chrisin2d

I think that UX cannot always be easily copied.

Technology enables UX. When the underlying technology is commodity—which is often the case—it's easy for competitors to copy the UX. But sometimes UX arises from the tight marriage of design and proprietary technology.

Good UX also arises from good organization design and culture, which aren't easy to copy. Think about a good customer support experience where the first agent you talk with is empowered to solve your issue on the spot, or there's perfect handoff between agents where each one has full context of your customer issue so you don't have to repeat yourself.

Furthermore, this photo-forward interface design pattern presents candidates' physical attractiveness as the most salient feature. While this is desirable in a dating app, this is probably not very relevant for assessing people for their potential as musical collaborators.

From the top of my head, I'm going to guess people want (1) personable and agreeable bandmates with (2) compatible music styles, (3) musical talent and skill, and (4) can play instruments or roles that a band is missing.

So the interface should support users in presenting and finding these traits. If I were to design it, I'd have:

- Auto-playing music sample gallery. This is the most important thing to present. The current design asks the user to dig into Youtube and Soundcloud links — which is very high-friction and would have the user jumping between this app and other apps every few seconds.

- One-minute self-introduction video. This helps the user grok the general 'vibe' of someone.

- Allow users to connect their Spotify or other music accounts. Then show users their shared music interests. This can provide another clue about having compatible musical personalities.

At the end of the day, the advice seeker is responsible for the evaluation of given advice for their situation.

That's a key difference between advice and instruction.

The advice giver cannot know the seeker's situation completely, nor can the advice seeker know the giver's.

An AI cannot be trusted to give The Answer. But you can use AI to explore other perspectives and critique your thoughts—not that its critiques will be correct either. Nonetheless it can help get you on different thinking paths that your normal thought patterns wouldn't guide you on.

I'm impressed by how much sheer ~style~ PostHog is rocking, from the Ursula von Der Leyen privacy notice to hedgehog Godzilla hero video on their home page.

Indeed. Anecdotally, I use ChatGPT through Raycast so that I get pulled out of whatever context I'm working in then.

I find this comment dismissive, negative, and disrespectful; I feel compelled to write an opposite comment should the author himself read this.

It requires sensitivity to notice and appreciate the little details in our world. The author has shown a wealth thereof. He took exceptional time and effort to uncover and document all kinds of wonderful interactive details for us to appreciate. He wrote in a clear, direct manner, and he had his writing reviewed by others.

His article shows a rare level of passion, attention to detail, and respect for the reader. You don't have to agree with it, but you should at least respect it.

To Rauno Freiberg should you read this: thank you for writing and sharing this article.

Sure.

~current Tilderino

Humans have moral agency whereas animals have little or none. Animals must listen to their instincts, whereas humans get a choice.

That choice is more important to some people, less important to others.

This depends on which animals people consider to be moral subjects and therefore worthy of moral consideration, rights, and protections.

Some people (vegans) consider all animals as moral subjects. Some people (pescatarians) may consider most animals as moral subjects, but not certain ones like fish.

Most people consider some animals like dogs, cats, and horses, as moral subjects, and not others like cows, chickens, and pigs.

These definitions are unconsciously arrived at by sociocultural factors, but some people consciously arrive at them.

The alarm bell and lights were set off. When the police recovered the bike, they found that the thief had duct taped over the lights and speakers.

Interestingly, both incidents happened in busy areas in the SF Bay Area. I guess that the bystander effect was strong.

I have a VanMoof bike with both a GPS and a Find My tracker.

The first time it got stolen in Berkeley, I recovered it. It hadn't gone far, so the police were able to locate it and the thief.

The second time it got stolen, I couldn't recover it. But I had already bought the Peace of Mind coverage plan, so VanMoof replaced it — and lent me a bike of the same model in the 2 weeks it took to deliver.

If concerns about privacy were widespread enough to stop Google Glass, then surely they would have prevented the mass adoption of always listening, always streaming voice assistant devices.

I think that privacy should be a greater public concern, but I doubt it was the reason why Google Glass failed to catch on.

I recommend the curious to check out DigiD. It's a relatively well-designed SSO for many (if not all?) national and local government services in the Netherlands: personal taxes, business taxes, municipal taxes, trash and water bills, health insurance (trusted private), social benefits, police services, and more.

Agreed. We're overdue for a Magna Carta for our new era, lest we be absolutely ruled by the ever-growing myriad of algorithms and models that govern our participation in society and economy.