1,613 karma · joined May 6, 2010
I don’t believe I ever told you how to feel about your UX with these. . . hmm, I guess “products”? If we’re not calling them apps.
Adding dead clicks to a feature you don’t want people to use is a dark pattern whether it affects you personally or not. Normally one tries to remove dead clicks in good UX design, e.g.: https://userpilot.com/blog/dead-click/
Some real fraction of users really will stop using a feature if you add a single additional click between it and them.
> “For about a decade now, OverDrive has provided users with digital library access two ways: through its website (individual library portals hosted on overdrive.com) and its mobile apps (OverDrive and Libby). I’ve always gone the web route myself — at first because it was the only option, before the app was built; later deliberately avoiding the app in order to reduce the amount of surveillance data collected.”
As for the feature itself, your comment seems to boil down to “Dark pattern UI changes are ineffective” but we know that’s not true; if they were unprofitable, companies wouldn’t constantly exploit them.
Žižek said some faintly reasonable things during his pandemic period, and semi-recently published an okay introduction to Hegel in the context of contemporary life.
Also the man is very hot when he takes his shirt off.
That’s to say, when we talk about Tyson being stronger than my grandmother, we ignore correlated subclaims such as “Tyson consumes more protein than my grandmother” or “Tyson wears a jockstrap more often than my grandmother”—these are correlated with being stronger (probably), but they are incidental to the concept of strength. When we ask ourselves what subclaims are relevant, we’re right back to pointing at essence.
Because your reality contradicts the evidence I’ve seen. Really, there’s a convincing, logical argument in Section 2.2 of that third link above about exactly this kind of equivocation on the meaning of experimental in the context of medicine.
When Sully Sullenberger pulled off the Miracle on the Hudson, that was an emergency use of the airplane’s water landing capability.
It wasn’t experimental. Airbus designed a “ditching” button for the A320, they knew more or less what it would do, and the regulators (here the FAA) agreed that having such a capability was less risky than not having it, even if it wasn’t vetted and maintained at the same level of rigor as, e.g., the landing gear.
Therefore something can be “emergency use” without being “experimental”, even if we stick to the simple common meaning of both terms.
Calling this process a “rubber stamp” is disingenuous.
My comment was in reference to someone who had trouble enjoying a vacation with their family because being away from work for even a short interval was “a partial death”. Is that not on its face absurd? It’s reminiscent of those biohackers who sometimes say sleep is like dying—no, sleep is an investment in improving the quality of your future awakeness.
In those terms, you’ve interpreted my suggestion to mean something like a culture of insomniacs should try out medically-induced coma for a few months. No, I’m saying we all need another hour of sleep every now and again.
> First there is the issue of vacations foreshadowing retirement, which is a partial death. By the age of retirement, your profession has become a big part of who you are, and the justification of your existence. So when you stop working, you end that pretty big and central part of you.
This is primarily a feature of Protestantism: if you don't do good work, you don't get in to Heaven. Other religions have nice little hacks for getting around this gamification of over-employment. I recommend finding one or two of them and incorporating them into your own life: after all, we should probably enjoy what little we have while we have it.
The Nuremberg Code is not really relevant to modern medical ethics, or even to the history of medical ethics--its authors plagiarized [1] half of it from the 1931 Guidelines for Human Experimentation [2]. The relevant standard these days is the seventh revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, by the World Medical Association.
No, the use of COVID-19 vaccines was not "experimental" [3]:
> COVID-19 vaccines used in practice and involved in vaccination mandates are either authorized or fully approved by national regulatory authorities. Hence, they are not experimental and not part of research, and thus not covered by the Nuremberg Code. Taking approved medicines prescribed or used as a matter of regular medical or public health practice does not constitute an experiment or research in any common understandings of the terms.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3121268/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_human_subject_r...
Here’s a semi-recent analysis of the situation.
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2020/05/fifth...
I think we’re starting to talk past each other, but for the sake of pointing out where we seemingly agree: GS employees are more-or-less self-interested, and they do depend on gaming (or mitigating risk, I suppose) regulations to stay employed. Neither of those make great bullet points on a green tech pivot resume, which was more or less my original point?
I brought up their charitable org specifically because I recall an acquaintance who works there saying it was more employee-driven than the average corporate tax amelioration scheme. Maybe he was wrong? He’s only been there for five years or so.
This theory of mine explains their post-2016 depression, I think. Everyone knew he would make chaotic policies and wild card political appointments. I’m sure he was horrid for their bottom line.
But yeah, I could be wrong. Never really got in with that crowd for some reason. If GS’ charitable arm has given some reasonable fraction of their pool to green charities or something, I’ll change my mind.
As a historical fact, West Germany and East Germany both paid reparations to Holocaust survivors, despite neither being legally identical to the German Reich.
If for various reasons you find that unconvincing, it’s also the case that the Funding Act of 1790 has the federal government assume the debts of the colonies.
* Journals could provide more editing support, possibly with AI translation tools.
* Journals could allow multilingual submissions.
Many religions have an injunction against killing or otherwise contributing to the harm of sentient beings.