DeathRay2K

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.

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.