And then people wonder why they can't find live bands in bars and clubs anymore, and why now movie scores will be generated by software going forward.
I find this to be overly cynical. People are complicated, and their tastes along with the scenarios they find themselves in are extremely varied.
Back in "the good old days" music delivery was far more homogeneous. You had records, you had radio, and you had live. Records had to be found and paid for, and radio was unpredictable. Those two mechanisms didn't always sound great, and they didn't offer much of a socialization aspect, so a lot of the musical experience fell on the shoulders of live performance. It's just what you did. Contrast that with now, when everything is on demand, sounds perfect, and can be discussed with total strangers 24/7. It's not a replacement for live music, but it covers a lot of the same territory. So people aren't getting worse; technology is getting better. It's no wonder they don't demand live music in every bar and restaurant.
Now to hijack my previous point: music is in a better place now than it ever has been. Musicians moan because it doesn't pay the bills, and this is completely true, but I can't shake the feeling that the number of musicians is at an all time high, as is the quality and variety of the work. There will always be nostalgia for the past, but for crying out loud have you heard the range of stuff that's out there now? And it's *quality* stuff. People are just doing it for less money,
or just (*gasp!*) doing it for the love of music.
But you'd never hear someone say that brain surgery is "fun," or that structural engineering is "easy."
Maybe we should start saying that. One of the biggest deterrents to potential rock stars in these fields is the mountain of intimidation before the learning process can even begin. How is that productive?
What makes this different from just another kind of tax and welfare system, or somehow magically paid for because of today's economic dynamics?
I suppose the difference is the complete lack of pretense. The redistribution is no longer hidden under this program or that program. It's right out in the open for everyone to see. Likewise with the rules simplified there's less threat of the system being gamed. I don't know about you, but that's one thing I want: clarity. It's a bit like the flat tax propositions if you think about it like that.
The luxury features justify to buyers what would be a high sticker price regardless. Eliminating features like motorized handles and gull wing doors won't cut costs enough to make it "affordable". Maybe eventually, but not yet.
I don't think narrowing the demographic is a strategy for malls. I think it's just attrition. It's delaying the inevitable, of course.
I don't fully know how to explain malls declining. The obvious answer is Amazon.com and maybe that's pretty much the sum of it. But there's a social aspect to malls that you can't get from online shopping. And who likes socializing more than impressionable teens?
TV is a different story. Streaming is just a better way to watch. I keep an antenna around just for the shared-experience stuff like the news or special events. As with malls, I think the diminished offerings on TV are determined by their remaining viewers, not the other way around.
Now if you want a case where I feel the product itself whittled the audience down to a premium niche, take arcades. For a long time arcades thrived on single-coin currency. In the 80s one play was one quarter. Then their crowds were thinned by home video game systems. So what did they do? Doubled the price, and doubled the coins needed to play. This is the exact opposite of the proper reaction. When there's downward pressure on prices due to competition, the correct response is to decrease your prices, not increase them. And don't give me any stories about recouping costs, because there's no fixed cost for a gaming session. They needed more people in the door, not more money per play. I'm sure the manufacturers drove this, but I don't know the whole story. All I know is, no one seemed to have the willingness to go against the trend. But among the few arcades that still exist in my area, guess what they typically are? Nickel arcades or straight-up free play with a cover charge. Pretty much what they needed all along.
Numerous companies have done play testing, and despite the console players getting all the aim assistance, etc. available on the console, even mediocre PC players will still mop the floor with them. The difference in controller speed and precision really is just that dramatic.
I hate controllers, but the last two Call of Duty games on PCs have added the stupid aim assist for controller users, and it's actually competitive. Those people have gotten pretty good with their silly controllers now that there's pro leagues and whatnot. They still need the aim assist training wheels though. Some people say the assists are stronger on PC, but I wouldn't know.
You must admit that *some* things are different. Conglomeratization may make it difficult to create new jobs, as smaller businesses have trouble competing with the mammoths. Globalization may send more jobs offshore until our standard of living has leveled off with the rest of the world. It's not inconceivable that we'll end up with a much larger number of unemployed people, with AI being a significant contributing factor. It's not a certainty, but neither is your scenario of the status quo. Just because it happened that way with the industrial revolution doesn't mean it will happen that way again.
Agreed. Bluetooth has been around forever, and yet we still have tangly cords everywhere like it's 1988. BT manufacturers need to step up their game in terms of usability (pairing, latency), and consumers need a push toward our inevitable wireless future. Removing the jack helps with both. I think courage is actually a good word for it. They knew the backlash was coming. Nexus 6P user here.
Perhaps because, like airplane autopilot, there are things it can't/shouldn't do? They may be a bit out of touch with how your average person would interpret the naming.
Yep. If (for various reasons) your password manager isn't able to help you enter those random character strings, you'll be hating life. Especially on a mobile device. It has to be somewhat practical or people understandably won't do it. If it's not practical and they do do it, it can create an entirely new problem that's almost as bad as getting hacked: Losing access to your own stuff.
I prefer these rules of thumb, after you identify which services "matter" (have sensitive info or can be used to access other services):
Don't re-use passwords
Choose passwords that are extremely unlikely to be in a dictionary
If you use a formula, don't make it obvious
Consider using reminders rather than facsimiles
If you use physical or digital reminders or facsimiles, don't put them in obvious places
Even these rules of thumb are too much for most technophobes. For some people this might be best:
Don't re-use passwords
Have your granddaughter choose crazy passwords for you
Write them on two separate pieces of paper and keep them somewhere safe
The times are changing. Why not try everything? It's all free to try if not free outright, and it's just as easy to procure the software as it is to read an article about it. So of course this won't have the commitment we're used to on older platforms. There's no barrier to participate. No financial commitment, and no difficulty finding and installing the software.
I'll readily agree that he worded it poorly and I disagree with much of the premise, but... Is the punishment in line with the offense here? He spoke his mind out, something Americans seem all too eager to do and say they have a right to, and then the backlash was not only severe, but persisted for years down the line and probably will for years further. That's a bit much, don't you think? That you can essentially destroy your life in a single act, one that is neither immoral nor illegal?
Not much empathy going around eh? I'm always trying to catch myself before grabbing a pitchfork, because I fear one day I may do something stupid and end up on the wrong end of them. Internet justice can be an awful and uncontrollable thing.
Here I risk going off topic. Degree of malice is not always an accurate predictor of outcome or punishment. Either of the two can fly off the charts with little predictability or justification. A bus driver has a mellow job in most cases, until one of their little errors has big consequences and people die. Recall one of your own fender benders or near misses, then imagine the same thing happening while driving a bus, and you'll probably see that you might not have fared any better. And it's not like we compensate bus drivers for the risk of failure we are heaping upon them.
So don't be too quick to judge. And respect those whose jobs have a high degree of personal risk, not just to life and limb but also to reputation.
The only part of the movies where I thought they captured that was in the opening scenes of the first Hobbit, where the dwarves come in one at a time, and then start singing while they clean the kitchen. So lighthearted and fun.
Yep, that scene was pretty well done.
To me, The Hobbit's flaws were just a magnification of flaws that already existed in the LOTR movies:
- Everything looked fake
- The pacing was always off. Either rushing through moments that should be awe inspiring, or dragging out moments that either shouldn't exist (because PJ invented them), or were boring filler (eternal battle scenes, interpersonal relationship drama).
- Trying to make everything epic. What ruined the soundtrack in LOTR (and The Hobbit), for me, was the fact that it never shut up. Not every scene requires grand accompaniment.
There was never a focus on doing these movies right. It was always about doing them big.
Spoken like a horrible teacher. Your problem is that you interpret fun to mean unimportant, easy, or silly. In fact, fun as it is used here simply means that the student discovers and embraces the desire to do it. Learning to play music isn't fun? That attitude is how you become a crappy musician.
Agile: A form of development co-opted by management and companies to micro manage you at every possibility, without actually establishing any direction. Yes, I know this is not how it is supposed to work, but after being in many companies doing it, it is all too often done this way. Everyone gets creative about 'what they did yesterday', and 'what they will do today', yet we still don't have a clear direction on 'what the heck we are doing'. That gets frustrating.
I'm with you on every point except your agile comments. Yes many companies get it very wrong, but many companies get waterfall just as wrong. For me, coming from a massively waterfall environment to an agile environment has dropped my stress level considerably.
Here is how agile (Scrum, specifically) is supposed to benefit you:
Gives you clear short-term (one sprint) goals.
Divides work (backlog items, tasks) into manageable chunks.
Offloads vague, stressful long-term goals to the Product Owner. They are responsible for measuring velocity, and planning accordingly. They are responsible for cutting features in order to make a deadline.
You commit to two weeks worth of work. The work is not committed on your behalf, and you can and should refuse unrealistic goals for each sprint.
Gets management out of your face. Want to know my status? Attend the standup meeting. Want to know our status? Look at the burndown chart, or ask the Product Owner.
Allows room for input on and interpretation of requirements. "Acceptance criteria" bullet lists are intended to give you just enough requirement detail, but not so much that stakeholders are attempting to be engineers.
If you have been using Scrum, it sounds to me like your group is in desperate need of retraining. You need an effective Scrum Master, an effective Product Owner, and team members who understand Scrum.
Exactly. Not only are existing competitors like Amazon catching up, everybody and their dog seems to be starting their own streaming service. That means more competition for content licenses, and less buying power for Netflix. This is also why every streaming service, including Netflix, is trying to build up original content libraries. They may not want to be just another streaming channel, but I think they realize there's no other choice. So they'll try to be the best at that.
Both genders should have the same opportunities. They don't necessarily have the same interests.
However misguided, I think people are just trying to reduce the pressure everyone puts on young girls to pick interests that fit into their stereotype. It's a goal you can only chip away at. There's no way to quickly rewire all of our cultural tendencies. Maybe girl-focused STEM toys are a bad idea, maybe not. You could argue that they bridge the gap between what we traditionally pressure girls to play with and what we traditionally pressure boys to play with. Maybe that's progress.
What we really need is an evil mad scientist to use robots to raise human babies in isolation, and observe which toys / roles they gravitate toward over the years.
The problem is, it seems companies are letting designers do the job of the UI experts.
"UI expert", "designer", "UX"... it's all the same. There are people who are in charge of the interface. Call them whatever you want. People in these comments are inventing a boogeyman and attempting to give him a name.
In answer to a few of the concerns brought up in these comments:
The problem with not trying something new with UI designs is that new challenges don't get addressed, and as a result the experience of using a computer gets worse as time goes on. And even more importantly, why would we ever assume things are perfect? They've never been perfect. Windows 7 is not perfect. It's just familiar to those of us who already know how to use computers. And you know what? We are exactly the people who are best equipped to handle radical UI changes, because we've been around the block a time or two. I know half you guys probably still do word processing from a command line, but believe it or not that kind of stuff is a wee bit intimidating to new users. I doubt many people miss having the WordPerfect paper stencil flapped over their keyboards at all times.
Sometimes tearing something down and rebuilding it from scratch is the only way to see a path forward. Yes early designs are going to suck. Yes Windows 8 metro sucks. But at least they are trying something! They were faced with a brand new class of devices upon which they had no foothold whatsoever, so yes of course they are going to try to unify their operating system (including the UI) as much as possible in order to bridge the gap for their existing user base.
Flat icons are merely a trend. No one is saying they are better. Since the beginning of GUIs technology has been inhibiting designers' attempts at skeuomorphism, so they really went nuts with it once adequate technology finally arrived. The current trend is just a rebound after people grew tired of the art style.
Let people try new ideas. Don't be such negative Nancy know-it-alls.
"I'd love to just be normal, and not have to think so much about everything."
You know, it might not help that you're a truck driver and probably have waaaaaay more time to think than the average Joe.:) And don't be too hard on yourself.
I really like your observations, and I agree with the main part of it: It's better to follow your interests and commit yourself to excellence than it is to follow the money. That said, don't assume that you'd be any happier. More fulfilled in that one particular area, certainly. One thing I don't like about Hollywood is the constant preaching that "following your dreams" is the ultimate point in life. It's not. Don't let yourself be suckered into what ifs and regrets.
I also wonder why we allow society to limit us so much. You have probably retained most of what you knew back then. You have money to pay the bills. Why not pick up where you left off? What's stopping you? Get into academics.
Slashdot Mirror
They offer something similar. https://chrome.google.com/webs...
I find this to be overly cynical. People are complicated, and their tastes along with the scenarios they find themselves in are extremely varied.
Back in "the good old days" music delivery was far more homogeneous. You had records, you had radio, and you had live. Records had to be found and paid for, and radio was unpredictable. Those two mechanisms didn't always sound great, and they didn't offer much of a socialization aspect, so a lot of the musical experience fell on the shoulders of live performance. It's just what you did. Contrast that with now, when everything is on demand, sounds perfect, and can be discussed with total strangers 24/7. It's not a replacement for live music, but it covers a lot of the same territory. So people aren't getting worse; technology is getting better. It's no wonder they don't demand live music in every bar and restaurant.
Now to hijack my previous point: music is in a better place now than it ever has been. Musicians moan because it doesn't pay the bills, and this is completely true, but I can't shake the feeling that the number of musicians is at an all time high, as is the quality and variety of the work. There will always be nostalgia for the past, but for crying out loud have you heard the range of stuff that's out there now? And it's *quality* stuff. People are just doing it for less money, or just (*gasp!*) doing it for the love of music.
Maybe we should start saying that. One of the biggest deterrents to potential rock stars in these fields is the mountain of intimidation before the learning process can even begin. How is that productive?
I suppose the difference is the complete lack of pretense. The redistribution is no longer hidden under this program or that program. It's right out in the open for everyone to see. Likewise with the rules simplified there's less threat of the system being gamed. I don't know about you, but that's one thing I want: clarity. It's a bit like the flat tax propositions if you think about it like that.
Well I already know the effect of heat on fabric, and it's enough to make me interested in hearing about this ultrasonic thing.
The luxury features justify to buyers what would be a high sticker price regardless. Eliminating features like motorized handles and gull wing doors won't cut costs enough to make it "affordable". Maybe eventually, but not yet.
I don't fully know how to explain malls declining. The obvious answer is Amazon.com and maybe that's pretty much the sum of it. But there's a social aspect to malls that you can't get from online shopping. And who likes socializing more than impressionable teens?
TV is a different story. Streaming is just a better way to watch. I keep an antenna around just for the shared-experience stuff like the news or special events. As with malls, I think the diminished offerings on TV are determined by their remaining viewers, not the other way around.
Now if you want a case where I feel the product itself whittled the audience down to a premium niche, take arcades. For a long time arcades thrived on single-coin currency. In the 80s one play was one quarter. Then their crowds were thinned by home video game systems. So what did they do? Doubled the price, and doubled the coins needed to play. This is the exact opposite of the proper reaction. When there's downward pressure on prices due to competition, the correct response is to decrease your prices, not increase them. And don't give me any stories about recouping costs, because there's no fixed cost for a gaming session. They needed more people in the door, not more money per play. I'm sure the manufacturers drove this, but I don't know the whole story. All I know is, no one seemed to have the willingness to go against the trend. But among the few arcades that still exist in my area, guess what they typically are? Nickel arcades or straight-up free play with a cover charge. Pretty much what they needed all along.
There's more good music than ever. It just isn't on the radio. Pop isn't what it used to be.
Numerous companies have done play testing, and despite the console players getting all the aim assistance, etc. available on the console, even mediocre PC players will still mop the floor with them. The difference in controller speed and precision really is just that dramatic.
I hate controllers, but the last two Call of Duty games on PCs have added the stupid aim assist for controller users, and it's actually competitive. Those people have gotten pretty good with their silly controllers now that there's pro leagues and whatnot. They still need the aim assist training wheels though. Some people say the assists are stronger on PC, but I wouldn't know.
You must admit that *some* things are different. Conglomeratization may make it difficult to create new jobs, as smaller businesses have trouble competing with the mammoths. Globalization may send more jobs offshore until our standard of living has leveled off with the rest of the world. It's not inconceivable that we'll end up with a much larger number of unemployed people, with AI being a significant contributing factor. It's not a certainty, but neither is your scenario of the status quo. Just because it happened that way with the industrial revolution doesn't mean it will happen that way again.
Agreed. Bluetooth has been around forever, and yet we still have tangly cords everywhere like it's 1988. BT manufacturers need to step up their game in terms of usability (pairing, latency), and consumers need a push toward our inevitable wireless future. Removing the jack helps with both. I think courage is actually a good word for it. They knew the backlash was coming. Nexus 6P user here.
Perhaps because, like airplane autopilot, there are things it can't/shouldn't do? They may be a bit out of touch with how your average person would interpret the naming.
Yep. If (for various reasons) your password manager isn't able to help you enter those random character strings, you'll be hating life. Especially on a mobile device. It has to be somewhat practical or people understandably won't do it. If it's not practical and they do do it, it can create an entirely new problem that's almost as bad as getting hacked: Losing access to your own stuff.
I prefer these rules of thumb, after you identify which services "matter" (have sensitive info or can be used to access other services):
Even these rules of thumb are too much for most technophobes. For some people this might be best:
The times are changing. Why not try everything? It's all free to try if not free outright, and it's just as easy to procure the software as it is to read an article about it. So of course this won't have the commitment we're used to on older platforms. There's no barrier to participate. No financial commitment, and no difficulty finding and installing the software.
Not much empathy going around eh? I'm always trying to catch myself before grabbing a pitchfork, because I fear one day I may do something stupid and end up on the wrong end of them. Internet justice can be an awful and uncontrollable thing.
Here I risk going off topic. Degree of malice is not always an accurate predictor of outcome or punishment. Either of the two can fly off the charts with little predictability or justification. A bus driver has a mellow job in most cases, until one of their little errors has big consequences and people die. Recall one of your own fender benders or near misses, then imagine the same thing happening while driving a bus, and you'll probably see that you might not have fared any better. And it's not like we compensate bus drivers for the risk of failure we are heaping upon them.
So don't be too quick to judge. And respect those whose jobs have a high degree of personal risk, not just to life and limb but also to reputation.
Yep, that scene was pretty well done.
To me, The Hobbit's flaws were just a magnification of flaws that already existed in the LOTR movies:
- Everything looked fake
- The pacing was always off. Either rushing through moments that should be awe inspiring, or dragging out moments that either shouldn't exist (because PJ invented them), or were boring filler (eternal battle scenes, interpersonal relationship drama).
- Trying to make everything epic. What ruined the soundtrack in LOTR (and The Hobbit), for me, was the fact that it never shut up. Not every scene requires grand accompaniment.
There was never a focus on doing these movies right. It was always about doing them big.
It's good to know I'm not the only one who has to take a million crappy photos before I get a good one.
Spoken like a horrible teacher. Your problem is that you interpret fun to mean unimportant, easy, or silly. In fact, fun as it is used here simply means that the student discovers and embraces the desire to do it. Learning to play music isn't fun? That attitude is how you become a crappy musician.
I'm with you on every point except your agile comments. Yes many companies get it very wrong, but many companies get waterfall just as wrong. For me, coming from a massively waterfall environment to an agile environment has dropped my stress level considerably. Here is how agile (Scrum, specifically) is supposed to benefit you:
If you have been using Scrum, it sounds to me like your group is in desperate need of retraining. You need an effective Scrum Master, an effective Product Owner, and team members who understand Scrum.
Exactly. Not only are existing competitors like Amazon catching up, everybody and their dog seems to be starting their own streaming service. That means more competition for content licenses, and less buying power for Netflix. This is also why every streaming service, including Netflix, is trying to build up original content libraries. They may not want to be just another streaming channel, but I think they realize there's no other choice. So they'll try to be the best at that.
However misguided, I think people are just trying to reduce the pressure everyone puts on young girls to pick interests that fit into their stereotype. It's a goal you can only chip away at. There's no way to quickly rewire all of our cultural tendencies. Maybe girl-focused STEM toys are a bad idea, maybe not. You could argue that they bridge the gap between what we traditionally pressure girls to play with and what we traditionally pressure boys to play with. Maybe that's progress.
What we really need is an evil mad scientist to use robots to raise human babies in isolation, and observe which toys / roles they gravitate toward over the years.
This one weird trick protects Nuclear, ATC, and United Nations Systems from malware attacks!
"UI expert", "designer", "UX"... it's all the same. There are people who are in charge of the interface. Call them whatever you want. People in these comments are inventing a boogeyman and attempting to give him a name.
In answer to a few of the concerns brought up in these comments:
Let people try new ideas. Don't be such negative Nancy know-it-alls.
"I'd love to just be normal, and not have to think so much about everything."
You know, it might not help that you're a truck driver and probably have waaaaaay more time to think than the average Joe. :) And don't be too hard on yourself.
I really like your observations, and I agree with the main part of it: It's better to follow your interests and commit yourself to excellence than it is to follow the money. That said, don't assume that you'd be any happier. More fulfilled in that one particular area, certainly. One thing I don't like about Hollywood is the constant preaching that "following your dreams" is the ultimate point in life. It's not. Don't let yourself be suckered into what ifs and regrets.
I also wonder why we allow society to limit us so much. You have probably retained most of what you knew back then. You have money to pay the bills. Why not pick up where you left off? What's stopping you? Get into academics.