tegling

One case not covered, I believe I saw at London Heathrow was where 4 cars essentially moved people across only 2 floors. With only 1 centralized button, only 1-point-something car was effectively moving people on average, because people had to wait for the currently filled car to have its doors closed and starting to move, before hitting the button to call the next car to pick them up. Imaging 100-200 people in line and, often, overly eager would-be elevator passengers hitting the button too early. Thus leading to halting the just filled car and doing an additional full open and close doors cycle. Fun stuff!

Isn't the eIDAS2 regulation addressing this issue? It applies to EU/EES and from my understanding would help enforcing the data minimization principle related to user identity. I.e. a service (like a social media platform) wouldn't be allowed to force you to show your identity unless they are required by law to know your identity. Instead, the EUDI wallet provides functionality related to identification through (user-managed) pseudonyms. For services that are required by law to verify user age, the wallet provide means to make verifiable claims like "over 18". Am I missing something?

I'm thinking maybe this is rather to present an opportunity for the team to put forward their expectations, pain points and desires. Being 'vulnerable' for me in a workplace setting means perhaps admitting that I really don't appreciate people bikeshedding over items I'm submitting for review (rather than being actually constructive) or that I feel the git work flow don't attribute fairly (hiding my contributions). Maybe others feel the same and we could do something about it? And those were only on individualistic side. To evolve the team and team play I'd think this a good time to bring up that I'm actually hating responding to support inquiries and rather have Pete doing more of that. And that I think Sue is doing amazing work with Figma and I'd really like to learn from her. Wouldn't this type of 'vulnerable' make sense in a team?

One tricky thing to model neatly in payment APIs is that payment schemes indicate the roles of payer and payee in payment returns in different ways. E.g. for one particular scheme the payer and payee may be kept in the same position as in the initial payment (creditor of payment return is actually the one sending funds) whereas in another one they are switched (creditor is the one receiving funds in the return). I'd be curious to see how they are handling this case as it can be a real head-scratcher.

How are labels managed? Assume I'm a labeller labeling certain posts as "rude". Will my "rude" label be identified as the same label as other labellers who also label posts as "rude", or will they be tied to my labeller identity (actually being e.g. "xyz123-rude" under the hood)?

I think this article is entertaining and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The key takeaway for me was that some companies who's business models revolved around infrastructure and scale (web search, social media,...) went vertical and acquired most of the world's web infra and core services. This provides them with scale advantage and they try to push products that rely on that advantage, while making cost of entry prohibitive to any potential competitors. Chasing the dream of selling "50-dollar solutions to 50-cent questions". No conspiracy in sight. Just capitalism :)

How can we solve this if we don't defer this to laziness but try to address it as a very real cost for the owner of the site in terms of

- Brand damage (content), e.g. Cancel culture, etc when old articles are discovered later or seen in new light - Brand damage (privacy/user base), e.g. Assumed to protect identity of all old users, risk of exposing secrets, offering old user-generated content as training data to ML not wanted - IT security, potential attack surface or exposes info to use when designing attacks - Lawsuits (content), e.g copyright/DMCA or content that is deemed illegal/not properly licensed

I guess the list could be made longer.

A lot of industry standard design patterns are a consequence of that additction-optimization UX work. So you're probably applying this whether you wish or not. On the surface it makes the app/game engaging--but why? What's the state of mind of the person using the app?

I've recently started developing a game for fun and found my self having to put a lot of effort into figuring out whether "is this _actually_ fun and fulfilling?" or "does it only make me compulsively feel like I have to continue, waiting for the fun that's around the corner (but never shows up)?"

How about a concave payout function? What if someone with 10 million streams didn't expect to get paid a million times more than someone with just 10 streams? How about paying out some of the money randomly or as grants, that are more likely to end up in the tail? This could counter the economics presented in the article. I'm not familiar with these kinds of contracts so it might already be a thing or I may be naïve, but I'm not convinced linearly proportional payouts has to be a law of nature.

Wouldn't a good start be to separate infrastructure providers and infrastructure users (services/content)? Seems like a weird situation to allow corps to own the infra and think that they will promote "fairness and openness" when competing with other actors using their infra. What would happen if e.g. Govs or non-profits provide e-mail, messaging, video conference and social media infrastructure guaranteeing a level field and privacy-upholding policy (by regulation)?