rrrx3

Another +1 for Screen studio. I use it legitimately daily in my Product Design job, and not just for customer-facing demo videos.

Clorox just fired their CISO last week for a data breach

It is terrible. Nearly unusable without an ad blocking solution. I've happily been using AdBlock (generic name, great app) on iOS for years as a local VPN and feeding it with the same filter lists I use on desktop like EasyList, Peter Lowe's List, etc. It works reasonably well, and I rarely need to disable it (but still have to sometimes).

Trying not to sound like an advert for it, I'm just a guy who uses it, likes it, and thinks the back and forth about "how much better android is" doesn't really help you solve the problem.

Been seeing some tiktoks on this exact scam being run in bars, too - a man/lady will chat the victim up, ask for their phone to put in their number, and then go to cashapp and send themselves money, and disappear into the night. And yes, no recourse for the victim at all.

No more than say, building a model airplane or model car. The movements for these watches especially are relatively cheap - you can find plenty of 7S26s on ebay for right around $20-25 - so the cost of replacing one that you might mess up is low. i recently rebuilt a similar movement with no prior experience and am actually wearing the watch right now. The best tool to have is a loupe, a good set of tweezers, and patience!

There are clear, well-defined rules around what constitutes a political advertisement, published by the FEC. Some states have guidelines that go further. A smart place to start, instead of feigned ignorance or poorly constructed strawman arguments, might be there.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-di...

You don't take money from clients who are representing/selling anything other than goods or services. You evaluate creative & landing pages for each and every campaign. It's extremely simple.

The problem is that FB wants to eschew all of the responsibility for content running through their platform and run everything 100% programmatically for scale. They expect the advertising user to know what's kosher vs what's not, and they expect the advertised-to user to moderate content. They refuse to put in place even the most basic of business controls. That strategy uh... doesn't work. As evidenced by their many FTC consent orders and massive fines.

Exactly. I work in digital advertising and we just don't take political or issue based campaigns. The spend isn't worth it. The hassle isn't worth it. The optics aren't worth it.

Your opinion doesn't trump 70+ years of Human Factors, guy. Touch screens are dangerous to yourself and other drivers because they don't provide tactile feedback or physical presence.

I work in Ad Tech. This is on target.

The user was lumped into a poorly-constructed lookalike audience because of some stretched interest similarities.

What you're experiencing is the confluence of two distinct issues:

1. The CTRs on digital advertising are dropping YoY. People DO NOT click on ads, even if they are saliently targeted. There are enough trash ads out there, there's so much malware and malfeasance in the ecosystem, that it's worthwhile for users to at best _ignore_ and at worst (for advertisers) _to block ads totally_.

2. The desire to target people that match specific criteria is rising because of misguided notions throughout the advertising and marketing industry. This has driven the entire industry to push machine learned modeling to find each and every set of eyeballs out there to try and justify spend, instead of offering worthwhile and valuable offers that compel consumers to interact. You have entire systems constructed on the notion that the more people you get an ad in front of, the more valuable it is, and agencies and trading desk operators that are looking at this as the sole KPI to focus on, to the detriment of everyone involved.

Just because someone blasts out a wall of words screed doesn't make it credible, salient, or logical.

Yes, calling Lotus Notes mediocre is a compliment of the highest order.

> You haven't lived until you've smelled baking cat shit wafting through every room of your house.

Oh my. Noooooo thank you.

Why would you be demoralized by this? He's going to get caught and put in prison. You're not. You win.

FAANG -> needs no explanation

NVDA -> same

RHT -> solid financials, great growth q over q and y over y

MSFT -> Nadella has made some massive improvements that reap great benefits

MU -> great value for money and great returns

A friend of mine at my last job has had this happen often enough that it's become a goal to set up an interview with himself.

This definition of "luck" sounds more like "risk mitigation" to me. Luck has a clear and easily understood definition.

Thanks for posting this - I had been running into the same issues above.

I had never really put much thought into it, but you're totally right- the expectation was that a chemical company (essentially) would transform itself into a Hardware & software manufacturer. That's a might, mighty leap. That Fuji was actually able to do it is even more impressive.

I worked for a company that did some work for Kodak - both directly and indirectly - around some of their software initiatives & partnerships with mobile manufacturers. They were not pretty or well-run projects, to be sure.

seems like we can reasonably expect him to come in swinging the axe again, then.

Let's not make any grandstand statements - IBM may or may not be a sinking battleship (I'm inclined to think they are), but not being around in 5 years is a pretty specious prediction. They'll still be around, and still be peddling malformed solutions. They may be significantly different in leadership, presentation, and execution, but they'll still be around.

The "play some good 60s rock" example isn't a VUI breakdown, it's a functionality gap in the backend. One that will probably be fixed pretty quickly, given the way things are headed.

A VUI breakdown would be inability to understand accents, or non-responsiveness to commands. As a user input, Alexa is pretty well buttoned up.

The Saudis are doing it not just to counter Iran - they also have to compete with South American, Canadian, American, and Russian oil. They've increased the volume of production to keep the prices artificially low in order to squeeze all of those players out of the market. It's also why Russia has a vested interest to act in Syria, propping up the Assad regime - to keep their oil under the control of an entity friendly to their interests.

Man, this really should be a default functionality of github itself.

Interesting question. Theoretically, no, because ideas are a dime a dozen, and there's no "one true way" to solve a design problem. But I think what you'd run into over time, which may be parallel to the man-month myth, is a higher-order approximation of groupthink. Meaning - "Let's apply this interaction pattern to solve this class of problem because we've done it before," repeated ad-nauseam. This will actually result in that parallel of the man-month myth - "solutions" (note the quotes) will be churned out at an increasing velocity, like a giant rubber stamp factory. The big difference is obviously ideas are much easier to create and document than software is to build. I don't think this is a result of the User Centered Design process, however. I think it's a result of the oversimplification of the interaction design sub-process, coupled with the broad lack of interest in the business improvement part of the process.

The problem with design studios this large, and operating on this consultatory premise, is that they will never get to influence the business "why" of solving a problem - they will always be handed a brief, and will always have their solution bounded by decisions made prior to their involvement. They are compelled to do work on what someone else has determined to be the problem, not to uncover the problem themselves and work outwardly from there.

You actually see this all the time in finance - there are entire companies built around the idea of churning out datagrid UIs to banks that don't ever stop to consider the real underlying conditions of why a process is the way it is, or have the opportunity to change it. It just results in a lot of same-same being generated over and over again, and it's easy money for consulting groups to get into the biz - just buy a small (or several) design shop and start billing yourself as being in tune with "UX." Deloitte, KPMG, MarkIt On Demand, EY, PWC, Accenture, EMC, and a bunch of other places are doing it just that way.

I love the thrust of your argument, but I think we all know how pragmatically, this will never happen any time soon. Could you imagine a "Bureau of Software Fidelity" or somesuch? We can't even get the post office to deliver mail regularly in some parts of the country, and that's been their primary function for over 100 years.

An S-class may last that long, but nearly every other car in that segment won't. I think in that regard, Tesla will continue to carry an edge.

It doesn't matter how "good" the product is if you're not talking to the users and uncovering their need for it. What you've said here doesn't contradict the point of the article - determining an unarticulated need and meeting it is the true measure of how a successful product is built. The fact that you can easily trivialize something successful's true purpose, without doing the legwork to find out what need it's meeting is the logical fallacy enforced by failing copycat products.

They don't know enough to complain. That's a major part of the problem. Signing up is compelled by misrepresentation of the entire system, the whole way through.

I love this. What a great idea.