HN user
I changed the UX in my mobile app from text only to icon + text by default in menus, buttons, and links.
There are several reasons I made the switch, but the primary reason is that it makes it easier to build a kind of muscle memory for navigating and performing particular actions. In essence, the text is there for new users and the icons are there for experienced users.
The author doesn’t suggest it, but the implicit solution is public funding for social goods.
That could be through a robust grant process, providing funding for social media that is not supported other ways.
Alternately, it could be through a UBI, giving people basic cash flow that could be allocated to paid social media platforms rather than everyone relying on ad-supported social media.
Building the social media platform you want to see isn’t really the problem though. They are relatively easy to build, the hard part is making it valuable enough to attract users and earning enough to keep it running.
Using AI introduces additional costs without solving the core challenge there.
Running a social media platform can be very expensive, and it only gets more expensive every day.
Media takes a lot of storage and bandwidth, and you basically have unbounded costs if you want to meet user expectations for posting media.
I don’t think there’s a person alive who wouldn’t carefully and accurately count the number of legs on a dog if you ask them how many legs this dog has.
The context is that you wouldn’t ask a person that unless there was a chance the answer is not 4.
Isn’t this simply recognizing that people are not fixed points? The same person who is open and happy at one time could certainly be bored at another.
It does not seem to me that the author claims otherwise.
Just today I discovered there’s a Red Alert port to Three.js in the works: https://github.com/chongdashu/CnC_Red_Alert-ThreeJs
As a measure of the safety of schools, it seems perfectly reasonable to consider that a school shooting.
What makes you think that it’s more likely reporting a software-configured resolution? It is after all a hardware survey, and focused on what user hardware supports.
You’re wrong that a so-called “war on hate” doesn’t work. More correctly, it doesn’t work in the US because of the first amendment and the few limitations on it.
Many other countries have robust anti-hate speech laws that are effective, although less so in the age of the internet.
People broadly conform to the society in which they live, and the rules of the society are broadly set by the laws they adhere to. So in countries where hate speech is disallowed, people conform to a less hateful viewpoint as a rule, and hateful people are the exception.
In the United States, it is clear that hatred is the norm as long as it is permitted by law and by leadership.
Let's be honest, even if Facebook started charging for access, they wouldn't shut down their other streams of revenue. That ship has sailed, Facebook is not and never can be a company that treats its users like the customers. Facebook users are the resources they exploit for profit, and they've been locked into that business model since inception.
I thought you were talking about the US in the first paragraph. In truth, there haven't been strong enough enforcement measures in Canada, that's why we're having such a bad third wave right now.
In Alberta, which has the highest case rates in Canada, there have been less than 2 tickets issued per day for violating the restrictions. Until yesterday at least, if you went out you would see people all over the place without masks, hanging out with their friends on patios, having parties, etc.
You say you've been vaccinated for over a month, but we haven't had that privilege. So instead, we have to rely on safety measures like avoiding big gatherings and unsafe behaviour.
It's similarly easy to make your website slower than it would be with AMP. Absent a performance advocate in the development team, the features that reduce performance are much more apparent and valuable to most businesses.
My conversations with Google reps and experience at an agency differ from this. My experience has been and Google reps have confirmed to me that a performant enough site will not benefit from enabling amp.
It seems like they do assume amp pages are high-performance, but they're not the only way to achieve high performance.
Every element the light interacts before hitting the sensor degrades the quality in some small way. But losing the mirror doesn't really improve optics significantly. It's more about reducing cost and complexity in manufacturing, moving things like autofocus into software. The benefits to the consumer are quieter shooting and a lighter body.
Because intelligence doesn't translate to popularity?
Yes it's worth it. I'm usually on Windows, and can say that 95%+ of the programs I use work flawlessly on a 24" 4K monitor with 175% scaling. The crispness of a text editor on a 4K screen is worth every bit of the 5% of programs that have scaling issues. And these days, remaining scaling issues involve some parts of the app scaling correctly, and other parts (usually menus) not scaling correctly. I never encounter "blurry" programs with bilinear scaling anymore.
I found a bug on the PayPal site (I can't associate a new email address). I tried the contact forms in their app and on the website, both resulted in error messages. I tried emailing them, but got an automatic message back saying that they don't monitor emails, instead directing me to the support form on their website, which you have to log in to access. And as I mentioned, that form just ends in an error.
So it seems like a way more common problem than it should be.
This has happened many times to me. I work at an agency that very often gets clients who already have a codebase but don't have anyone to maintain them - the original developers have moved on or fired them as a client. Sometimes the codebases aren't complete, and very often have major bugs and issues. Very often they were written by an individual many years ago, they do not follow any modern best practices, and more often than not have no documentation. Sometimes even variable names are in languages that no one on the team speaks (I've taken on quite a few codebases where variables were anglicised versions of russian or chinese words).
Most often, these clients initially just want us to maintain the codebase, making minor changes and updates. In this case, we will simply familiarise ourselves with the code, working within its limitations to do the required work. Over time we might refactor parts of the code as we do this maintenance work because it makes maintenance easier for us.
Eventually it gets to the point where the client wants major changes (And sometimes it starts here). If we are comfortable with making these changes within the codebase, typically if we have been maintaining it for some time, we will refactor what makes sense to achieve the changes, and continue to work within it. If we don't have that familiarity with the codebase and the project is at a scale where it makes sense, we will rewrite the code at this point.
In very few cases, the project is too large and we are too unfamiliar with the code, and we have to tell the client we're not able to do the work within their time/budget requirements. At this point the client will either leave us, or have us continue maintenance. About half the clients that leave shop around, try out another agency or two, and come back in the end with a greater understanding of the scope of the project.