https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116377422440266990
She didn't react to or anticipate the attack at all.
The platform definitely has some problems. Elements blanking when not in view, which on my old computer can make them take half a second or more to load, way beyond the threshold for irritation in UI responsiveness design. If there was a reason for a delay it might be acceptable, but there's no reason that scrolling up and down should make an element disappear (after scrolling up for 0.2 sec, and then back to the same place in 0.2 sec) and then reappear in the same place. When elements load, they can also shift slightly in place due to sub-elements loading. Overall, it just teaches a viewer that they can't look at things for about a second after scrolling, because the thing they are looking at could disappear or move, and it just adds up to many moments of annoyance.
But I can't even look at Chirp Club without using Nitter, and even with any platform improvements that may have taken place under Elon Musk, Chirp Club still takes many seconds for my browser to load the page for a single status, while Nitter is basically instant and works without Javascript.
Two separate things: convincing people that this idea would fix problems, and convincing them to share it or even to respond to me.
A few days ago, I was considering referencing Machiavelli's quote,
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
I didn't, because it is not a complete explanation. People suggest many new things for WoW Classic Plus. Back in 2006~2010, a thread for appearance changing (maybe called "dressing room") that was eventually implemented as 'transmogrification' was always one of the most popular threads on the Suggestions forum. It was new and unproven, and yet people were not afraid to say they wanted it.
There's always a bias: new things that gain the support of most people get implemented. Then they are no longer new things. What remains are ideas that were conceived at the same time but did not win the same support. It is not correct to say that new things cannot and will not easily gain support.
Using a bit of the 'group identity' analysis from a few posts back, for this idea. People thinking,
1) This idea is about people working less.
2) Some people can afford to work less. Other people cannot.
3) When there is conflict and disagreement, people who support a thing are the ones who will benefit from it.
4) If I share this idea, it would indicate that I am in the group of people who can afford to work less. According to views on rich and poor, this group must be much smaller than the group who cannot afford to work less.
5) Even if people in the US make 10x or 20x as much as people in Nigeria, almost no one in the US can afford to work 1/10 of what they currently work. I am not willing to claim that I am in this situation myself.
4:11 "The lions have won"
4:23 zoom in on lions
4:30 zoom out to show buffalo herd approaching
4:39 lead buffalo pauses, then advances again
4:50 buffalos pause close to lions with herd reluctant to approach
4:58 buffalos on the left resume approaching the lions
Suppose this idea was implemented. If no one else has started working less, the ideal reduction for one person, balancing their time utility with their money utility, might be just 10%. But if 50% of people work less, then it reduces the cost of housing etc., and the ideal reduction for someone else who has not had any reduction might be 15%. Just like a herd approaching the lions, with no single buffalo getting far ahead of the rest of the herd.
10% might not seem like much. Maybe the ideal reduction would be even smaller, like 3%. But if 99% of people (selected at random) work 3% less, then the ideal reduction for the last 1% (including both rich and poor people) might be 6%, because housing costs have gone down by 3%.
Buffalos can communicate to each other to some degree, such as through their movements. But humans can agree on a direction to move even if no one has yet started to move in that direction.
(My spellcheck says 'buffalos' is an error, and I would naturally have used buffalo as the plural, like sheep or deer, but a speaker in the video said buffalos and so I followed that.)
Unrelated poll that I thought of six hours ago:
Poll: "If you do X, most people will think you're smart, but very smart people will think you're stupid. Do you do X?"
Since Pey's video from her birthday will be deleted in about 24 hours, I have to watch it now. This is time when I'm not thinking about or doing anything with this idea. I assume that it's fine for me to spend this time, and if I can spend a few hours not focused on this idea, I can spend a longer time, so I intend to not say anything to you for two weeks, no matter what Greta might post on Instagram. If it turns out during this time that this decision was bad, then I will know that people did not plan ahead for me watching Pey's video.
No comments:
Post a Comment