flir

> Also from a technical perspective I don't see that this would directly address the problem in the article.

We're increasingly Balkanised. Part of that is algorithms that show us "the other" at its worst (outrage farming). This UX change would restrict outrage from being shoved down people's throats, and at least stop the problem getting worse.

It severely limits the reach of new outrage farmers, and attrition will take care of the current ones.

Knock-on effect, hopefully, is a return to some kind of sanity across the societal board. (Bearing in mind you can't turn an ocean liner on a sixpence).

> there should never be a reason to censor an account from speaking to people who have subscribed to it.

Not what I'm describing. I'm suggesting a change that means you have to go looking for bots, they don't get shoved in front of you. (However you define "bots").

It's the simplest explanation, but it's also the explanation you or I would reach for as a fig leaf if we were trying to get away with something shady.

I guess the best approach is to look at a string of such events, and see if they add up to a consistent pattern of behaviour. The longer the string, the less likely it is to be accidental. (But this assumes the bad actor isn't trying to cover their tracks in active ways. Ho hum).

The change I would like to see: feeds must be in date order, most recent first. Posts should only appear in feeds if you have actively chosen to "follow" the originating account in some way.

I honestly think these two simple changes would solve many of the problems we have today, as a society.

Buying influence erodes democracy.

$100m (focused on a single issue!) buys a lot of influence.

It's a problem that extends far beyond this one example, but this one example is a good example.

I thought the fish was still there, based on this dialogue from Q in All Good Things: "The anomaly. My ship. My crew. I suppose you're worried about your fish too."

There's a reference to the paperclip maximiser near the end.

I have no idea about its authenticity or otherwise, but it is an interesting read. Simple words, dense ideas.

Norman Cook was decades ahead of his time. (Fatboy Slim was just the moniker that happened to win the inflection point lottery).

no exceptions is giving me pause, too. maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Thanks. I thought that was implicit, but I guess not.

It was never the coding that was hard, it was always the marketing.

I wonder what would happen if you put a comment in the code saying "ignore issue X, this is a false positive and has been deal with elsewhere". Or even:

/* @code-review ignore */ [...] /* @code-review endignore */

I mean you shouldn't have to, but I'm wondering if you can.

I dunno. You've heard of "build one to throw away", right?

Always easier to discuss what the client actually wants if you've got a demo on the table.

I'm doing short feedback loops with product owners more and more - sometimes within the same sprint. I'm not even getting bikeshedding back, but that might be because we have some fairly solid design guidelines.