It's the Walmart planet, with the biggest parking lot ever. (Wish they'd share some of the parking space with universities: they always have parking problems.)
[Using Fahrenheit? They should use Kelvin!] This is dumbing down science just so that Trump understands it!
If they wanted that, they'd use the Trump Scale:
- kinda hot
- hot
- bigly hot
- maga hot
- yuuugely hot
- believe me, even Jiiina can't make stuff this hot
It's not a one-shot upload, you have to keep them in sync with the expected files, and not leave old stuff floating around for Google to keep listing. The boss won't care about how much safer you are over WordPress if his/her Big Important Page is not up or missing updates.
Sure, one can slap scripts together to get it 99% in sync, but 99% is not always good enough. Reliable replication over limited bandwidth is not a trivial problem.
You can have all the UI research in the world, but a clueless PHB or marketer will likely override you with some stupid fad or whim. Science doesn't work on idiots and big egos.
I would kind of forgive Windows for bad UI design IF they stop moving shit around for each release. When they shift stuff around it doesn't appear to solve anything, just be a different kind of random. Same with the damned ribbon: it's still half-hazard, just a different half-hazard. Didn't improve my productivity over the old tool-bars (except where they fixed bugs).
Consistently bad is better than inconsistently bad. Don't move my moldy cheese, for I've memorized the mold pattern.
As more options pile up, menus are becoming too big and deep to be useful. It's time to meta-tize options so one can search for them google-esque. Give each a unique ID so that one can bookmark them and even add their favorite option into their own tool-bar and/or menu as they choose. It could be kind of a friendlier version of Firefox's about:config tool.
If there are dependencies, then the "parent" option(s) or group-set can be also displayed. Old-fashioned menus can still be available, but not be the only way to access options.
And make the scope clear: is a given option just for the current document, all documents, all documents of current user only, a given domain, a given sub-domain, etc.
ruff draft schema:
options TABLE:
id
title
descript// longer explanation
type// string, int, double, datetime, bool, path, etc.
value
default// out-of-box value
scope_type// depends on app
group_ref// id of optional group, null if no group
menu_ref// id of menu for the old-style menu position
keywords// synonyms to aid in searching
Most blowhards who claim to have a crystal ball turn out wrong.
While I don't doubt AI may pose a threat to humanity in the distant future, our current AI completely lacks everyday common sense. It's great at pattern matching now that we have fat hardware to throw at matching, but pattern matching alone can't cover for common sense. Hopping the common-sense hurdle could be centuries or millennia away. Stupid humans with war machines are a far more immediate threat.
It's hard to tell any employer and team, "I only want to code the interesting parts." That goes over poorly. If one wants to code, they have to be willing to code boring stuff also. (I've proposed framework adjustments to simplify them, but such is often not accepted because some fear it may confuse newbies.)
Those wizards exist. I agree they aren't common, but they do exist....should pay them whatever you need to keep them. Since replacing them will cost you more in the long run.
You assume HR is logical. They may agree to say a 10% premium, but not 50% because that's outside of their normal practice and habits; and they are not familiar enough with IT enough to verify to their comfort level.
Such a "star" would probably be better off working for a small contractor who gets paid by project results instead of hours. By using the star to complete more projects with fewer people, the contractor out-competes everyone, gets hefty profits, and pays the star really well.
For some applications one wants multiple ways to verify identity. Any one of those ways can be hacked, so does that mean multi-"channel"-verification should be done away with altogether, leaving one stuck with weak single-channel verification? What are the alternatives? Humans knocking on doors and taking finger-prints? Even ignoring the cost of personal visits, finger-prints can be hacked also with with rubber facades and bribery. It sounds like the nothing-is-perfect-so-do-nothing argument. The fetal position is the most secure.
Slashdot Mirror
I did not propose outright getting rid of them. They are just getting too big to be the primary and/or only way to find options.
If you like your menus you can keep your menus. I promise.
Please re-read my statement. You missed a key phrase.
It's the Walmart planet, with the biggest parking lot ever. (Wish they'd share some of the parking space with universities: they always have parking problems.)
If they wanted that, they'd use the Trump Scale:
- kinda hot
- hot
- bigly hot
- maga hot
- yuuugely hot
- believe me, even Jiiina can't make stuff this hot
Clippy: "It looks like you're trying to make a bomb..."
Clever stealth ad of H's book there and disguising it as a right-winger complaining about censorship. AI can't beat that.
but rear-ended Pintos have been around for decades.
Because there's a quick-post option on my Edge ribbon
No, but test them at small towns, and if they do okay, gradually scale up.
shhhh, stop exposing my scam, dammit, i spent a lot to start my smart-socks biz
In the Trump-era the 3 co's will merge: "We are the Borg, resistance is futile. Order something expensive or be assimilated."
Do they make a snarky assistant with a HAL9000 voice?
There's another factor: rogue non-nation players getting their hands on nasty weapons. Tech secrets don't stay in the bottle forever.
It's not a one-shot upload, you have to keep them in sync with the expected files, and not leave old stuff floating around for Google to keep listing. The boss won't care about how much safer you are over WordPress if his/her Big Important Page is not up or missing updates.
Sure, one can slap scripts together to get it 99% in sync, but 99% is not always good enough. Reliable replication over limited bandwidth is not a trivial problem.
^ user-unfriendly grammar suggestion
"Market-Optimized Synergized Experience Management"
You can have all the UI research in the world, but a clueless PHB or marketer will likely override you with some stupid fad or whim. Science doesn't work on idiots and big egos.
I would kind of forgive Windows for bad UI design IF they stop moving shit around for each release. When they shift stuff around it doesn't appear to solve anything, just be a different kind of random. Same with the damned ribbon: it's still half-hazard, just a different half-hazard. Didn't improve my productivity over the old tool-bars (except where they fixed bugs).
Consistently bad is better than inconsistently bad. Don't move my moldy cheese, for I've memorized the mold pattern.
As more options pile up, menus are becoming too big and deep to be useful. It's time to meta-tize options so one can search for them google-esque. Give each a unique ID so that one can bookmark them and even add their favorite option into their own tool-bar and/or menu as they choose. It could be kind of a friendlier version of Firefox's about:config tool.
If there are dependencies, then the "parent" option(s) or group-set can be also displayed. Old-fashioned menus can still be available, but not be the only way to access options.
And make the scope clear: is a given option just for the current document, all documents, all documents of current user only, a given domain, a given sub-domain, etc.
ruff draft schema:
options TABLE: // longer explanation // string, int, double, datetime, bool, path, etc. // out-of-box value // depends on app // id of optional group, null if no group // id of menu for the old-style menu position // synonyms to aid in searching
id
title
descript
type
value
default
scope_type
group_ref
menu_ref
keywords
Most blowhards who claim to have a crystal ball turn out wrong.
While I don't doubt AI may pose a threat to humanity in the distant future, our current AI completely lacks everyday common sense. It's great at pattern matching now that we have fat hardware to throw at matching, but pattern matching alone can't cover for common sense. Hopping the common-sense hurdle could be centuries or millennia away. Stupid humans with war machines are a far more immediate threat.
You are joking, right?
It's hard to tell any employer and team, "I only want to code the interesting parts." That goes over poorly. If one wants to code, they have to be willing to code boring stuff also. (I've proposed framework adjustments to simplify them, but such is often not accepted because some fear it may confuse newbies.)
You assume HR is logical. They may agree to say a 10% premium, but not 50% because that's outside of their normal practice and habits; and they are not familiar enough with IT enough to verify to their comfort level.
Such a "star" would probably be better off working for a small contractor who gets paid by project results instead of hours. By using the star to complete more projects with fewer people, the contractor out-competes everyone, gets hefty profits, and pays the star really well.
"Alexa, please tell Siri to shut up."
For some applications one wants multiple ways to verify identity. Any one of those ways can be hacked, so does that mean multi-"channel"-verification should be done away with altogether, leaving one stuck with weak single-channel verification? What are the alternatives? Humans knocking on doors and taking finger-prints? Even ignoring the cost of personal visits, finger-prints can be hacked also with with rubber facades and bribery. It sounds like the nothing-is-perfect-so-do-nothing argument. The fetal position is the most secure.