jonathan_h

"Monopolies get lazy, they just rent seek and don't innovate"

I think part of what enables a monopoly is absence of meaningful competition, regardless of how that's achieved -- significant moat, by law or regulation, etc.

I don't know to what extent Google has been rent-seeking and not innovating, but Google doesn't have the luxury to rent-seek any longer.

Die With Zero by Bill Perkins talks at length about this concept (it's a nonfiction book, so suffice to say it could've been an essay.)

I am a big fan of using the em-dash.

I won't argue that I always use it in a stylistically appropriate fashion, but I may have to move away from it. I am NOT beating the actually-an-AI allegations.

In line with the book "Intuitive Eating", I'm trying to make peace with both food and my weight lately for this reason.

Given what effects stress, depression, anxiety, guilt, shame, etc. have on the psyche and body, I'm running an experiment, and betting that making peace and taking care of my body as it is right now will benefit me in the long run.

To clarify, xing is a Hamburg-based LinkedIn competitor.

And here I thought "crossing" LinkedIn was a new slang.

Huh. Back in my day we called Spotify merchants "musicians" -- I suppose I should keep up with the times.

Tough love incoming:

Why is daily gameplay desirable to you?

Your idea smells of a dark pattern—in my eyes you're attempting to generate FOMO from the leaderboard by making players redo levels they've already completed.

Moreso, levels players they scored low at are likely the ones that frustrate them the most.

You're proposing to make them revisit those levels.

This is not a good idea unless your game is about Sisyphus

Exactly.

I wonder what drives companies to include so much fluff when explaining a re-brand -- any wording beyond "hey, we think our branding looks stale so we gave it a haircut and a shave" is ripe for mockery.

Is the size of the blog post in their mind better justifying the time and money spent doing the rebrand?

Reminds me of a similar problem where nonfiction books spend two-hundred pages "expanding" a concept that could've been a tight ten or twenty pages.

I agree with you on every point.

If you're willing to share, I'm curious on what issues you're having with Spotify. Do you feel you're filling the silence too much with it, or something else?

I'm tired of Spotify too, in part because I don't see an endgame where I shut the family plan off. My family uses it a lot.

Appreciate it -- I've read Atomic Habits, Tiny Habits, et al. so I agree with the general idea.

I try not to make my goals too lofty but perhaps I should think smaller for some of them.

TL;DR: A minimum score of 1 messes with their formula. OP should consider changing it.

Looking at the page's <script>, I think it's because they set the minimum score to 1 rather than 0.

In addition, for three of the questions, a high score is seen as a negative rather than a positive (e.g. a high score in "development effort" likely means "a lot of effort"), so behind the hood they invert those scores by doing (10 - score).

The problem is then that positive questions have a range from 1 to 10, and negative questions have a range from 0 to 9, and the means you have a minimum score of 3 and a max of 57, rather than 0 and 60.

For a more flowery answer: A developer never deals in absolutes :)