expazl

That adressing throughput not costs. If you keep costs contant, lower prices but acchive higher throughput, the only thing you acchieve is to lose money faster than you would have done otherwise by just lowering costs straight away.

> In the aftermath of 9/11, the government has to be seen doing "something". This was the something.

No, that might have been true then, but the real reason is the same that Airlines suddenly unlearned how to group people who book togehter to sit together unless they reserve booking. The security theator is expensive to run, but it's less expensive than what you make selling more expensive methods of avoiding the security theather.

Airlines don't want you to have a nice and easy travel, unless you've paid the appropriate primum. They are perfectly happing intentionally pissing off 98% of their travelers to maintain the 2% who pay extra. And when you zoom out, that also means that what you pay for the premium tickets isn't to pay for extra luxery, its to pay for the intentional annoyance of everyone else.

> They didn't kill RSS - they introduced people to it.

For myself and most people i knew that knew of RSS feeds, we weren't introduced by google reader, we migrated to it because it was a great reader. Then once they had everyone onboard reader and there weren't really anyone competing becuause reader was great and universilly liked, they killed it, striking a gigantic blow to RSS in general.

It really just is not a case of google just "bringing people in then letting them go". They did the equivalent of offering free hamburgers at the corner between Burger King and McDonalds and then shutting it down after the two chains had gone bankrupt. And you might say "Sure, but people still enjoy fast food!" and that's true, but after that it's not burgers people are buying, it's burritos, because the burger market becomes a wasteland when someone does something like that.

> It turned out the distribution (and to some extent, ownership) problems eclipsed every other problem in software.

I have a different perspective. I see it more as a question about runtime environment. We still have 20y old Delphi applications in production, and distribution is trivial, corporate machines have software that just installs the apps the users need based on their roles, and they autoupdate etc. My team still hates them and want to replace them with webapps, even with no distribution or ownership issues.

For us the big issue is the "it's not working for me, what could be wrong?" cases where you have to dedicate half a day or more of expert time trying to figure out which absurd corner of microsoft windows is causing issues on the particular intersection of that one application on that one entirely unique computer configuration (even after corporate management of software/policies etc), and of cause that one particular user, because what could they have done?

Web apps have the benefit that they don't run on microsoft windows, they run on chrome (even if you use edge), and chrome is a much better operating system than windows will ever dream of being. It even fulfilled java's pipedream of being cross platform (well effectively from a user perspective anyway).

You can do that in confluence.

Despite the odd angle used throughout all the western media propaganda. It was an Iraqi group not Iranian group. The constant push to frame this as "USA vs. Iran" by calling it an Iran-backed group, instead of an Iraqi group, or be specific and state that it was "Islamic Resistance in Iraq" is just befuddling. It's like if the media was covering the current crisis in Palestine/Israel, while never mentioning Israel and instead writing headlines like "USA-backed group bombs hospital in Gaza".

As for why this Iraqi group is able to attack USA, it's likely much more to do with the 13 year old failed US Invasion of Iraq than anything to do with Iran. But It feels like USA is embarrassed enough about that whole thing that they have decided to just ignore that Iraq exists and instead consider this to be an attack all along the Jordan-Iran border, which for anyone geographically interested is just as long as the border between USA and France.

Micky mouse was inspired by "a real world animal". That doesn't mean that all IP is suddenly void.

> It feels like almost all the issues with self-checkout technology come from the attempts to minimise shoplifting, which don't even seem that effective at doing that. In theory, a system that let you scan products the same way checkout staff do without any weight checks or bagging area rules or other interruptions would be incredibly efficient. Especially if you could do things like scan the same product multiple times if you were buying multiple copies of it.

Our local supermarket has this. A phone app you scan things as you go, and when leaving you scan a QR code, swipe to pay, then you get a code to open the gate out and you leave. It's incredibly smooth. Also, this means you can just put your bags in your cart and bag while you shop, so you just completely skip checkout, it's a breeze.

I don't understand your point about scanning multiple times though. If I'm buying 5 of something I scan one of them, and just increase the count to five.

Thank god, finaly! I was getting so annoyed at my ice melting when cooking fish and the beeswax melting when cooking tenderloin. Why didn't anyone think of this before? /S

When you have a product you think is cool but you don't yet have a sales pitch. Wait until you figure out your sales pitch to release it. This might be a great oven, but the material just makes it seem like a really random gimmick that no one needs outside of filming TikToks about how random it is.

Human level means at the level of a human. Replace your 6 senior software engineers with 6 random humans, heck, replace them with 600 random humans. Let them lose on a problem and report back the results.

I might be glossing over a lot of subtleties, but if you ask me South park single-handedly rerouted Disneys trajectory through nothing but targeted satire.

That's like demanding that anytime a F1 driver takes a pit stop he should be fired. Obviously the pit stop itself doesn't improve the time, and he's just sitting still. Imagine if a driver was sitting still after the race started!?

Layoffs are not desirable for a company, but sometimes they are required. The fact that a CEO decides to go with layoffs when it's the right thing to do shouldn't be seen as a failure of the CEO. It's the pit stop that keeps the company from exploding if you just ignore all financial health markers and keep everyone employed until the money runs dry and you have to gut the business and sell of part to cover the bankruptcy.

> Yes, the latter more difficult to do accurately, but if people were really able to evaluate themselves, they would be able to understand they’re, on average, below or above the median.

Lets suppose I ask you "How tall are you?" would you be able to answer? Good, then you are able to accurately asses your own height.

Now lets suppose I ask you "How tall are you as a percentile of this group including you and 99 people who you don't know who are". You should realize that you can't do that exactly as accurately because you don't have perfect knowledge of their heights just from knowing your own.

Now for the even more convoluted and actual Dunning-Kruger assessment. I ask you "How tall are you?" great, now at which percentile do you think your deviation from your actual height falls compared to the deviations from these other 99 peoples esstimates of their actual heights? How on earth are you supposed to answer that unless you have some sort of knowledge about how they perform? Are people a cm off? Are some people 10cm off? Are people being mm precise?

The problem with the Dunning-Kruger effect is that it effectively says "People who are on average worse at estimating their own height tend to underestimate it, while people who are on average better at estimating their own height tend to overestimate it", but if you look at the absolute ability of people to estimate their own height it's similar independent of how close people get. But the Dunning-Kruger analysis methodology is set up such that it transforms random noise into an observation of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is the problem highlighted in the OP. Part of the problem here is to have participants estimate on a percentile range instead of doing a simple absolute estimation. You can ask people "So how far off do you think you are in cm's?" And you'll see that people are fairly consistent in accessing their own ability and so the Dunning-Kruger effect goes away. The effect is a result of the methodology not of the actual people being test.

But that's a hard sell for most people because they have a bias about "dumb people" and the effect as originally stated confirms that bias, so people hold on to the conclusion even as holes in the methodology becomes apparent.

Too late to edit, but I think Adam D'Angelo staying on the board proves my speculation completely wrong.

> I think if people at all levels of skill were reasonably good at measuring their own ability, we would see two curves that roughly overlap. Instead we see the graph given.

Actually, due to the construction of the test, the ability to evaluate your own absolute ability in a subject isn't sufficient for the two lines to be able to overlap.

It's a percentile axis, so you need to be able to reasonably accurately estimate the ability of everyone taking the test, and where you fall in the quartile range of those participants.