sidfthec

It's three clicks to block someone. That's bad UX?

(three dot menu -> block @whoever -> confirm).

The general issue of forcing recommendations and the general population not doing anything manually anymore is separate from the fact that as an individual you have lots of tools to curate your feeds on twitter/facebook/etc.

It's also just really silly to have conversations like:

"I can't stand seeing Elon on my feed!"

"Have you blocked him?"

"No"

I blocked him and I don't see his posts any more. What did you try to do?

I'm the opposite of an Elon fan, but so many people don't seem to know how to actually use social media. Who/what you follow and who you block can completely change your experience.

Immediately adding 1 billion in interest payments a year and lowering revenues by 40% is certainly not how you do it.

#1 is what non-tech people said.

#2 is what hardcore Elon fans said.

#3 was always the most likely prediction and is what any actual tech engineer should have said.

> It's so funny when tech folks think their little shitty thing is something special that should not have to follow any logical common sense laws like everything else in the world.

You clearly aren't going to take anything I say seriously with a response like that, so I'm not going to continue to engage.

Besides, my main point was that there are good faith arguments to be had, including the one argument I made in my original post. I hope you can see now that good faith arguments exist.

Of course there are good faith arguments, you probably just don't agree with them.

The most convincing argument is that I don't want social media companies to have access to my ID. Remember, even websites like HN and Pornhub would need to verify your age with your ID.

At the same time: "Residents of states where cannabis has been legalized use marijuana 24% more frequently than those living in states where it remains illegal" -- Colorado University

This may be fine enough for weed, but what if harder drugs start being used 24% more? Even if they're in more pure form than from illegal sources, that doesn't sound like a net positive.

The limited activity is probably because it's actually not that exciting from a technical perspective.

The answer is almost certainly something like "lack of funding forces FAA to continue using massively outdated systems and this is what happens when someone trips over the power cord of the mainframe in some basement".

It's much more interesting when companies like Google or Facebook go down, because they properly fund their infrastructure and there might be something for the HN crowd to learn.

The model that I think the OP is talking about has 3.4/5 stars on Keurig's own website. That's a horrible rating.

Maybe there's a different lesson to be learned here?

"I'll be resigning when [the board/leadership] finds a replacement."

I always get massive push back when I suggest this, but it's the only remedy that makes sense. If you have to layoff 15% of the workforce when the growth was under your command, and you want to take responsibility, then step down. Own your mistake.

> The lines were non-existent, but the fun part wasn't skipping the lines so much as the feeling of having the whole park to yourself. If they could find a way to offer that experience, I'd pay for it.

You can. Companies regularly rent out entire amusement parks for a day for company events. Tech companies have been doing it in the Bay Area at Great America for a long time: https://www.cagreatamerica.com/groups/corporate-events/park-...

Of course, I'm sure it costs an amount much higher than you're willing to pay.

How about the CEO saying "I'll be resigning from the company"?

What do you think people mean when they say they should take responsibility? Screaming "I declare responsibility!"?