993 karma · joined January 17, 2011
Money is a made up idea that we use to benefit everyone. It's a game that, largely, has positive returns for society. When that is no longer the case, when someone breaks the game and removes themselves from the rules, you have to change the rules.
“We tried everything to cure the boars, but we couldn’t. If they go any farther, they’ll infect everything. Kill 200 to stop them from infecting the forest.”
“You are inside your own mind. Your fears surround you. Fear of the boar. Free yourself. Kill 200 dream boars.”
There’s a giant cultural shift that needs to happen in the U.S. to get that back—not sacrificing labor laws, like China does, but the same idea that X or Y CAN be done, and actually jumping at the chance to build stuff instead of feeling entitled to it.
We do have agency, but the agency actually starts in the U.S., in education and culture, and not with a company like Apple.
> The filing also disputed SpaceX’s argument that it is a “carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government.” Evidence presented by SpaceX shows only that it carried SpaceX employee letters to the crew of the International Space Station and “crew supplies provided for by the US government in its contracts with SpaceX to haul cargo to the ISS,” the filing said. “They do not show that the government has contracted with SpaceX as a ‘mail carrier.’”
> SpaceX’s argument “is rife with speculation regarding its plans for the future,” the ex-employees’ attorneys told the NMB. “One can only surmise that the reason for its constant reference to its future intent to develop its role as a ‘common carrier’ is the lack of current standing in that capacity.” The filing said Congress would have to add space travel to the Railway Labor Act’s jurisdiction in order for SpaceX to be considered a common carrier.
A lot of those things are defined by timing and the space between moments that aren't exactly fully rational. And, if they're doing it well, they make you feel something, even if you can't describe exactly how they're doing it.
A "beautiful" font is like that. The font itself is not beautiful on its own, imo; it's raw material. The beauty comes out in how it's used, when you can look at A or B completed thing and say, oh yeah, B feels "better," but I don't know exactly why. It's not just because of the font, but the font 100% matters.
Product tying is not a thing you can bypass.
This is idea is independent of whether Apple’s strategy is good or bad, legal or not. Product tying can’t be undermined, or it’s not actually a problem.
*Strawman example because this one could easily just be “Favorites,” which imo is the preferred way: avoid ownership pronouns unless it actually makes sense to use them.
It’s a solid movie. If a young person doesn’t like it, that’s fine, but I shit you not, your feelings about that movie are not just nostalgia. It’s executed very well.
I know that when I watch it, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious.
After 26 years, you know what I realize?
Ignorance is bliss.
You make something, but because you don’t own it—others caused and directed the effort—you don’t control it. But the people who control things can’t make things.
Should only the people who can make things decide how they are used though? I think that’s also folly. What about the rest of society affected by those things?
It’s ultimately a societal decision-making problem: who has power, and why, and how does the use of power affect who has power (accountability).
Most people for most situations, using most phone apps, do not have that familiarity. Mobile design has to simultaneously provide a lot of power and progressively disclose it such that it keeps users at or just past their optimal level of comfort, and that involves tradeoffs to hide some things and expose others at different levels of depth.
So while I agree that a lot of mobile design, and OS design in particular, pulls back way too far on providing affordances for actions, I would not use an airplane cockpit as a good guide, unless you’re also talking about a specialist tool.
I think Cook’s time as CEO will be remembered both by enabling massive scale for the most successful consumer product in history—the iPhone—while sacrificing the company’s soul on the alter of efficiency.
I’d gladly pay $1000 over a decade for a crucial tool. If the concern is open source and true longevity, I get it, you don’t get that here. But cost for value? Holy shit. $1000 over a decade is absolutely worth it for something you depend on.
If you’re a regular at a bar or restaurant, you pay an order of magnitude over $1000 a year for THAT service. This one is probably worth more.
I can, however, relate to the “every five years my system changes” problem. It’s not fun. At the same time, this is a reasonable cadence to re-evaluate things. If you found something perfect for you that works >5 years, holy crap. You are blessed. That honestly should not be the standard for tools these days—ESPECIALLY in a today’s world.
All that said: I don’t knock the author for trying to build software that can work for someone for 20 years or more. I salute that attempt—and I hope they can do it!—even if I think the specific details of how they got there are flawed.
I promise it is NOT always a good idea to follow the enthusiasts, because they are not at all like everyone else who uses your thing. Following them will skew your decisions—unless they are your entire customer base, so, have at it.
This article imo is complaining about the effect of middle management product owners at large companies. There are two dynamics that both converge on enshittification:
1. These product managers (or product designers) are early in their careers and want to make a splash. They are given lower priority projects but try to break out by making them bigger, better, more non-horse-like. They over-design and over-complicate the solutions as a result, because they don’t yet know when the right solution is just a refinement of what’s tried and true. They are incentivized to do this because they want to break out of the mold.
2. The managers above them, or a layer or two above depending on company size, are risk AVERSE. They are tasked with delivering results regularly and consistently. If you have the innovation bug or are creative at this layer, you get moved onto projects where this is required, which is not most of them. Overcomplicated is fine sometimes with you but WEIRD is absolutely not okay (the stuff that actually could be innovative), and no one gets fired for following The Metrics.
These two incentives clash to create overcomplicated but functionally poor products that aren’t helping anybody out. A healthy skepticism of complication and a healthy skepticism of engagement as the sole metric (or metrics in general) is necessary to make good shit. Sometimes it is actually understanding and using things as an enthusiast would, but you need to bring in an understanding of how the rest of your users are distinctly different from the enthusiasts, too. Using your thing yourself and actually following your own subtler feelings is what produces really useful innovation, slowly and surely over time.
Those are basically the same thing though. Acquiring extreme wealth filters out people with empathy; they either never had it or lost it.