yep...it's not just *resistance to change* (what all designers tell themselves after a site re-design)
>the redesign gives **less** information per square unit of screen space >it has too much whitespace and looks like a blog >user profile pages do not have a 'list' style view for a user's comments, only a low-information sort of blogroll summary
everyone likes photos, but the whitespace of their
A socialist program wouldn't farm out healthcare to a for-profit business.
right...i get where you are coming from (sounds like we'd use similar definitions for these terms)
here's the thing: any fault in the ACA is due to the GOP obstruction in the face of democracy...it's been tested...the people want it
it's not just this *one* time...for *years* the GOP has used every roadblock and systemic stop imaginable, made a few up, even opposed their own bills that they put up!
Republicans are protecting the insurance companies...that's who is doing it...look at the votes. Don't blame Obama for their behavior.
from the communist-healthcare-would-have-helped-more dept.
/. always puts a 'from the x dept.' under the 'posted by'
it's tongue in cheek, obviously...but re-read it...tongue in cheek to who?
as evidenced by this thread many/.'ers *hate* Obamacare/ACA and Obama in general...based on the stupid misunderstanding of the notion of 'communism'
this is where Michelle Bachmann comes in...and the 'tea party' or w/e you want to call ignorant/easily manipulated white people
no one who understands the concept of 'communism' would call Obamacare 'communism'...communism is essentially a highly totalitarian regime that uses 'leftist' rhetoric
the key is "totalitarian"
Obama and America in general is absolutely not "totalitarian" (trolls engage!)
that's the problem...I think/. is biased to be contrarian to a fault...it's time to call a spade a spade...or in this case...call Obamacare 'socialism' and not 'communism'
marketing research groups could be gleaning this kind of data
You have to understand...as of **right now** the overarching, decades old industry-standard is the Nielsen Ratings.
Avail yourself of the wikipedia page on it and you will be enlightened.
Ex: Nielsen's standard method is to have viewers in each room with a TV enter their presence on a remote and this is what **Billions** of dollars of ad revenue, the decisions to 'renew' ever single TV show we've ever love...
all of these vital decisions...Left to boneheaded Nielsen research that was obsolete when they thought it up in the Eisenhower administration!
Look, it really is so bad that virtually *anything* is an improvement. Facebook.com is for better or worse a great way to understand what their users (rapidly becoming more representative) watch on TV...and more importantly what they *want* to watch more of and are motivated to **seek out on their own**
Nielsen isn't even in this ballpark...they're swindlers pure and simple...not 'research' by any professional standard
if you've ever had a beloved show canceled flying in the face of all logic, just look up Nielsen's methods and cry alone for awhile...
to continue your analogy, in dairy/oil world: cows cost $10Million dollars, the same entity owns the cows, farmland, milking plant, cheese factory, milk bottling factory, & owns the stores that sell it
there is no 'competition' in that environment or in the oil industry...it's a very well understood concept...OLIGOPOLY
home schooled children....charter schools....voucher programs...
how is this different than what I said? I emphasized *human*...and indeed all your scenarios involve a human...home school/charters/voucers/etc are all just variations on the same thing as a public school....human teaching human...it's just different contexts
**NO MATTER WHAT THE CONTEXT** a shitty teacher will not educate a child properly
your argument is a complete fallacy...you jump on one linguistic crack in my argument (how I said 'professionally trained' which might be taken that I am excluding homeschooling completely)...and away you go to Glenn Beck land...
stop it.......it's people like you who *ruin* any chance of productive discussion on this topic
Opening up the teaching profession to anyone with a bachelor's degree and a demonstrated knowledge of a subject (english, math, science) would be even better
every state does this now...every single one...I used to teach (not anymore) and got certified in two states based on my BA degree alone....
just to recap, everything about your post agrees with my point that *humans* teach humans...not technology or budgets or voucher...
I laughed...also I must confess to overreacting to your comment...upon re-reading it I may have misunderstood...either way...lets agree to either agree or disagree...deal?
I responded to another post similar to yours above...
the tl;dr is that I agree there is no magic bullet & just as you I acknowledge all types of learning scenarios/types...beneath it all, however, is the public education system...when done right it can handle *anything*
one last thing I saw mentioned below I'll clear up: I'm not currently a teacher nor do I have close family employed in K-12 education...these are just my thoughts
I have taught all kinds of stuff all over the world at all levels (Korea, snowboarding, public HS, adjunct prof) but am no longer actively involved in the education profession.
I am a staunch advocate for highest quality public education, but I don't mean that to be some sort of magic bullet.
Properly trained educators, however, are better able to identify strongly independent learners or 'gifted & talented' students and give them proper accomidations
Also, the latest education strategies encourage (or in some states mandate) teachers design lesson plans to all learning types.
Professional teachers...well paid...again not a magic bullet but everyone reading this can understand how a professionally trained person who is plain bad at their job is easier to remediate.
On a personal note, I feel my education let me down. I went to a private religious school that strongly discouraged my plans to eventually get a PhD from a 'secular' (read: accredited) university after HS. My love of science was stronger than their dogma but when I became a public school teacher, I was simultaneously amazed and enraged at how well the school system handled 'different' students of all types.
Gas companies can still raise prices as high as they want.
Plus, you presented no evidence for your 'quick changeover' claim...for all we know it could be the exact opposite...and there's no logical reason to assume switiching from gas to nuclear would be 'easy' like you describe.
You're finding linguistic faults in my argument b/c that's all you have.....GAS COMPANIES RAISE PRICES AT WILL....nothing you can say is a valid counterpoint to this...
We basically are giving these Gas companies a government subsidy.
Isn't that what the Free Markets are about? The most economically efficient survive and the least economically efficient do not?
No.
Corporations are pictures of inefficiency. Ask any employee of one.
You see financial success and assume (for no reason) that that success must be due to a superior product or value.
In America, gaming the system and cheating is now considered S.O.P. for a business....that's **NOT** 'just the free market working'....it's immoral and criminal and we let them get away with it b/c of people like you who look only at the superficial appearance and just assume from there.
Stop labeling all financial gain as 'just the free market' and start looking at what is really happening.
The 'free market' is a concept independent of any ONE economic theory...it's a fundamental aspect of human behavior in **all contexts**...even in Soviet Russia they had a booming black market.
This move is stupid and shortsighted. Power plants are a 100+ year undertaking...yet they look at profit margins on a matter of months.
Here's a fact no one acknowledges in the energy debate: GAS COMPANIES CAN RAISE PRICES AS MUCH AS THEY WANT
There's no rule saying gas can't be $6.00/gal or more....IF THEY WANT IT THAT MUCH
Obama has nothing to do with gas prices...it is entirely in the hands of the corporations. When we lower their taxes, the prices & profits both go up. Its a swindle pure and simple.
I turned all those effects off, and it was still making me feel nauseous.
Maybe it was all the other B.S. "U/X" crap that you cannot change...like the emaciated font for the lock screen time/date
The reason is "U/X"...or more specifically, to justify all the money they budgeted for 'user experience designers' in the design process.
Everyone knows the user is the most important part of the equation and that 'good design' is good. After that, its like debating the definition of 'feminism' at a gun show. There is absolutely no guiding *science-based* ontology to digital design. There are attempts, sure (looking at you Ben Shneiderman) but it is far too abstract to formalize.
The trend now is to have a "U/X" division sort of grafted into existing development pipelines of large companies. Like a sort added appendage. They spend millions hiring these grads with tech degrees but no actual design work experience. The result is essentially a bunch of psychobabble that describes common design decisions that are handled somewhere else in the process. It's a trainwreck. Here's why:
"U/X" is just a continuation of the industry's tendency to recycle concepts with new nomenclature every time anti-user design becomes industry standard.
They spend the money so they have to justify its existence. It comes from the project leaders, who have to justify every budget item to the big big bosses (accountants). Hence these animation features and such are all by default turned 'on' and not easily disabled.
Putting the user first is easy. Microsoft (and a host of others) **know** what the user wants. That's not the problem. The problem is their business model! They have to bottleneck features (reduce usability) in order to profit somehow. Facebook is the same with user data. Their IPO lists 'user privacy initiatives' as a threat to revenue.
Don't get me started on what passes for 'usability research' in Silicon Valley. People talk like "A/B testing" is some sort of hot new tech thing...it's not...in the research science world the types of "A/B" tests companies like Apple and Microsoft do to test their products on everyday users is mind numbingly reductive and small scale.
It's all a product of bad management and flimsy academic science.
The *real* usability innovation is in crafting business models that do not require bottlenecking features to coerce the user.
A single "reboot me now!" key would have been a disaster
yes, I agree...actually I don't see anything wrong with CTL+ALT+DEL at all just for the reason you stated
Gate's answer to the question is silly and insulting kind of...that's my point...if Gates had said, in answer to the question:
>"Zune" >"Making Internet Explorer locked down" >something about.NET >"nurturing our developers"
answer like that are plausible...
but like W., Gates is just a sort of bumbling figurehead...my greater point is that Gates's advice on these matters is wholly unuseful b/c he doesn't really have experience as a 'tech innovator' or 'computing pioneer'
Gates knows how to fend off internal competition for his job, arrange divisions against each other in unhealthy competition, strategically bottleneck primary functions to coerce users into using all of your company's products, go decades without paying shareholder dividends, secure long-term governement contracts at no-bid, and probably best, he can show you how to **MAKE MILLIONS SELLING VAPORWARE**
Look, compared to the homeless people who root through the dumpster of my building...no Bill Gates is not a 'total idiot'...
I *hate* arguing over definitions of words when the concepts are well understood...
Bill Gate's reputation as a 'tech innovator' or 'computing industry pioneer' are completely and wholly unearned.
The *real* work was done by others and he and his partners copied the work of others, created planned obsolescent software, purposefully removed features to bottleneck users and cheat out competition...
They were willing to shut up and take orders...that's why people like Bill Gates and W. get into positions of power...
Microsoft would be *NOTHING* without the IBM contract for PCs for the federal government...that guaranteed them a revenue stream
Microsoft's success is not a pattern to follow for others to build a business...all they did was do what others told them to do.
Bill Gates saying "Ctrl+Alt+Del" was a mistake is the computing equivalent of when George W. Bush said having the "Mission Accomplished" banner when he spoke right after the invasion of Iraq...
Those are not mistakes.
Windows ME. Lying about WMD.
Those are mistakes.
These leaders are total idiots, both of them, exemplifying the same level of analytical thought.
they are a 2-bit business that is running an MBA-style playbook for 'monetizing' Ubuntu that they do not consult the community about *at all*
that's why they do this:
unpopular design changes without giving people any real option to do things their own way and driving their own userbase away
that's why Linux *exists* in the first place...because of M$ doing exactly the same thing...in the 80s, if M$ had not declared war on 'hobbyists' b/c of their awkward, assbackward business model of selling software like its a box of cereal and bottlenecking functions to profit from users
IMHO, Canonical has gone a bridge too far...they can't be trusted
I'm with you but I used to work in print and a decent editor would have have been able to mitigate the trolling.
It's 2013 not 1813 and *any* editor-level staff member at Popular Science should have known that trolling on the comments can be mitigated with a points system or if need be require a login. Sometimes its not that easy but the solutions aren't expensive or prohibitively time consuming.
Here's the thing: COMMUNICATING WITH READERS IS A NECESSITY
Newspapers can't afford *not* to have a comments section. It's 2013...my grandma is on facebook.com...the expectation for interactivity and social networking integration is higher and growing...
Part of the problem is that media *owners* have no idea what they are doing and just do the standard cost-cutting algorythm whenever they buy a newspaper. They cut out every function that isn't associated with ad revenue until the publication is so shitty and uninformative no one uses it.
Popular Science is no different. Really it's just a brand name anymore...one of dozens of 'titles' owned by a conglomerate. In this case the The Bonnier Corporation out of Sweeden
Usually a company like Bonnier will contract with someone like Disquss or even Facebook.com to integrate all the comments on all pages to one system (that will then sell the commentors data on the advertising grey market).
Just for comparison's sake, imagine if Apple were run by a person whose only business experience is running a casino....
That is the kind of step down in management quality that crippled and ruined print media.
The whole notion that 'print is dead' is bullshit excuses to cut staff and make generic news not local news. People are reading more text than ever before. People are writing more text than ever before. People have an expectation for distraction like never before. People want quality media in all forms across platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
yep...it's not just *resistance to change* (what all designers tell themselves after a site re-design)
>the redesign gives **less** information per square unit of screen space
>it has too much whitespace and looks like a blog
>user profile pages do not have a 'list' style view for a user's comments, only a low-information sort of blogroll summary
everyone likes photos, but the whitespace of their
containers is wasteful and looks amateurish
right...i get where you are coming from (sounds like we'd use similar definitions for these terms)
here's the thing: any fault in the ACA is due to the GOP obstruction in the face of democracy...it's been tested...the people want it
it's not just this *one* time...for *years* the GOP has used every roadblock and systemic stop imaginable, made a few up, even opposed their own bills that they put up!
Republicans are protecting the insurance companies...that's who is doing it...look at the votes. Don't blame Obama for their behavior.
what's up with this?
it's tongue in cheek, obviously...but re-read it...tongue in cheek to who?
as evidenced by this thread many /.'ers *hate* Obamacare/ACA and Obama in general...based on the stupid misunderstanding of the notion of 'communism'
this is where Michelle Bachmann comes in...and the 'tea party' or w/e you want to call ignorant/easily manipulated white people
no one who understands the concept of 'communism' would call Obamacare 'communism'...communism is essentially a highly totalitarian regime that uses 'leftist' rhetoric
the key is "totalitarian"
Obama and America in general is absolutely not "totalitarian" (trolls engage!)
that's the problem...I think /. is biased to be contrarian to a fault...it's time to call a spade a spade...or in this case...call Obamacare 'socialism' and not 'communism'
got it /. rulers?
You have to understand...as of **right now** the overarching, decades old industry-standard is the Nielsen Ratings.
Avail yourself of the wikipedia page on it and you will be enlightened.
Ex: Nielsen's standard method is to have viewers in each room with a TV enter their presence on a remote and this is what **Billions** of dollars of ad revenue, the decisions to 'renew' ever single TV show we've ever love...
all of these vital decisions...Left to boneheaded Nielsen research that was obsolete when they thought it up in the Eisenhower administration!
Look, it really is so bad that virtually *anything* is an improvement. Facebook.com is for better or worse a great way to understand what their users (rapidly becoming more representative) watch on TV...and more importantly what they *want* to watch more of and are motivated to **seek out on their own**
Nielsen isn't even in this ballpark...they're swindlers pure and simple...not 'research' by any professional standard
if you've ever had a beloved show canceled flying in the face of all logic, just look up Nielsen's methods and cry alone for awhile...
so cut the crap and tell me where you actually **disagree** with my point about gas (or 'petrol' if you prefer) companies?
you definitely just proved my point for me!
to continue your analogy, in dairy/oil world: cows cost $10Million dollars, the same entity owns the cows, farmland, milking plant, cheese factory, milk bottling factory, & owns the stores that sell it
there is no 'competition' in that environment or in the oil industry...it's a very well understood concept...OLIGOPOLY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly
so that's your reward for proving me right: i teach you about oligopolies ;)
how is this different than what I said? I emphasized *human*...and indeed all your scenarios involve a human...home school/charters/voucers/etc are all just variations on the same thing as a public school....human teaching human...it's just different contexts
**NO MATTER WHAT THE CONTEXT** a shitty teacher will not educate a child properly
your argument is a complete fallacy...you jump on one linguistic crack in my argument (how I said 'professionally trained' which might be taken that I am excluding homeschooling completely)...and away you go to Glenn Beck land...
stop it.......it's people like you who *ruin* any chance of productive discussion on this topic
every state does this now...every single one...I used to teach (not anymore) and got certified in two states based on my BA degree alone....
just to recap, everything about your post agrees with my point that *humans* teach humans...not technology or budgets or voucher...
I laughed...also I must confess to overreacting to your comment...upon re-reading it I may have misunderstood...either way...lets agree to either agree or disagree...deal?
I responded to another post similar to yours above...
the tl;dr is that I agree there is no magic bullet & just as you I acknowledge all types of learning scenarios/types...beneath it all, however, is the public education system...when done right it can handle *anything*
one last thing I saw mentioned below I'll clear up: I'm not currently a teacher nor do I have close family employed in K-12 education...these are just my thoughts
I have taught all kinds of stuff all over the world at all levels (Korea, snowboarding, public HS, adjunct prof) but am no longer actively involved in the education profession.
I'll allow it.
I am a staunch advocate for highest quality public education, but I don't mean that to be some sort of magic bullet.
Properly trained educators, however, are better able to identify strongly independent learners or 'gifted & talented' students and give them proper accomidations
Also, the latest education strategies encourage (or in some states mandate) teachers design lesson plans to all learning types.
Professional teachers...well paid...again not a magic bullet but everyone reading this can understand how a professionally trained person who is plain bad at their job is easier to remediate.
On a personal note, I feel my education let me down. I went to a private religious school that strongly discouraged my plans to eventually get a PhD from a 'secular' (read: accredited) university after HS. My love of science was stronger than their dogma but when I became a public school teacher, I was simultaneously amazed and enraged at how well the school system handled 'different' students of all types.
Viewed superficially, you might appear to have made a contribution to the discussion.
Technology in the classroom...all of it...it's just **tools to teach**
Anyone who things technology can reduce staff budget or allow larger class sizes is smoking crack.
A professionally trained, well-paid *human* teacher is absolutely the only thing that educates a child.
Everything else is just a tool.
Gas companies can still raise prices as high as they want.
Plus, you presented no evidence for your 'quick changeover' claim...for all we know it could be the exact opposite...and there's no logical reason to assume switiching from gas to nuclear would be 'easy' like you describe.
You're finding linguistic faults in my argument b/c that's all you have.....GAS COMPANIES RAISE PRICES AT WILL....nothing you can say is a valid counterpoint to this...
We basically are giving these Gas companies a government subsidy.
No.
Corporations are pictures of inefficiency. Ask any employee of one.
You see financial success and assume (for no reason) that that success must be due to a superior product or value.
In America, gaming the system and cheating is now considered S.O.P. for a business....that's **NOT** 'just the free market working'....it's immoral and criminal and we let them get away with it b/c of people like you who look only at the superficial appearance and just assume from there.
Stop labeling all financial gain as 'just the free market' and start looking at what is really happening.
The 'free market' is a concept independent of any ONE economic theory...it's a fundamental aspect of human behavior in **all contexts**...even in Soviet Russia they had a booming black market.
or gets more expensive?
This move is stupid and shortsighted. Power plants are a 100+ year undertaking...yet they look at profit margins on a matter of months.
Here's a fact no one acknowledges in the energy debate: GAS COMPANIES CAN RAISE PRICES AS MUCH AS THEY WANT
There's no rule saying gas can't be $6.00/gal or more....IF THEY WANT IT THAT MUCH
Obama has nothing to do with gas prices...it is entirely in the hands of the corporations. When we lower their taxes, the prices & profits both go up. Its a swindle pure and simple.
I didn't make any 'art vs science' distinction. I'm talking all about the *science*
And how in corporate tech design, "U/X" uses the language of science but is not...that's the problem...
I think this relates to your misunderstanding, or maybe I'm wrong...I honestly dont' know what you mean by the above statement...help me out?
Maybe it was all the other B.S. "U/X" crap that you cannot change...like the emaciated font for the lock screen time/date
The reason is "U/X"...or more specifically, to justify all the money they budgeted for 'user experience designers' in the design process.
Everyone knows the user is the most important part of the equation and that 'good design' is good. After that, its like debating the definition of 'feminism' at a gun show. There is absolutely no guiding *science-based* ontology to digital design. There are attempts, sure (looking at you Ben Shneiderman) but it is far too abstract to formalize.
The trend now is to have a "U/X" division sort of grafted into existing development pipelines of large companies. Like a sort added appendage. They spend millions hiring these grads with tech degrees but no actual design work experience. The result is essentially a bunch of psychobabble that describes common design decisions that are handled somewhere else in the process. It's a trainwreck. Here's why:
"U/X" is just a continuation of the industry's tendency to recycle concepts with new nomenclature every time anti-user design becomes industry standard.
They spend the money so they have to justify its existence. It comes from the project leaders, who have to justify every budget item to the big big bosses (accountants). Hence these animation features and such are all by default turned 'on' and not easily disabled.
Putting the user first is easy. Microsoft (and a host of others) **know** what the user wants. That's not the problem. The problem is their business model! They have to bottleneck features (reduce usability) in order to profit somehow. Facebook is the same with user data. Their IPO lists 'user privacy initiatives' as a threat to revenue.
Don't get me started on what passes for 'usability research' in Silicon Valley. People talk like "A/B testing" is some sort of hot new tech thing...it's not...in the research science world the types of "A/B" tests companies like Apple and Microsoft do to test their products on everyday users is mind numbingly reductive and small scale.
It's all a product of bad management and flimsy academic science.
The *real* usability innovation is in crafting business models that do not require bottlenecking features to coerce the user.
yes, I agree...actually I don't see anything wrong with CTL+ALT+DEL at all just for the reason you stated
Gate's answer to the question is silly and insulting kind of...that's my point...if Gates had said, in answer to the question:
>"Zune" .NET
>"Making Internet Explorer locked down"
>something about
>"nurturing our developers"
answer like that are plausible...
but like W., Gates is just a sort of bumbling figurehead...my greater point is that Gates's advice on these matters is wholly unuseful b/c he doesn't really have experience as a 'tech innovator' or 'computing pioneer'
Gates knows how to fend off internal competition for his job, arrange divisions against each other in unhealthy competition, strategically bottleneck primary functions to coerce users into using all of your company's products, go decades without paying shareholder dividends, secure long-term governement contracts at no-bid, and probably best, he can show you how to **MAKE MILLIONS SELLING VAPORWARE**
Look, compared to the homeless people who root through the dumpster of my building...no Bill Gates is not a 'total idiot'...
I *hate* arguing over definitions of words when the concepts are well understood...
Bill Gate's reputation as a 'tech innovator' or 'computing industry pioneer' are completely and wholly unearned.
The *real* work was done by others and he and his partners copied the work of others, created planned obsolescent software, purposefully removed features to bottleneck users and cheat out competition...
They were willing to shut up and take orders...that's why people like Bill Gates and W. get into positions of power...
Microsoft would be *NOTHING* without the IBM contract for PCs for the federal government...that guaranteed them a revenue stream
Microsoft's success is not a pattern to follow for others to build a business...all they did was do what others told them to do.
Bill Gates saying "Ctrl+Alt+Del" was a mistake is the computing equivalent of when George W. Bush said having the "Mission Accomplished" banner when he spoke right after the invasion of Iraq...
Those are not mistakes.
Windows ME. Lying about WMD.
Those are mistakes.
These leaders are total idiots, both of them, exemplifying the same level of analytical thought.
good. i believe you...that doesn't mean the data isn't sold
that's why it's called the 'grey market'
Disquss sells the data. It's part of the terms when you sign up through their system.
i'm happy that Bonnier doesn't sell user data
they still have no reason to discontinue their comments section IMHO
agree...came here to post the same...
blame Canonical
they are a 2-bit business that is running an MBA-style playbook for 'monetizing' Ubuntu that they do not consult the community about *at all*
that's why they do this:
that's why Linux *exists* in the first place...because of M$ doing exactly the same thing...in the 80s, if M$ had not declared war on 'hobbyists' b/c of their awkward, assbackward business model of selling software like its a box of cereal and bottlenecking functions to profit from users
IMHO, Canonical has gone a bridge too far...they can't be trusted
I'm with you but I used to work in print and a decent editor would have have been able to mitigate the trolling.
It's 2013 not 1813 and *any* editor-level staff member at Popular Science should have known that trolling on the comments can be mitigated with a points system or if need be require a login. Sometimes its not that easy but the solutions aren't expensive or prohibitively time consuming.
Here's the thing: COMMUNICATING WITH READERS IS A NECESSITY
Newspapers can't afford *not* to have a comments section. It's 2013...my grandma is on facebook.com...the expectation for interactivity and social networking integration is higher and growing...
Part of the problem is that media *owners* have no idea what they are doing and just do the standard cost-cutting algorythm whenever they buy a newspaper. They cut out every function that isn't associated with ad revenue until the publication is so shitty and uninformative no one uses it.
Popular Science is no different. Really it's just a brand name anymore...one of dozens of 'titles' owned by a conglomerate. In this case the The Bonnier Corporation out of Sweeden
Usually a company like Bonnier will contract with someone like Disquss or even Facebook.com to integrate all the comments on all pages to one system (that will then sell the commentors data on the advertising grey market).
Just for comparison's sake, imagine if Apple were run by a person whose only business experience is running a casino....
That is the kind of step down in management quality that crippled and ruined print media.
The whole notion that 'print is dead' is bullshit excuses to cut staff and make generic news not local news. People are reading more text than ever before. People are writing more text than ever before. People have an expectation for distraction like never before. People want quality media in all forms across platforms.
you still got the point so i don't care
do you have any thoughts on the subject to contribute or are you just trolling?