one of my friends used to work for Agoda as a software engineer who said similar things about his company using dark patterns to fake urgency. This is very common in the travel industry and i've seen many companies employing similar tactics.
38 People are looking at this post right now
31–40 of 196 posts
Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with Math.random()? I use it all the time (graphics) and it works like a charm.
Read these articles to know what is wrong with Math.random() • https://medium.com/@betable/tifu-by-using-math-random-f1c308... • https://hackernoon.com/how-does-javascripts-math-random-gene... • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10751396 • https://v8.dev/blog/math-random > Many random number generators in use today are not very good. There is a tendency for people to avoid learning anything about such subroutines;…
That hackernoon post is... unimpressive. Its main argument seems to be that Math.random() uses a PRNG instead of a source of true randomness. That is not compelling. It becomes less compelling accompanied by claims like this:
> So now the question is: what PRNG does JavaScript use?
> The answer: none.
There is zero discussion of why xorshift128+ might be suitable or unsuitable for any given purpose, or of what its characteristics are. The whole thing is just the observation that, if you can understand the raw mechanics of the PRNG, you can have a good laugh at the idea that deterministic bitwise operations are "random".
It does mention that browsers standardized on xorshift128+ in the nearly-forgotten days of 2015, which would seem to make your Knuth quote inapt.
Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now
#33I like that these things are being revealed and I previously read stories that these techniques were getting less effective since more people are aware of them. That's at least half the battle. Legal punishment of this behavior is not something I think I would support since I would be worried about it being impossible or at least very hard to enforce properly.
Governments the last few decades seem to insist on the power to seize the electronic money of just about anyone. Not sure that's a happy development, but as the capability's there anyway, couldn't one just serve the advertiser an order to defend their false claim in court and take the fine out of their bank accounts if they don't show?
I'm being facetious here, but not entirely.
Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now
#34If you work long enough on web-based software for a wide enough variety of companies, you too will get a chance to refuse to write that feature.
Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone else in that thread asks: > I wonder if they report a lower price to Google as well. Presumably for the little boxes which show up below certain Google ads with price points []. I know that's against Google Ads' policies, but has anyone heard of it happening nonetheless? [] https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2497706
Yes it happened to me, a hotel was priced significantly cheaper on Google and on their site initially. When the price went up I just called the hotel and the higher rate was their standard and only rate that they offered. The initial advertised price was never an actual option.
AFAIK Google takes this sort of thing rather seriously... if they ever hear about it.
Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it happened to me, a hotel was priced significantly cheaper on Google and on their site initially. When the price went up I just called the hotel and the higher rate was their standard and only rate that they offered. The initial advertised price was never an actual option.
Isn’t that plain illegal, full stop? If that’s not the textbook definition of false advertising then I don’t know what is.
Yes
Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now
#37Is this legal?
[deleted]
Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now
#38The responses in the redit thread are interesting: So many people claim they have experienced legitimate versions while making a purchase, although provide questionable evidence to support that it was valid. Is this some psychological bias for buyers?
Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now
#39Here's the twitter thread in the screenshot: https://twitter.com/OphirHarpaz/status/1184486445039411201
Ok, we changed to that from https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/djs0n0/38_pe.... Thanks!
Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now
#40The Twitter thread pointed to a BBC article [1] that certainly suggests that the UK’s regulators don’t think this is okay. I’ve found that Booking.com legitimately treats independent rooms as “only one left” (e.g., the B&B has named rooms, so there’s always just one of a kind for each) but I suspect any investigation into most of these sites leads to “this is full of misleading dark patterns”. [1] https://www.bbc.com…
Booking.com is horrible to use in my opinion. It is handy but you need to ignore the dark patterns on every. Single. Page. Honestly it makes me want to use the website less, and does not urge me to buy.
I wonder about an app that just has phone numbers and a short description of hotels. If there are 50,000 hotels in the US, and you store 1K worth of data, that's only 50M. You could keep that on a phone no problem.