I imagine sometime in 2030 when a 60 yo uncle/aunty sees this "38 people are looking at it", calmly right clicks on the HTML elements and sees the use of math.random and says "Nope, bye bye stupid website". I think these tricks are closing on their end of life as percentage of internet-native people are increasing.
It'd be difficult to infer that Math.random was used, purely by the element inspector. You'd actually have to sift through JavaScript code, which may or may not be minified (likely so, though).
In delta’s case that is correct. There are two left at that price (in that fare bucket). After they sell those seats, they will be selling from a higher fare bucket and the price will go up
Maybe but the pricing charts I've seen show fairs rising and falling. That may be the case at the moment but if they shift those buckets I think it is also untrue unless it says 2 left.... unless we just change the price later.
buckets (a.k.a. fare classes) can change in price. Also, some airlines will not sell certain fare classes on certain days or release all of the fare class seats at once.
The airline definitely isn’t lying when they say there are a certain amount left at that price. I’ve seen the price change at those exact amounts when booking tickets for groups of people individually.
It is lying. They claim something that they have no evidence for. Whether the number truly is 38 at that moment is irrelevant in this case. Because if the number was 0, 42, or 1437 they still would have made the claim that 38 were looking at that flight.
In any negotiation, nobody should take (at face value) the reported interest of the other party. A real estate agent could say a dozen people dropped by the home earlier today. You'd be foolish to believe it. You'd be foolish to believe Booking.com saying there's 1 room left, or the number of people currently looking at a webpage.
Why shift the blame to the victim? Is "you shouldn't lie" really so controversial?
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 still use booking.com quite frequently, but the dark patterns are starting to annoy me. I wish there was a better alternative tho, yes, I could book from hotels directly, but I still need to find those hotels, that's why I use something like booking.com. I've had hotels outright tell me to just book through a third-party booking website, since they didn't have their own booking form.
In any negotiation, nobody should take (at face value) the reported interest of the other party. A real estate agent could say a dozen people dropped by the home earlier today. You'd be foolish to believe it. You'd be foolish to believe Booking.com saying there's 1 room left, or the number of people currently looking at a webpage.
Why shift the blame to the victim? Is "you shouldn't lie" really so controversial?
It isn't controversial. But we should teach people to think independently, rather than devaluing education and critical thinking. Why not have both? Businesses should have integrity and consumers should be able to apply a basic level of critical thinking. I don't think I placed blame on the victim, either. I'm merely pointing out people should think critically of what they read, because that has a lot of valuable applications in life, beyond outside of protecting yourself from people who will lie to you.
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.
Last time I had a phone screening with the, I learned their entire codebase was in Perl, with no plans on migration to anything else. There were almost no unit tests anywhere. Most developers could push directly to production. Everything the girl on the phone said was horrifying and I decided not to continue. Their recruiter kept trying to call me over Skype though, and they offer more than most other companies of th…
You’re not the first to mention Bookings lack of tests. Supposedly it’s because their code has a very short half-life, gets rewritten in no time and thus tests are seen as a hindrance.
> They might just have different moral values. This is why "values" is a terrible word to use to describe morals. Values are subjective things like modesty or frugality. Those are values, because how you dress or spend your money generally have consequences only to yourself. Something becomes immoral when it deprives another person of their inalienable rights; it causes them harm. Others' rights aren't subject to neg…
Same thing with morality, its subjective. There are no such thing as inalienable rights. Every right has to be earned and fight for.
One of the ways you earn and fight for those rights is by not claiming they don’t exist. There are already enough people in the world who think you don’t deserve those rights. Best to keep the goal posts far away and convince as many others as you can that that’s where they belong.
Happens all the time. Here's another good one: https://www.nbim.no/ (the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund) Is a <1s live ticking number implausibly high frequency? Of course, it's just spooling out numbers on a timer.
I'm OK with those, it's likely a semi-accurate interpolation.