doing the same things the rank and file are expected to do.
As for your example. The CEO, CFO, and VP of HR had offices because they had private conversations. Does that mean nobody else had a need to have private conversations? Nobody else had a need for silence and to have the ability to take calls? I doubt it. It sounds like yet another example of the CEO and CFO thinking they were above everyone else and that their decisions shouldn't have to affect them.
Einstein was a genius. The people doing "minimalist" design today are not. Every single product I've ever seen that has had any mention of "minimalism" has had valuable features removed and functionality compromised.
That's not to say that I haven't seen good examples of minimalist design, just that those I've seen have never bragged about having it, instead they just focused on making something simple and intuitive instead of focusing on removing things to make it more "minimal".
Remember when advertisements for graphics cards talked about what the card could show you rather than how many transistors it had and the processor speed?
What I want to know about a new card is what picture it can put out and to how many monitors of what connection type.
This sounds more like it's advertising a CPU than a graphics card.
Then please elaborate on what it DID bring to the table other than marketing.
It wasn't the first phone of that form factor, and the first version of the phone didn't really have any more features than other phones of the time, in fact several phones already on the market could do simple things that the iPhone could not.
The entire comment claimed Apple invented something they did not, and laughably claimed that the previous incarnations were all inferior.
The truth of the matter is that Apple did not invent anything, and the previous incarnations were similar to what Apple is credited with inventing, and in many cases superior.
Apple is a marketing masterpiece, but their technology is quite sub-par.
If you weren't distracted by anyone else, in all that time in an open floor plan, then I suggest that you were likely the biggest distraction.
As for wasting time. Which is more important, the number of hours you spend sitting at your desk appearing to work? Or the quality and quantity of the work you did? You seem to suggest that the former is important, and the later is not. I'd suggest that it's the other way around.
If I have one worker who comes in before everyone else every day, stays after everyone else is gone, and is never seen slacking off at work, and another employee who comes in at 10, leaves at 3, takes a 2 hour lunch and posts on slashdot all day. I'll still pick the second of those 2 employees over the first if he has better quality work, and more of it.
Management by time clock is lazy, and in addition to not getting the best work out of your employees, helps contribute to their misery.
No, it's all wireless now. Make sure your computer is charged up before you come in to the office in the morning!
There are 2 big fads right now in management:
- open concept offices
- forcing everyone back in to the office and not allowing work from home
Combine the 2 and you get miserable employees who are unproductive.
This is really due to lazy management. It's hard to actually do your job and look at the quality and quantity of work done by your employees, it's much easier to just make sure they're physically in the office the right number of hours and that their computer monitor appears to show something work related on it. Of course that also leads to miserable employees who are unproductive, but productivity and happiness were pretty much doomed when the manager started caring more about the hours worked than the end result anyway.
Managers who insist on being able to see your screen at all times are poor managers. It's the same as the ones that look more at how many hours you worked than what work you did.
A decent manager will look at the quantity and quality of your work, and not care which way your screen faces, how many hours a day you work, or if you even came in to the office at all.
The fact that there are so few decent managers around is also why there are so few companies that allow employees to work in their most productive environments (generally a private space, and often one that isn't at the office)
The library model falls apart completely the first time one of these programmers has to talk to the person who requested the work. They're on a conference call, and nobody else in the office can work.
The more people in the office, the more often this happens, until at a certain number of people it's a constant situation.
Sure, you can slack off in a private office, but you can equally slack off in an open floor plan. If that's your concern about your employees, you need to monitor their output to see if they're doing the amount of work you asked them to.
My office used to have 4 of them, it also had 6 windows... of course it also had 4 wheels and an engine. That's the only job I ever had where I had a company supplied office with a door.
Other than that, my second job after college I had a desk in an open area with the servers and 4 offices off of it, but at least it was only me in that area, and then my next job was open floor plan until I got promoted to a cubicle that I shared with 2 other people (at the same time) and now I have no assigned desk at all, but I work from home 80% of the time (the other 20% I either work in a conference room with 2-6 other people, or in an open floor plan office.
I can tell you that I've never been more productive than when I had that mobile role, or when I work at home. The shared office spaces involve a lot more socializing, and a lot less working (even if all I want to do is work, some of the others don't seem to want to)
Maybe it's more that the 'workspace designed from the ground up for the millenial generation' is garbage, and NOBODY wants to work there?
When the CEO starts working in the open floor plan instead of his penthouse office, then I'll believe it really is the better option. But as long as the top levels of the organization keep their private offices it's pretty clear that the change is out of malice, not ignorance.
"invented"? hardly. Both were around before Apple. All Apple did was market them better.
Apple hasn't been good at technology in decades, but marketing? I don't think there's a better company on the planet at marketing.
Minimalism has been redefined recently to mean the fewer controls the better.
It's completely lost the context that fewer is only better if you don't lose the ability to access the needed functions.
Yet it seems that no company on the planet is willing to put out "usable", they'd all much prefer "beautiful"
It's extremely frustrating, in so many places you can tell that they probably spent an absolute fortune deciding the exact shade of each colour used, and the exact diameter of each rounded corner, while completely ignoring that the most commonly used task is 32 menus deep, and doesn't maintain it's state between app launches.
Honestly I'll take something designed by an engineer over a designer or "UI expert" any day. The one made by the engineer will just work, the designer or UI expert will have some squiggly line on an icon that you're only able to interpret if you can read minds, and won't do what you needed in the first place. They'll probably also remove all ability to actually do what you need the item to do in the name of "simplification"
While not a bad idea, to work well the coax network needs to be in extremely good shape. I work for an IPTV provider, and we do use of coax when we can't run new Ethernet, however we have to replace all the ends, couplers, and splitters first or the packet loss is just too high. These sorts of adapters are quite picky about coax quality.
So you don't believe me, and you didn't bother to read the article I linked. The one that states that already 85%of phones do this and that number is increasing. I'm afraid there's nothing more I can do being that I've already shown you the facts and explained what's happening and you just keep coming up with the same refusal to accept reality.
Considering that you don't care if you're right or not and have absolutely no interest in what the facts are this will be my final reply to this thread.
For anyone else still reading. Look at the link. 85% of cell phones do this right now. And more are doing it every day (the 15% represents older phones that are not capable of this feature) This is a good thing as it means help can actually find you when you call 911.
As a paramedic working on a rural service I have been incredibly grateful for this advance in technology it has greatly improved our ability to find patients who call when they are not able to give us a good location themselves. So although the other poster does not believe this technology exists I rely on it daily and it has been working extremely well.
More so than you who believe that people won't care if Emergency Services claim they don't believe them and are not going to send help. That will cause the vast majority of people to give up and try to find other ways of dealing with their situation. They may start phoning friends or family. But they won't stay on the line with someone who is flat-out claimed they will not help them.
Landlines don't need a GPS because they don't move. Cell phones have a GPS and it's automatically activated whenever you call 911. The information is relayed to the call centre.
This is federal law to deal with the fact that cell tower triangulation is low resolution and only works with multiple towers.
You can tell me I'm wrong all you want. It doesn't change the facts about how it works. As for not being plausible. It's far more plausible than the idea that the government has completely ignored the fact that you can't locate most cell phone calls any better than several hundred meters, and often more than a km. The fact that it's true makes it even more plausible.
I recommend you read this piece for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So pranksters just need to say"no this is real" and we'll now start sending real resources again? I'm sure none of them will think of that!
Telling someone who's already panicking that you won't help them and don't believe them is quite likely to get them to hang up because they see no point to staying on the line with someone who won't help them.