<blink>intensifies<\blink>

The installers for every major software company riddled every single computer with adware. And you needed a compsci degree to get rid of it. Weren’t there lawsuits over that shit, that led to regulations? I remember that happening. It’s not like they were going to stop doing that of their own accord.

I’m to the point that if whatever I’m watching/doing pops an ad at me, I reflexively make a snap judgement on whether I want to continue watching/doing whatever it is. Often the answer is ‘no’ and I’ll just bail entirely.

Thx for getting it. :)

It’s a bit weird the first time it really hits you.

My moment was when we were a bit early for a holiday dinner and my mom was trying to prepare a turkey, but was having trouble stuffing it because it hadn’t thawed completely. She made a comment about the legs being a bit stiff and hard to spread, and my father said ‘Give it a margarita.’ (my mom’s favourite drink).

It’s important to understand the prevalence of coincidence and incompetence. Humans are exceptional at pattern-finding – too good, really. In order to think critically, we need to recognise our own tendency to find patterns where none exist.

And this a very common mindset, because most societies (some more than others) take children’s* innate curiosity and pound it flat for the sake of efficiency by way of standardisation. It really is a shame, since we waste a lot of potential as a species this way.

e: a word

We do, though.

Just to make sure my understanding was accurate, I asked Gemini to critique my explanation:

.

Unless it’s lying to me about itself, I was able to explain the basics of it in two relatively simple sentences. Of course that doesn’t cover everything, but Gemini thinks that’s a pretty good overview. After expanding on each point in its reply, it said this:

I think a lot of the confusion over these models stems from hype and marketing that makes them out to be more than what they are.

DROP TABLE 01;

Oh this one cuts.

I’m a user experience designer. My favourite story is from aviation engineering. I don’t remember the year or all the details, but the US Navy had put stupid amounts of money and time into engineering a new fighter jet. It was worked out on paper and built to exact specifications. Then, during the first human test of it, the pilot ejected on the tarmac before it took off. The plane crashed, obviously, but the pilot couldn’t explain what happened (apparently he had a concussion from his unscheduled landing).

The plane was built again, and shortly after takeoff, the pilot again ejected without explanation.

What the fuck was going on?

In the retelling I heard, someone finally noticed the design of the cockpit was to blame. In trying to cram all the standard controls plus new ones into the smallest amount of space, the designers had moved the eject lever right next to the lever to adjust the seat position – they’d coloured the eject lever red, but the pilot couldn’t see that since it was below and slightly to the right of his ass, and both levers were the same size and shape. Nobody noticed this was a problem until at least two pilots accidentally ejected on takeoff.

This might be apocryphal, I don’t know, but I learnt it as an example of how things might look good on paper, but you can’t really know until a user fucks everything up.