jordwest

Oh hey didn't check your name before I replied! I assume this is the akst I know IRL, small world. Hope you are well too.

> I just don't think this is a universal problem with the methodology

In an isolated world I would agree with you, but in the messy reality we live in I think the broader problems with the methodology are two:

1. The belief that everything can be measured. There are many intangibles (user trust, willingness to put up with bugs, "vibes") that aren't easily measurable. Yes, net promoter scores etc, but every company I can think of that uses them builds bland, buggy, largely disliked products that people use only because they have no choice.

2. Focusing on experiments and measurable outcomes creates a tendency to de-prioritise anything that isn't easily measurable. For example larger, riskier projects that can't be quickly tested. Or whimsy - easter eggs that devs added to many products in the past that users remember for years. Rarely added anymore because they can't be justified against a roadmap full of experiments.

Sometimes it feels a bit like we're sitting around so focused on measuring whether guests prefer one dish or the other and arguing over which experiment is best, that we don't notice a forest fire is blazing outside.

To me maybe it's a bit of a question of science vs art. Take the video games industry for example, the AAA studios are largely moving toward the science end of the spectrum with predictable games that extract maximum engagement, while indie studios are mostly building small, unique experiences that don't try to dominate your attention.

Experimentation always narrows focus down, and I think it's worth considering what's being traded off by doing so.

God that playback queue has been so awfully buggy for so long. Rant incoming.

I actually discussed it with a friend a few years back while debating the declining quality of Google's engineering.

The craziest thing to me - it appears to be using some kind of eventual consistency, so additions/reorders/deletions have to go through some complex process server-side that takes several seconds to update in the UI (and often the order is wrong, or silently fails to add videos). And yet, the whole queue disappears without a trace if the YouTube app gets unloaded by iOS, and is unavailable on other devices, so it could have just been stored locally all along.

I thought that perhaps they were storing it server-side because eventually it would allow the queue to be restored or transferred, but it has been about 3 years now and I don't think that day is ever coming. I just lost a whole queue of several vids this morning (on the plus side it was a good incentive to get off YT, so I'll give it that).

My guess is it's using eventual consistency or some complex multi-microservice chain of RPCs because that's just what you have to do at Google. I'm sure there are engineers who want to fix the feature or go back and complete the rushed launch but likely can't convince the decision makers that it's necessary.

So we get a subpar experience from one of the largest companies in the world with thousands of the best engineers, while Google keeps getting their $16/month because there are no alternatives

> This is a bit hyperbolic, empirics is something that should be used more by decision makers

In my experience working in software, empiricism is the only thing valued anymore. Intuition and thoughtfulness is out the window because it's not scientific enough. I would say most software now reflects that - it's almost all bland and statistically optimized to maximize engagement or revenue.

> If this was something more high stakes like a medial trial I’d get it, but for stuff like filling out a document or watching a piece of media. The stakes for most SASS app are really low.

There are plenty of subtle patterns used in SaaS form filling things too. For example notice that the "primary button" is always chosen as the one that will make the company the most money or collect the most data.

Likewise, popups are annoying, but they result in more conversions. Forced logins are the same (how many form filling apps now force you to sign up with an account that you'll never use again, so that you can become a potential lead in future).

Google recently started doing all of these on anonymous searches with a modal overlay and a big bright blue "Continue" primary button that takes you to a login screen, while a "don't sign in" button appears as far less noticeable text above it.

It's at the point now where I'm surprised when any software gives you an option without blatantly telling you which one they want you to pick for their own benefit.

A lot of it seems innocuous but I feel we're at the stage of death-by-a-thousand-cuts at this point.

> A/B testing isn't about creativity, it's retention maxxing

Absolutely, and unfortunately in my experience many people implementing A/B testing actually believe that it is finding the "best outcome for users".

I'm sure if we blind tested people to see whether they consumed more when unknowingly given cocaine vs protein powder, we would see cocaine win the A/B test.

As Seth Godin said:

> Enough A/B testing will turn any website into a porn site

> I'll think back to the conversation, realize I don't actually think or believe what I said

I can absolutely relate to this, it was a very common occurrence for me when I felt pressured to speak.

> Silence is one way to avoid making those mistakes, but that's me avoiding the problem, not actually solving it

It doesn’t have to be avoidance, it’s not a binary of either speaking a lot or not at all.

Silence (especially when the other person is comfortable with it too) gives the mind space to allow something that feels more honest and truthful to arise.

The problem is that most people feel a kind of anxiety when nothing is being said, and if you’re sensitive you might subconsciously pick up on this (in yourself or the other) and then feel the need to say something to end the awkwardness.

My meditation teacher had an interesting journalling technique: don‘t write a single line until you know that what you’re writing is absolutely true.

The problem is that there is a “yes” policy, a sort of social pressure that you must say something.

The opposite “no” policy is also not something to aspire to. Both are artificial policies.

The silent retreat simply helped me to see the “yes” policy even existed in the first place so I could start let it go.

Letting go of all policies is where the flow seems to happen.

It’s a good word of caution and to be clear I’m not suggesting intentionally going mute.

The paradox I mentioned is that not rushing to fill the silence actually allows conversation to flow more naturally. It allows time and space for something more honest to arise in the mind to say.

There are also so many other means of communication that we humans naturally have - eye contact, facial expressions, body language - that communicate far more than words can and paying attention to these can lead to very connected conversation.

I think we overemphasise words. For example, you don’t need to small talk with your dog to have a deeply meaningful connection.

The reason I jumped to fill silence before was to avoid a kind of vulnerability, to appear competent and hide my anxiety. Little did I know that that was actually preventing deeper connection.

Noawaday I end up having far more involved conversations, it’s just that the conversation no longer starts from a point of trying to fill the silence.

I’ve been on several silent retreats now and one of the most surprising discoveries was just how much speaking is unnecessary.

Without the pressure to speak amongst others, it became clear that I often said things out of anxiety - fear of looking weird or of making the other person uncomfortable.

Nowadays I rarely speak when I feel that pressure and paradoxically it has led to far deeper relationships and more interesting conversations.

It seems that the topics that come up when theres a pressure to fill the silence are the most mundane. Deeper connection seems to happen in the silences, or rather mutual comfort with silence.

Another way I could describe it is it feels almost as if there’s a fear of really being seen in silence that the surface level conversation manages to keep at bay.

Ah wow of course, I think you just made something click for me.

It's strange how we take interest on cash as a law of nature, when the original intention might have been nothing more than compensation for the risk the lender was taking on.

Now the risk (on bank deposits, govt bonds etc at least) has effectively been removed so the interest rate is the baseline expectation.

So compound interest is underpinning the infinite growth forever delusion...

> While those businesses have created meaningful value, they did not grow at the pace we expected.

That this is seen as a problem tells you everything about business today.

It has to be explosive growth or it’s pointless, according to execs and shareholders.

It's not at all caused by the train company hiking their fees while neglecting maintenance to increase profit margins to railway shareholders

Paraphrasing Nate Hagens, at the end of the day the modern economy just turns megalitres of oil into microlitres of dopamine

Haha this is excellent, I believe you’ve just invented a new genre - Garbage Collector fanfiction.

I have no idea how reading this people would jump to the conclusion that you have problems, but I will jump to the conclusion that those people probably like to live in a gray box with blank walls