jordwest

Oh hey didn't check your name before I replied! I assume this is the akst I know IRL, small world. Hope you are well too.

> I just don't think this is a universal problem with the methodology

In an isolated world I would agree with you, but in the messy reality we live in I think the broader problems with the methodology are two:

1. The belief that everything can be measured. There are many intangibles (user trust, willingness to put up with bugs, "vibes") that aren't easily measurable. Yes, net promoter scores etc, but every company I can think of that uses them builds bland, buggy, largely disliked products that people use only because they have no choice.

2. Focusing on experiments and measurable outcomes creates a tendency to de-prioritise anything that isn't easily measurable. For example larger, riskier projects that can't be quickly tested. Or whimsy - easter eggs that devs added to many products in the past that users remember for years. Rarely added anymore because they can't be justified against a roadmap full of experiments.

Sometimes it feels a bit like we're sitting around so focused on measuring whether guests prefer one dish or the other and arguing over which experiment is best, that we don't notice a forest fire is blazing outside.

To me maybe it's a bit of a question of science vs art. Take the video games industry for example, the AAA studios are largely moving toward the science end of the spectrum with predictable games that extract maximum engagement, while indie studios are mostly building small, unique experiences that don't try to dominate your attention.

Experimentation always narrows focus down, and I think it's worth considering what's being traded off by doing so.

God that playback queue has been so awfully buggy for so long. Rant incoming.

I actually discussed it with a friend a few years back while debating the declining quality of Google's engineering.

The craziest thing to me - it appears to be using some kind of eventual consistency, so additions/reorders/deletions have to go through some complex process server-side that takes several seconds to update in the UI (and often the order is wrong, or silently fails to add videos). And yet, the whole queue disappears without a trace if the YouTube app gets unloaded by iOS, and is unavailable on other devices, so it could have just been stored locally all along.

I thought that perhaps they were storing it server-side because eventually it would allow the queue to be restored or transferred, but it has been about 3 years now and I don't think that day is ever coming. I just lost a whole queue of several vids this morning (on the plus side it was a good incentive to get off YT, so I'll give it that).

My guess is it's using eventual consistency or some complex multi-microservice chain of RPCs because that's just what you have to do at Google. I'm sure there are engineers who want to fix the feature or go back and complete the rushed launch but likely can't convince the decision makers that it's necessary.

So we get a subpar experience from one of the largest companies in the world with thousands of the best engineers, while Google keeps getting their $16/month because there are no alternatives

> This is a bit hyperbolic, empirics is something that should be used more by decision makers

In my experience working in software, empiricism is the only thing valued anymore. Intuition and thoughtfulness is out the window because it's not scientific enough. I would say most software now reflects that - it's almost all bland and statistically optimized to maximize engagement or revenue.

> If this was something more high stakes like a medial trial I’d get it, but for stuff like filling out a document or watching a piece of media. The stakes for most SASS app are really low.

There are plenty of subtle patterns used in SaaS form filling things too. For example notice that the "primary button" is always chosen as the one that will make the company the most money or collect the most data.

Likewise, popups are annoying, but they result in more conversions. Forced logins are the same (how many form filling apps now force you to sign up with an account that you'll never use again, so that you can become a potential lead in future).

Google recently started doing all of these on anonymous searches with a modal overlay and a big bright blue "Continue" primary button that takes you to a login screen, while a "don't sign in" button appears as far less noticeable text above it.

It's at the point now where I'm surprised when any software gives you an option without blatantly telling you which one they want you to pick for their own benefit.

A lot of it seems innocuous but I feel we're at the stage of death-by-a-thousand-cuts at this point.

> A/B testing isn't about creativity, it's retention maxxing

Absolutely, and unfortunately in my experience many people implementing A/B testing actually believe that it is finding the "best outcome for users".

I'm sure if we blind tested people to see whether they consumed more when unknowingly given cocaine vs protein powder, we would see cocaine win the A/B test.

As Seth Godin said:

> Enough A/B testing will turn any website into a porn site

> I'll think back to the conversation, realize I don't actually think or believe what I said

I can absolutely relate to this, it was a very common occurrence for me when I felt pressured to speak.

> Silence is one way to avoid making those mistakes, but that's me avoiding the problem, not actually solving it

It doesn’t have to be avoidance, it’s not a binary of either speaking a lot or not at all.

Silence (especially when the other person is comfortable with it too) gives the mind space to allow something that feels more honest and truthful to arise.

The problem is that most people feel a kind of anxiety when nothing is being said, and if you’re sensitive you might subconsciously pick up on this (in yourself or the other) and then feel the need to say something to end the awkwardness.

My meditation teacher had an interesting journalling technique: don‘t write a single line until you know that what you’re writing is absolutely true.

The problem is that there is a “yes” policy, a sort of social pressure that you must say something.

The opposite “no” policy is also not something to aspire to. Both are artificial policies.

The silent retreat simply helped me to see the “yes” policy even existed in the first place so I could start let it go.

Letting go of all policies is where the flow seems to happen.

It’s a good word of caution and to be clear I’m not suggesting intentionally going mute.

The paradox I mentioned is that not rushing to fill the silence actually allows conversation to flow more naturally. It allows time and space for something more honest to arise in the mind to say.

There are also so many other means of communication that we humans naturally have - eye contact, facial expressions, body language - that communicate far more than words can and paying attention to these can lead to very connected conversation.

I think we overemphasise words. For example, you don’t need to small talk with your dog to have a deeply meaningful connection.

The reason I jumped to fill silence before was to avoid a kind of vulnerability, to appear competent and hide my anxiety. Little did I know that that was actually preventing deeper connection.

Noawaday I end up having far more involved conversations, it’s just that the conversation no longer starts from a point of trying to fill the silence.

I’ve been on several silent retreats now and one of the most surprising discoveries was just how much speaking is unnecessary.

Without the pressure to speak amongst others, it became clear that I often said things out of anxiety - fear of looking weird or of making the other person uncomfortable.

Nowadays I rarely speak when I feel that pressure and paradoxically it has led to far deeper relationships and more interesting conversations.

It seems that the topics that come up when theres a pressure to fill the silence are the most mundane. Deeper connection seems to happen in the silences, or rather mutual comfort with silence.

Another way I could describe it is it feels almost as if there’s a fear of really being seen in silence that the surface level conversation manages to keep at bay.

Ah wow of course, I think you just made something click for me.

It's strange how we take interest on cash as a law of nature, when the original intention might have been nothing more than compensation for the risk the lender was taking on.

Now the risk (on bank deposits, govt bonds etc at least) has effectively been removed so the interest rate is the baseline expectation.

So compound interest is underpinning the infinite growth forever delusion...

> While those businesses have created meaningful value, they did not grow at the pace we expected.

That this is seen as a problem tells you everything about business today.

It has to be explosive growth or it’s pointless, according to execs and shareholders.

It's not at all caused by the train company hiking their fees while neglecting maintenance to increase profit margins to railway shareholders

Paraphrasing Nate Hagens, at the end of the day the modern economy just turns megalitres of oil into microlitres of dopamine

Haha this is excellent, I believe you’ve just invented a new genre - Garbage Collector fanfiction.

I have no idea how reading this people would jump to the conclusion that you have problems, but I will jump to the conclusion that those people probably like to live in a gray box with blank walls

Would you be willing to share it again here?

I love reading these personal things - especially the things that people publish in spite of being told they're crazy. In my experience they're usually the more real, honest and raw things in a crazy world where everyone is keeping up appearances and pretending to be normal and sane

> the alternative is too grim

The problem is, reality doesn't care whether you think it's grim or not.

I think the environmentalism movement faces this - it's easier to believe that everything is fine and we're not harming the planet and all is good, because the alternative is grim. But if the alternative is real then the fear of facing it is only going to make the reality even more grim.

From the title I thought this was gonna be about software (like MacOS updater) giving users an “Update now” and “Maybe later” option but no “don’t show this again”.

I’m still holding out from upgrading to macOS 26 and it’s doing its absolute best to make me accidentally misclick to update

I can totally relate, funny enough I find myself drifting back to really appreciating old school interfaces and pixel fonts lately. I've been enjoying using the old IBM DOS font [1] [2] in my editor, terminal etc.

Hard to tell if it's just nostalgia, but all the smoothing, drop shadows, antialiasing (and now blurring with MacOS 26) feel so unnecessary and hardly even pretty anymore.

There's something nice about computer interfaces that just look like computer interfaces instead of pretending they're something else.

IMO part of it is that the older interfaces trusted the intelligence of the user to understand the abstractions below the interface, while newer software assumes the user is dumb in order to capture the largest possible market share. In the 90s it was "RTFM", now it's "your software sucks if it's not obvious". But what we lost in that is that interfaces now abstract away what's actually going on underneath.

Maybe this preference for the old way is part of the reason for the resurgence of TUIs.

    [1] https://viznut.fi/unscii/
    [2] https://int10h.org/oldschool-pc-fonts/fontlist/

She just didn't see the point in them, she enjoyed a simple life, grew up with little but had a full life and didn't see the need for more. She would ask me as a kid "you've been playing the television again have you?". I don't think she ever really understood that to me it was a creative tool.

I did manage to convince her to try a VR headset at one point and despite her protests she clearly enjoyed it. Afterwards she said "what a silly gadget" haha. I'm realising now that I have similar feelings about generative AI.

Unfortunately there are plenty of highly legible metrics that make the world a worse place ("engagement" might be among the worst)

> The scary part now is people denying its happening right in front of them.

I wonder if age is a factor. Those of us who have been around for a while have seen all the promises and hope and excitement about the future, that maybe 20% of that comes true and the rest ends up being the usual exploitation and greed.

The younger people haven't been through that cycle of disillusionment yet so they still believe that only the positive, hopeful dreams will come true. It's natural, but naive, to believe that humans will always collectively choose the best path forward [1].

My grandma always refused to touch computers despite my excitement about them in my youth and I couldn't understand why. Now I think I get it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Same here, picked it up a week ago and haven’t touched git again.

Probably my favourite thing that has really changed my workflow is being able to write empty commits in advance then just switch between them. It helps me remember what I’m doing and whats next whenever I get distracted or take a break.

The second environment I was describing fits what you’re describing more than “yak shaving idealists”.

We were working on control systems for large industry that had to work reliably and with minimum intervention. A lot of these systems were being renewed but the plant was often 30+ years old. We were also dealing with quite limited hardware.

> they’re often put to work making the boxes more blue or sitting in meetings with PMs for hours

Haha, this is exactly my experience.

I'll never forget the best candidate I ever interviewed - my feedback was to absolutely hire him and put him on the most interesting and challenging problems. They put him in a marketing team tweaking upsell popups. He left after 2 months.

I've worked in two different types of environments - one where what you said is absolutely true (most of my jobs), and another where it's not true and the quote holds up.

The difference, I think is:

- Code factories where everything is moving fast - there's no time to think about how to simplify a problem, just gotta get it done. These companies tended to hire their way out of slowness, which led to more code, more complexity, and more code needed to deal with and resolve edge cases introduced by the complexity. I can count many times I was handed directives to implement something that I knew was far more complex than it had to be, but because of the pressure to move forward it was virtually impossible to push back. Maybe it's the only way they can make the business case work, but IMO it undoubtedly led to far, far more code than would've been necessary if it were possible to consider problems more carefully and if engineers had more autonomy. In these companies also a lot of time was consumed by meetings trying to "sync up" with the 100 other people moving in one direction.

- Smaller shops, open source projects, or indie development where there isn't a rush to get something out the door. Here, it's possible to think through a problem and come up with a solution that reduces code surface area. This was about solving the largest number of problems with the least amount of complexity. Most of my time at this company was spent thinking through how to solve the problem and considering edge cases and exploratory coding, the actual implementation was really quick to write. It really helped that I had a boss who understood and encouraged this, and we were working on safety critical systems. My boss liked to say "you can't birth a baby in less than 9 months just by adding another woman".

I think most of the difference is in team size. A larger team inherently results in more code to do less, because of the n*(n-1)/2 communication overhead [1].

Recently I learned the Navy SEALs saying "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast" which I feel sums up my experience well.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

My hypothesis: we are social creatures and have an innate instinct not to hurt others, but we’ve been trained to various degrees (through upbringing/trauma/school/work) to disassociate from the pain of hurting others.

The people who did continue to administer shocks were attempting to focus on what they thought was the most important part of the task (pressing the lever), but internally the unconscious effort to habitually dissociate from their own discomfort led them to make more mistakes.

Combine this dissociation with a desire for power or status and you get the world we live in today.

I tend to agree, I’ve been thinking a lot over the years that this is the way we get out of this mess - lots and lots of smaller independently owned forums that splinter off onto small communities instead of monolithic single-identity mechanisms like social media & to some extent the fediverse.

> The only social stuff I interact with anymore is a private forum that's paid

Im curious when you say private, do you mean you can only post if you’re a member, or is all post content viewable only by members too? And if the latter, how did you discover the forum, and how did you decide to join?

I’ve been using the offline version of Options+ that somebody recommended me a while back, it removes AI and auto updating and has done the job for me.

It’s kind of hidden on their website but you can grab it here:

https://hub.sync.logitech.com/options/post/logi-options-offl...

That said I think this will be my last Logitech device. They’re just not very durable products and die too quickly

From an article [1]:

    We can build out discreet systems of brain cells and use them for the purpose we want. They're not going to have traits like consciousness, and we're able to test and assess for that, and build away from it if there is that risk.

Ah, I'm glad they've worked out what consciousness is. /s

From their marketing website [2]:

    Neural compute on demand: We continuously monitor neural health and performance, ensuring optimal conditions and continuous access to an always-on network of living neurons.

At what size of "neural compute" do we start to call it slavery?

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2025-03-05/cortical-labs...

[2] https://corticallabs.com/cloud

I think it comes down to a fear of uncertainty. It's comfortable to believe in authority.

Authority provides the illusion of a sense of control, predictability, certainty and orderliness, and it's like we gravitate toward that even when it leads to bad outcomes for us.

For most of us the fear of being out of control seems to be greater than the fear of being controlled.