how does one divorce the belief that technology can be a force for good from the reality that the gatekeepers are so committed to being the most evil they can be
It's fun, reminds me of an early version of Semantle.
Font size as a proximity indicator is a neat idea but also kind of annoying in practice, because it's hard to have an intuitive understanding of how close or far you are. Would suggest a numeric scale.
thinking about it, I actually like this comparison. You make a good point, in that the physical keyboard is a more accurate tool. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have drawbacks.
The advantage of the digital screen is the customizability and adaptability. If I never use the web browser or music on my iPhone, i can just move those apps off the home row. If my keyboard has a numpad, but I don't need it, I'm stuck with a numpad until i buy a new keyboard.
In my old Land Cruiser, the pull knob to open the vents is right next to the pull knob to open the choke which is right next to the pull knob to activate the hazard lights which is right next to the pull knob to activate the fan. None of them are lit, they all look the same in the dark. We've come a long way since 1981, but the point is that the improved reliability of a physical button means nothing if the ergonomics of the interface as a whole are bad. And it's a lot easier to improve the ergonomics of the system (or adapt them to the user's needs) if the controls are on a touch screen.
I don't hate that Tesla tried to do something different with indicators. I think there are some issues with how stalks work, and thinking about how to make cars better and safer is good. Complicated stalks that make adjusting your wipers feel like playing a game of Bop-It? Total pain in the ass. And assuming something is well designed because that's how it's been done for decades is obviously silly.
But that doesn't make it wrong to do the research, go through the design process, and come to the conclusion that, in the end, putting blinkers on a stalk is still better than the alternatives proposed. It reeks of change for the sake of being different, rather than an actual innovation.
My biggest issue with the choice is that, on a wheel, indicator buttons are constantly moving. And when the buttons are right next to each other, it makes it significantly easier to indicate the wrong direction. Or have to take your eyes off the road to find the indicator when your wheel isn't straight (suppose you're trying to exit a roundabout)
And then with the lack of dashboard on some teslas, there's the knock on problem of having to look away from the road to see which way you're indicating if you think you've indicated incorrectly, rather than the indicator arrow clearly flashing at the bottom of your field of vision.
Amongst the other examples, IoT. 10 years ago it was still in its infancy. As an example, Amazon didn't acquire Ring until 2018. beyond just smart home stuff, payments like Apple and Android Pay impact daily life. The EV boom is also a massive part of IoT. Every TV is now a smart TV (which is miserable, but that's a whole other discussion)
And an IoT world has nearly as many drawbacks as it does benefits, but I think it's hard to argue it hasn't changed the way we interact with the internet in our day to day lives.
I don't think the things you're referring to have had nearly the impact you're claiming they had. They've just taken things we already had and made them slightly more convenient.
Ring is just doorbell cameras. Japan has had these for decades. Smart home is a complete failure, nobody uses Alexa or siri or ok google seriously. EVs are just cars but slightly different. Smart TVs just simplify the process of having to buy a Chromecast or plug in a laptop to your TV.
Also the new things are objectively worse for the customers than the old things were. Ring's improvement over doorbell cameras is video quality. Smart TVs may simplify the process of having to buy and plug a Chromecast, but you buy and plug a Chromecast specifically to avoid all the bullshit and planned obsolescence that Smart TVs come with. Etc.
If you take a true assessment of all these things, you find that for lots of people the Ring doorbell is just a doorbell now, the video part is ignored; the smart home stuff is just a light switch, and the smart TV is configured enough to get to YouTube or whatever.
People, especially tech-types, way over-estimate how much hassle we're willing to put up with day-to-day.
> People, especially tech-types, way over-estimate how much hassle we're willing to put up with day-to-day.
They also just as often underestimate it. It's part of why "data driven development" fails. Regular, non-tech users have long been conditioned to assume computers and tech in general is buggy, finicky, and full of annoyances. They use it anyway, and bear the frustration silently[0], only occasionally begging a techie relative or friend to "fix my computer, it's slow now because it got viruses". Devs and PMs look at their telemetry, see users using a feature, and think they like it. They probably don't. They just suffer through it.
As a techie, I have very little tolerance for hassle. Which for IoT, ironically, means I'm running Home Assistant on a Raspberry Pi now, because it's a net save on annoyances - even though it's extra work, it lets me and my family use the "smart" parts of home appliances without frustration.
--
[0] - With who knows how much accumulating "death from thousand papercuts" psychological damage...
Totally get where you're coming from, but it's also kinda splitting hairs.
Being reasonable is part of being intelligent. Surrounding yourself with intelligent people doesn't necessarily mean "surround yourself with the highest IQ individuals you can find." (not saying you're saying that explicitly, just that i think you're just using a definition of intelligence that's narrower than the parent) Working well with others, understanding when one has made mistakes and being able to admit to it, understanding both the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns of a problem...these are a better mark of intelligence than a mensa membership.
Well the parent made sort of a case for why being reasonable is part of being intelligent, and your response was to claim there was no correlation without an argument.
I happen to believe that reasonableness is part of being intelligent, by the following criteria:
1. when you are reasonable you do not make unreasonable demands that will just be troublesome and cause workflow issues because in the end they are unachievable.
2. a reasonable person will be able to determine what other people are capable of in given situations, and be able to structure things in such a way that other people can perform to best meet expectations.
3. the root of reasonable is reason, a reasonable person can be reasoned with because they possess the quality of reason, in most of the history of philosophy if you do not possess the ability to reason you are an idiot.
Having worked closely with some dramatically different intelligent people, I really think intelligence and reasonableness are very different.
Being reasonable, is being someone with a strong genuine value for collaboration. They actively advocate for and work with others to optimize situations taking everyone's needs into account. Encourage give and take, constructive debates, and appreciate feedback. Etc.
An intelligent person can be all those things. Or none of them - but manifest them enough that, with some spin, they seem reasonable, while actually optimizing the environment primarily for their own long term benefit.
Very intelligent unreasonable people are disasters to work with.
Alright, my argument is that parent needed to redefine what those words mean. Intelligent means having high intelligences, high IQ. That does not imply being reasonable or having emotional control. It does not imply ability to shut up when you do not know what you are talking about either.
Moreover, being able to admit mistakes (specific thing mentioned by parent) is oftentimes detrimental for you. People who do not admit them are typically rewarded, people who easily admit them punished. So, what you are looking at is "ethics even if it does not benefits me".
