deadpannini

Damn you, Poe's law!

If they hate Lina Khan, it's because she's liable to make demands on them without knowing anything about their business. In the worst case, her office turns outright extortionist, as the current administration is bent on demonstrating.

None of that conflicts with the observation that large, well-financed, entrenched players better at navigating regulatory obstacles than small upstarts.

They won't always be (prohibitive).

The opening qualifies as sarcastic:

> I am so happy not to live in an American small town. Because whenever I'm shown some small town in the States it is populated with all kinds of monsters among whom flesh hungry zombies, evil aliens and sinister ghosts are most harmless.

Mocking irony, in the context of a negative review.

> I mean, look at it this way: when you ask a crew to paint your house, you specify the colors upfront. You don't iterate with them on after every room, or every wall.

This isn't a useful analogy - more often, it's like asking a crew how much it would cost and how long it would take to paint your house, except the house isn't built yet, you're not sure what you're going to use it for (or whether you'll actually use it as a house rather than a B&B), plus you reserve the right to change colors at any point in the process.

The standard you've laid out proposes that any statement about a man's experience in a relationship is by definition misogynistic, because it's centers the man (and, of course, erases women). Do you stand by that?

Additionally, consider that you are the one bringing the nagging wife trope into this: it's merely one of many possibile explanations and unhappy marriage.

I'd agree that they are "dominant", and that legal authorities should watch Amazon closely for specific violations, but they only control 35-40% of the online consumer retail market (by most estimates circa 2022).

What is Amazon's Monopoly?

I don't mean this as a gotcha question: I really don't understand what people are claiming when they say this.

All three of those companies are now large conglomerates with a lot of power (perhaps too much), but calling them "monopolies" is counter-productive (except Google search), especially in the context of regulatory or legal framework, where the facts have to fit a very precise pattern to take action.

I agree that the enterprise market does not value usability very much, and I would even agree that the enterprise vendors made the right choice to deliver anything at all, in the early stages of ERP (even the first two decades).

None of that means the software is good: we can recognize the smart business choices those companies made and also abhor their products.

They provide what Alan Cooper calls "Dancing bearware" - it doesn't matter how badly the bear dances, they're just grateful to have a bear that can do it at all.

What you say is true, but these companies aren't successful because their products are usable. They succeeded because of their first-mover advantage, lack of alternatives, and compliance requirements that raise the cost of competition. We don't owe them any respect when it comes to UX.

I can see how it gets tiresome reading repetitive arguments, but a solid theory undergirds all the criticism: that one way to beat SAP, oracle, Microsoft, etc. Is to provide a better user experience.

Don't worry, there's plenty of room for conformity in society too!

Reading this comment (which is correct, I think) gives me the urgent desire to log off HN.

> I'm merely pointing out a fact.

"The Hunter Biden story is insignificant" is a judgement, not a fact, it's a judgement. I'd say that calling it "misinformation" is bizarre, except that most prominent allegations of misinformation boil down to judgements too.