zachware

This reminds me of when I sent a friend a case of Topo Chico from Jet. He'd never had it.

The package (of heavy bottles of water) shipped next day and each bottle was meticulously wrapped in mesh paper. You could have stuffed a mattress with all the wrapping.

All for $1.99/bottle and free overnight shipping....

One thing I always find frustrating about posts like this is that they identify a problem but make no attempt to help articulate a path to a solution.

It's reasonable to suggest standups and other meetings be async. What would be better is to take the time to design a proposed solution for solving the problem standups solve, even if it ends up being a messy or bad one.

That's a much more effective way to complain about a problem than simply spending words trying to convince people that something is bad.

Offer an alternative. Create debate. Put in the work to solve it.

One of the more insidious elements of ReCAPTCHA is its propensity to challenge users who have robust cookie blocking in place. So as we encourage people to be more privacy-aware, the web gets harder and harder to use.

We've seen ReCAPTCHA pop all over ecommerce, all over benign websites with little to no need to challenge use almost completely because of the increase in privacy-aware users.

ReCAPTCHA essentially flies in the face of the recent blocking features rolling into Safari and Firefox and more privacy-aware users...growing by the day.

In many ways it's a genius structure from Google. 1. Convince people to use your privacy challenge. 2. Serve it when you don't see Google tracking cookies. 3. Offer a way around that with the least privacy-aware browser available (Chrome use is growing steadily month over month.

So good on Cloudflare.

I believe NextDNS also blocks this.

What sets financial services apart when they fail is the extreme legibility of the losses. One can argue that if say Reddit is down, they have losses, but measuring the impact in terms of dollars lost is difficult.

It's a lot easier with something like Robinhood. So, ethics aside, the level of measurable risk they have now is existential. Lawsuits will flow.

Why does this wave of coverage speak about OpenAI as if a postmortem?

Maybe it’s just me but companies are not public benefit enterprises, even if structured in some way as a not for profit.

This wave of coverage and the dialog around it seems to come from the view that OpenAI somehow owes the world something. When in fact it only owes its stakeholders none of whom are reporters.

Honestly, not many. It's a marketplace problem. There is always demand somewhere for a product that fits X taxonomy (eg. not perfect or at a lower cost due to market flucutations).

The issue is that the market is so gummed up with middlemen that exposing the supply and demand marketwide in real-time is difficult. That's what I've been working to reverse engineer.

One of the biggest improvements has come from on-site freeze packaging and the general improvements in cold storage tech.

You can either increase the speed of info in the market or decrease the "cost" of lagging info in the form of increasing shelf life. Both reduce waste.

USDA: "60% of imperfect produce’s products are sourced from traditional wholesale channels rather than farms."

Imperfect created a market for a good that already had a market and generally purchase from post-producer sellers. They aren't large enough to make a dent in the producers' waste.

Theoretically it (or something like it) could create a viable market for the food whose cost goes below market price or is not pretty, but it would have to do it at the wholesale level. Not cases of produce but dozens of truckloads a week.

In their particular case they are trying to make produce a D2C product so they have two challenges: a) build a market for a good and b) make D2C perishable profitable. For reference on b, see Blue Apron.

I've been working on this problem for a few years now. The problem is systemic. You can solve the retail/consumer level issues but the big problems are market-level.

Here are a few facts often overlooked because they aren't surface-level.

- 1.3 billion metric tons (2,866 billion pounds) of food worldwide are produced and not consumed each year, representing approximately one-third of total food production by volume (FAO, 2011).

- Most importantly, nearly 40 percent of losses in North American fruits and vegetables occur at the farm and distributor level...before it gets to the consumer.

- USDA ERS: "The inelastic nature of fresh produce demand causes prices to fluctuate rapidly due to changes in supply. Prices fluctuate daily and can often cause the value of edible product to drop below the marginal cost of production. Depending on where and when the price fluctuations occur, produce could be left in the field, discarded at a packing shed, or dumped from the back of a truck."

- Growers today earn roughly 30 cents for every dollar their products command at the end-customer point.

It's a market system problem. It's a middleman problem. It's an incentive problem.

It's going to change but it will take time and a willingness to ignore sexy-looking things like Imperfect Produce and the like.

Not to ignore the democracy problem but solely on the localized health issue, if you can afford a Berkey Water Filter, get one.

What's so structurally fascinating, in a very morbid way, is the difference between the balance sheets of the most heavily-funded late stage companies.

I have an opinion but regardless of it, if a no-asset/no-liability company is losing money and the music stops, they can cut costs and survive. It's messy but it happens.

WeWork is a completely different beast. It's occupancy costs + G&A are 105% of revenue. If it can't sustain its losses with free flowing capital it can't cut long-term liabilities as easily as headcount and perks (again, this is morbid), so its only option would be bankruptcy.

So in this case it would seem that the most rational way to invest in it, if you absolutely had to, would be in its debt. I have to assume, though, given this ridiculous structure, that the opco would be shielded.

Man, we can't predict the future but it's pretty clear that if something does go wrong, it would be an AIG-level mess to unwind the complexities.

Legally they are liabilities that don’t as much disappear as they become claims. Deposit holders become creditors. It’s seventh in the priority list behind other secured priority creditors. It’s messy.

11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7) provides the priority for Customer Deposits: “The following expenses and claims have priority in the following order: … (7) Seventh, allowed unsecured claims of individuals, to the extent of $2,600 for each such individual, arising from the deposit, before the commencement of the case, of money in connection with the purchase, lease, or rental of property, or the purchase of services, for the personal, family, or household use of such individuals, that were not delivered or provided.

Theoretically if a creator exists, they could be found. The unique issue to news is that the mass perceived value is zero. Either a market doesn't exist b/c of the perceived value or a marketplace doesn't exist to facilitate the trade.

I agree. My point is that the bundling balanced the ROI equation in a way that unbundled things don't. Theoretically this isn't an issue if the market has some sense of value for the unbundled thing...think HBO which is a mid-flight experiment.

This is fundamentally a distribution problem. It's not dissimilar to retail or other industries with the design-produce-distribute-market chain.

A journalist (creator), produces a product (manufacturer), a newspaper/magazine distributed it (distribution) and a publisher creates the allure that makes you want to trust that brand (marketing). All that stuff was hard and expensive 15 years ago and consumers didn't have the tools to find the creator and the creator didn't have the tools to distribute.

A bunch of bundled industries are falling apart with the unbundling but in almost all cases there remains a creator that the mass population is now "capable" of finding. And the tools that allow for cheap distribution are basically free.

What's lacking is the arbitrage of the distribution platform's earning power to pay steady wages to journalists.

The worst thing that happened to journalism was no-paywall outlets. It convinced people that content is free. It's as if we buy toothpaste at CVS for $3 and on Amazon it's free just because it's on the internet. At a certain point you start to devalue ALL toothpaste rather than just devaluing crap toothpaste because Amazon makes it easier for you to buy toothpaste you like.

Today I can follow a journalist's work. I can follow a specific topic. But I have yet to figure out that doing that work costs money. So no matter the paywall model, it's gonne be hard for consumers to fund it.

I think this is already happening. Mid-size city demographics are shifting significantly, especially those within an hour band of a reasonable larger city (700k+).

Texas Monthly did a good piece on this recently. https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/high-rents-rural-re...

I once ordered 100 Model S's at one time (Google it) then later took delivery of 12 Model S's at one time. Here's what I can tell you. Tesla's system for selling one new car to one person at one time is very, very good.

Tesla's system for doing anything other than one car to one person at one time is not good.

When we initially placed our 100 unit order we got 100 confirmation emails timed suspiciously as though some poor person was entering the details one at a time. Their owner's website couldn't handle 100 unique vehicles tied to one user. When we took delivery we had to go through a bunch of human processes 12 unique times. The people seemed incapable of batching tasks like signing title paperwork. We went through the routine for each car twelve times.

All of their systems are built to do one thing very well.

So this guy asked Tesla to do something it is not built to do and sell him a loaner car. And the systems broke. All of them. In Tesla systems (operational and technological) everything is built to do one thing.

Yes, it stinks that some people at Tesla acted dumbly in response to this. But overall, don't forget. People are components of a system.

There are no programs in the Tesla system to handle any of the variables this situation threw at it, starting with what the guy wanted Tesla to do.

When you deliberately ask a system to do something it isn't designed to do you shouldn't be surprised when it breaks.

A friend likes to say TED and others like it are the 1% telling the 1% how amazing they are.

The opportunity lies not in distributing the content to the 99% (easy...video) but rather in studying the source of what makes people inspiring and distributing that knowledge to all.

Perhaps this is a late comment but as a new Zappos hire I can attest that Zappos still makes this offer (and now it's $3,000 and is valid for 3 weeks after training). The reason is two fold.

First, Zappos wants to retain employees that want to be here. The culture is unlike anyplace you'll ever work. For some people it's attractive from the outside but overwhelming once you get in the door. Zappos wants to provide an enticement to help you make the decision to leave in case you want to.

More importantly, Zappos realizes that for a lot of people, staying in a job is a matter of finances. I may be miserable but I can't afford to miss a paycheck or two. For a lot of people, $3,000 can provide a few weeks or more of stability to help them find a new job. It makes fiscal sense.

Are the product features 100% curated by humans/brands or is it pulling data feeds from Froogle (or whatever it's called now) and building outfits that way? Can't figure out the data?

The conflict was inevitable but as we often see in business, old players use regulation, unions and back room deals to protect their markets. Look at the RIAA, TV and movie industries. The technology is available to bring content to any device, anytime but they use regulation to stop it.

It's bullshit. SF taxis are inefficient and difficult to use. Ubercab solves a problem and calls out just how ridiculous the SF Taxi system is. Instead of fighting to make their business more relevant, the taxi unions fight with regulation.

I use Ubercab a lot. Why? * Because a car comes to me in a few minutes. * I don't have to stand in the rain and wonder if the illuminated taxi light means the taxi will stop or not. * I don't have to wonder if the cab takes cards or if the driver will simply refuse to take them even if his company does. * Most importantly, I don't have to hold on for dear life wondering if I'm going to die before i get where I'm going.

Let's all stand up and say screw you unions. Ubercab is an innovator. SF taxis, be more efficient and you'll win. Otherwise, get out of the way.

Depends. Not with mission critical processes like checkout IMHO. What this piece points to is a flaw in design processes. As designers and developers we see things through a logical lens of our own making.

What we don't realize is that the real world and other factors influence our target users. It's the mark of a good designer when he/she pushes user testing to understand what people will do with what we build.

In this specific case, we all know you use the magnetic pin but not everyone does. It's hard to believe but the sometimes don't.

It should be said that the UX of this app is less friendly than a gas station pump. Navigating is nearly impossible.

It remains to be see whether an iPad wine list is better because of the list or because people want to play with an iPad. The latter will wear off soon enough.

Echoing, in a way, the comments of others, the most important thing you can do organizationally is explain the why. It's not enough to know and sure, it sucks to have to explain your reasoning when you feel you shouldn't (you're the expert, dammit.)

You'll find that people, particularly internal audiences and longer-term clients, get behind ideas better when they understand them. Over time you're more effective and have to do less selling when they either a.) understand why you're doing it or b.) know that you're being methodical and acting with purpose.

It's just the reality of working with people. Good luck.

Excellent piece. I think the main challenge for UX architects is breaking the hiearchical model that users are used to.

Tags are the ideal solution for organizing like items but few have mastered the UI. Sure, it's easy to to build the refrigerator model but users get freaked out when everything is lumped together (that's why websites still have nav bars.)

If someone can master the art of the tag UI, then we're set.

I'm with you. I'm in SF now but Chicago was home for a long time just a year ago. What's changed? It was on-par with Dallas with rents and overall cost of living.

That is with the glaring exception that Dallas has no income tax but a high sales tax. Chicago has both.

First, let's be honest, you set yourself up for this by referring to Shankman and HARO. That was a mistake.

This is typical in a marketplace where people run out of innovative ideas (or never had them in the first place.) I've been around the "sender" side of this type of thing before. Honest truth, you might get outgunned by legal tactics and that sucks.

You have a more innovative, more focused product. If you're bankrolled then fight it. If not, tread lightly. Once you used his name you set this up. Either way, they will keep sending ridiculous letters.

My advice: -Call an attorney, get some advice. -Setup a backup host and confirm your DNS is separate from your hosting account. (Next up is a C&D to your host) -Send an urgent appeal to everyone on your list, even journalists. You might lose a few followers in the process but if people value your service they will fight for you (particularly nice because your service helps journalists.)

Sure, this is hilarious. Take a moment to think about what it means. We all live in a bubble where the web is easy, where we can always find what we're looking for.

I'm convinced that some people approach the internet like an angry driver gripping the wheel without any sense of reality. Things like this remind me who we're often designing for and has to be done to make our work usable.

If > 50 people can arrive at a page, completely disregard the logo and read not a single word in the body BUT still find the comment form, something is wrong.

People are stupid. They are also our customers.

Instead of working within the confines of native OSs Adobe has managed to dupe us into installing essentially an overlay OS with Flash/ActionScript/Air. They have a responsibility to manage it as such.

They have the same problems as Java. They develop a complete OS without regard to core OS code and hardware changes. It's irresponsible curating that no one is reporting on.

Forget fixing the bug. If we combine our resources and create a Flash killer that plays nice with native OSs, we won't have to care about Adobe's reckless development.